FSA advisers urge delay to mortgage reform and more 'flexible' lending

Graham_Devon

There is quite a large difference!

Plus the confusion between the two is one of my pet hates

undetterred

shortchanged wrote: »

I know graham is in a shared equity house. Unfortunately he lives in an area where HPI far outstripped local wages.

Free market eh. The wealthy drive price rises and the man at the bottom has to bend over and take it up the ****.

The last line sums about every commodity,not just houses.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There is quite a large difference!

Plus the confusion between the two is one of my pet hates

But you knew exactly what I meant and what was being discussed.

Percy1983

Really2 wrote: »

And I keep saying at what rate?

5.79% (only looked at one deal)

Really2 wrote: »

Evidence backs up that 90% loans are current prohibitively more expensive

Not an ideal rate but not prohibitively more expensive.

Really2 wrote: »

and a lot harder to get.

Evidence of this?

By all means, maybe people are going for 25% for better deals, much like my target is 15% for the same reasons, but this arguement FTBs have to get a 25% deposit is false.

Really2

Percy1983 wrote: »

5.79% (only looked at one deal)



Not an ideal rate but not prohibitively more expensive.



Evidence of this?

By all means, maybe people are going for 25% for better deals, much like my target is 15% for the same reasons, but this arguement FTBs have to get a 25% deposit is false.

5.79% with a base rate of 0.5% is that fixed or variable. I bet you could have beat that when the base rate was 5%+.

Evidence,
How about mse
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/mortgages/2011/06/lenders-expect-to-sell-more-mortgages-this-year?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=sidebar&utm_campaign=box

Consumers need a virtually spotless credit rating to get a home loan as well as generally needing a deposit worth 10% of the property value, or 25% to get a decent rate.

Really2

Percy1983 wrote: »

but this arguement FTBs have to get a 25% deposit is false.

It was not claimed, it was claimed to get a good rate (equiverlent to 2007 and before)

The false claim is that if house prices fall you have to save less of a deposit to be able to buy as it compleatly ignores the lenders calls for a deposit.

Even at 10% you still need virtually twice the deposit you needed back in 2006.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

It was not claimed, it was claimed to get a good rate (equiverlent to 2007 and before)

The false claim is that if house prices fall you have to save less of a deposit to be able to buy as it compleatly ignores the lenders calls for a deposit.

Even at 10% you still need virtually twice the deposit you needed back in 2006.

Look really. You can argue until you are blue in the face.

When it comes down to it, we all want to pay less for everything. You are reminding me of some on the share boards, trying to see the absolute positive in everything and telling everyone the loss that they are making is fantastic because they can top up and lose some more. Next day, they do the same "oh I just bought more at this great rate"....the rate that was great yesterday but seems they can buy in again the next day when further losses have been made.

It's very see through. Those with houses would prefer not to lose and to make money. Those without would prefer to see the prices fall.

But the thing everyone has in common? They want less debt. So to sit there trying to claim it's actually more beneficial to have higher prices, because you might get what, 0.5-1% off the mortgage rate at the start of the deal on a much larger debt....is somewhat disingenuous.

Sure, there is an argument to be had, but your argument only goes as far as the first few years (where saving some money on the higher mortgage rate may work). Mortgages last 25 years.

Nobody, and I mean, nobody goes out of their way to pay more for something. Do you see the equivalent of confused.com where you can go to find out where you can pay more for the same thing? Do you think it would be in any way succesful?

Please, this pretence that higher prices are actually better than lower prices....if the shoe was on the other foot, would you be looking to buy when house prices are more expensive....waiting it out until they get to your higher price point, so that you can buy in?

Would you hunt down the most expensive insurance, because of a slightly cheaper credit rate? Even though that will mean you have more debt in the first place?

Not unless you are a complete and uter pleb.

So why argue it? As I say, there is merit in what you say about the rates....but it's an absolutely tiny amount.

