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

Mrs_Arcanum

Shared Ownership mortgages are far far harder to get these days. Add to this high targets of 15 properties minimum for the affordable element to kick in meaning all these useful brownfield sites will have 14 properties and no more (many of which will be BTL). Which all constricts affordability and availability. Then just to put the icing on the cake, available & suitable greenfield sites are released piecemeal by the planning authorities keeping land values high.

stonethrower

chucky wrote: »

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.

I would have taught 1,2 and 4 overlap massively, if you can't raise the deposit chances are you wont get the finance and if you wont get the finance chances are you cant afford it

chucky

stonethrower wrote: »

I would have taught 1,2 and 4 overlap massively, if you can't raise the deposit chances are you wont get the finance and if you wont get the finance chances are you cant afford it

I'm trying to differentiate between people who can afford to pay a monthly mortgage payment but can't raise the deposit.

Really2

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/property-and-mortgages/house-prices/12041/why-house-prices-will-rise-over-the-next-five-years?source=1000550

Indeed, a whopping 75% of would-be homebuyers surveyed by Your Move pinpointed the lack of mortgage finance as the reason they have been unable to buy a home, up from 70% last summer. If house prices are to rise as the CEBR and homeowners expect, this situation needs to drastically change.

So 75% think it is mortgage finance, Conflicts with the idea it's all down to price with buyers?

Oh and they also say

The other reason for house price optimism is an old one, but it’s one that won’t go away. There simply aren’t enough properties to meet demand at the moment.
House building totalled just 130,000 properties last year, nowhere near enough to address the undersupply that was already evident. We have already seen the impact that a lack of supply is having on the rental market, with rents regularly hitting new highs in recent months. The average rent in England and Wales stood at £692 a month in April according to LSL Property Services, another record high.
And that lack of supply will continue to push house prices upwards, once borrowers are in a position to actually access funding for property transactions. With Halifax research identifying that 77% of non-homeowners still aspire to buy, that’s an awful lot of demand for property.

chewmylegoff

Really2 wrote: »

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/property-and-mortgages/house-prices/12041/why-house-prices-will-rise-over-the-next-five-years?source=1000550


So 75% think it is mortgage finance, Conflicts with the idea it's all down to price with buyers?

It doesn't really matter how you want to spin it, it is all about price, because you can only pay what you can afford to pay. If you can't get a mortgage to buy a house for £200k it doesn't really matter if you are willing to pay £200k for that house or not.

Really2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

It doesn't really matter how you want to spin it, it is all about price, because you can only pay what you can afford to pay. If you can't get a mortgage to buy a house for £200k it doesn't really matter if you are willing to pay £200k for that house or not.

I never wrote the article or surveyed the people?

So if house prices fell 20% but LTV went to 50% you are saying more people could afford to buy?

It was not I who said if 30/40 year mortgages were introduced it would cause HPI. So if it all about the price tell me how that works?

Also how am I spinning it you are saying it is all about the price then go on about lack of mortgages available to suit the demand, that's spin as they are two compleatly seperate subjects are they not?

The bold bit are you saying cost price and are affordability are the same thing?
So they were never overpriced at the height of the boom then???
You guys have a funny way of looking at things.

chucky

chewmylegoff wrote: »

It doesn't really matter how you want to spin it, it is all about price, because you can only pay what you can afford to pay. If you can't get a mortgage to buy a house for £200k it doesn't really matter if you are willing to pay £200k for that house or not.

that's way too simplistic.

the ticket price of a property on it's own isn't the only factor to look at, the effective price is.

you need to include the mortgage side and also the affordability side.

a £200k mortgage at 5% over 25 years is £1,182.54 per month.

a £200k mortgage at 5% over 15 years is £1,605.70 per month.

the ticket price is just one factor, not your defining factor to see if people can buy and/or have the ability to buy.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

a £200k mortgage at 5% over 25 years is £1,182.54 interest per month.

a £200k mortgage at 5% over 15 years is £1,605.70 interest per month.

Quite clearly you have got your sums completely and utterly wrong.

Now I'm left with the quandry of whether to go and paste your faux pas over several threads. <rolls eyes>

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Quite clearly you have got your sums completely and utterly wrong.

Now I'm left with the quandry of whether to go and paste your faux pas over several threads. <rolls eyes>

They seem to be right, or is it another post to avoid the questions posed and the points raised to derail the thread.

Had chance to look at post 100 yet, it re-raises the points I made yesterday and disputes that I have said you should pay more for everything.
A post on topic would be nice.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

They seem to be right

Really? Right?

So let me get this straight.

At 5%, if paying over 15 years, your interest payment is HIGHER than if you pay over 25 years.

Chucky has tried to coble together some sums. The repayment part takes the monthly figure over 15 years higher. Not the interest.

Overall, you pay much less interest over 15 years. Not more.

He's tried to make it look worse by looking only at the monthly aspect. THIS, is the reason people were saying you are trying to spin it away from the price and make it look as if the higher the price you pay, the better off you are.

It's like the CO-Op and their special offers. Wow, 50% extra free....for only a 60% hike in the normal price. Bargain!!!