Percy1983

The 5.79% is fixed, its seems slightly better with the variable rates but I wouldn't touch them myself.

To pick a fairly tupical house around me.

It would have been 5% of £120k so £6000 deposit, its now 10% of £100k which is £10000. Yes that is an increase, but if you are able to get to £6k it would only be a matter of time before you hit £10k.

Looking at the same bank, if I get 15% together it drops to 4.64% (£995 fee) or 5.24%.

My point is I want a home and yes I don't want to pay 5.79% but I will if I need to, and I can say as a FTB there is a good chance we will wait for 15% but the odds on us waiting for 25% is next to nil, not having a home is holding our lives back.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

When it comes down to it, we all want to pay less for everything. You are reminding me of some on the share boards, trying to see the absolute positive in everything and telling everyone the loss that they are making is fantastic because they can top up and lose some more. Next day, they do the same "oh I just bought more at this great rate"....the rate that was great yesterday but seems they can buy in again the next day when further losses have been made.

It's very see through. Those with houses would prefer not to lose and to make money. Those without would prefer to see the prices fall.

But the thing everyone has in common? They want less debt. So to sit there trying to claim it's actually more beneficial to have higher prices, because you might get what, 0.5-1% off the mortgage rate at the start of the deal on a much larger debt....is somewhat disingenuous.

Sure, there is an argument to be had, but your argument only goes as far as the first few years (where saving some money on the higher mortgage rate may work). Mortgages last 25 years.

Nobody, and I mean, nobody goes out of their way to pay more for something. Do you see the equivalent of confused.com where you can go to find out where you can pay more for the same thing? Do you think it would be in any way succesful?

Please, this pretence that higher prices are actually better than lower prices....if the shoe was on the other foot, would you be looking to buy when house prices are more expensive....waiting it out until they get to your higher price point, so that you can buy in?

!!!!!! I have never said anything about paying more for anything. Or that higher prices are better. (please pull up the quote Mr BS PMSL!)

I have simply said there are a number of factors that can be adopted to make HPI less in the future, but one of the main ones is building more houses.
You are the one saying their is pent up demand for slightly eased affordability so you have to accept that this is not all down to price.

Really2 wrote: »

So there is a pent up demand large enough to push prices up?
I know what you are saying, but if we can't keep up with demand by building something has to give.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Of course there is.
Not that that answers or discusses any of my other points.

You are saying if 30-40 year mortgages are introduced so much demand is there it will push up prices. Thats you not me!:eek:

So you have to accept the British public do not see price being the only problem (or even major problem) if that is the case.
If they thought they were overpriced they would not buy surely.

So instead of making up story's and lies of what I have said why not answer what I asked earlier.
I am not sure why you cant answer any question asked to you, I presume it is you don't like the answer or you just prefer to make stuff up and argue.

Really2 wrote: »

So Graham when more houses sell and affordability was easier were more houses being built?

We have just been through the the biggest financial disaster since the 1920's and house prices are 10% off peak.
That is with the average deposit now being 25%.
Less than half of the houses to reach targets are being built.
Did more people get to own with lower prices?
How does it look for the children now (you have to think of them as you like to put it) chances of owning with less houses being built?

So if it is blind in mind where does this all change to make things more affordable?
And what does the effect of supply have on future demand.

Don't accuse me of being blind, all you are doing is simply ignoring future effects of not increasing supply.

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

If they thought they were overpriced they would not buy surely.

despite what the usual suspects on this forum tell you there is a large number of people that want to buy but generally speaking they can't because either they:

1. can't get the finance
2. can't raise the deposit
3. believe that finance costs are too high and waiting saving more or just waiting for a better rate etc
4. can't afford it
5. think prices will go lower.

the majority of the people are in the first two categories. the last two overlap massively because they're the ones that can't afford to buy and convince themselves that they have to go lower so that 'normal' people can afford them. they don't have to.

the large majority of the moaners on this site are from the last two categories. shame that.