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

chucky

shortchanged wrote: »

I think what you're referring to graham is the everyman for himself attitude and greed.

it seems that at least 67.8% of the UK population disagree with you.

lower house prices for all to buy would be lovely but it ain't going to happen.

ukcarper

Emy1501 wrote: »

As I said above your post does not take into account how lenders now work out how they will lend. It no longer simply based on offer 3-4x and therefore a fair few couples on an average would not be able to borrow what you are suggesting due to having children, unsecured debt, childcare etc.

Personally I do not see them crashing in nominal terms unless there comes a time where proping up the housing market though Mortgage Support scheme etc is not seen as sustainable or IR have to be raised quickly before a full economic recovery is made . Real time rises seem highly unlikely though in the near future unless you believe the argument that 2 couples are going to live in a 1 bed flat etc.

There have been schemes to help people who lose their jobs with their mortgage payments for a long time. I do not see them any differently to schemes to help people with their rent in the same situation.

As for the size of mortgage you can get I have no idea, but are you really saying you can borrow no more now than you could in the70s.

shortchanged_2

chucky wrote: »

it seems that at least 67.8% of the UK population disagree with you.

lower house prices for all to buy would be lovely but it ain't going to happen.

Unfortunately chucky it shows that 67.8% of the population are driven either by personal greed OR are in a precarious financial state.

Emy1501

ukcarper wrote: »

There have been schemes to help people who lose their jobs with their mortgage payments for a long time. I do not see them any differently to schemes to help people with their rent in the same situation.

As for the size of mortgage you can get I have no idea, but are you really saying you can borrow no more now than you could in the70s.

The schemes available are a lot more generous than before. The governments keep extending how long these extentions will be open for but who says there will not come a time when they are cut like alot of other things or lenders get fed up with being told they can't repossess.

I don't know how much one could borrow in the 70's but now there is only so much a lender can lend someone. there are therefore not many ways like in the old days ie liar loan, overtime etc where people could increase the amount they could borrow plus all the deductions lenders now take into account.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think you are confusing self interest with personal thoughts.

Self interest is where you profit from the situation.

I would not be profiting from raising interest rates. I would be paying more money out each month. Yes, it may see house prices decline, but that would also mean my house price declining.

You simply cannot say, considering all of the above, that I therefore have self interest in rates rising. I don't make any money from it. I lose out. I don't have enough savings for it to be beneficial to me when the mortgage is taken into account.

However on a PERSONAL level. I would prefer to see rates rise, and get this whole things sorted for once and for all. I would prefer to see rates rise sooner rather than later, as the longer we hold off, the larger the pain.

Now, if I had said "I want to see rates rise because it will mean I get more money each month through savings"....you could then say I have a self interest.

What many on this site are saying is they do not wish for rates to rise simply because it means they will pay more on their mortgages and things are great at the moment. Can you deny that? If not, stop trying to twist everything and imply I have a self interest (which is the same as vested interest in these terms) in interest rates rising. Because quite simply, I don't. I will lose out if they rise. Doesn't mean I cannot see the logic in them rising though and doesn't mean I can't see the overal benefit at the other end. I think your confusion comes because you cannot grasp that some would rather go through the pain and sort it.

So how are people profiting from lower rates? You can't say it is in there self interest overall as the longer we are in trouble the worse the situation is?

You cant say renovation man is self interest but not you if rates were higher he may pay more interest but there is a fair chance his house price would be increasing with or better than inflation also (based on history) a more "normal rate would = a normal market.

So everyon here has a personal thought not a self interest? (self interest means within your interest not just to profit, you want prices to fall, that is within your interest)

chucky

shortchanged wrote: »

Unfortunately chucky it shows that 67.8% of the population are driven either by personal greed OR are in a precarious financial state.

so because 67.8% of the population own their own home they are greedy and/or are in a precarious financial situation...

now that is interesting logic pmsl

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

now that is interesting logic pmsl

It is.

Probably why it's you who came up with it and no one else.

ukcarper

Emy1501 wrote: »

The schemes available are a lot more generous than before. The governments keep extending how long these extentions will be open for but who says there will not come a time when they are cut like alot of other things or lenders get fed up with being told they can't repossess.

I don't know how much one could borrow in the 70's but now there is only so much a lender can lend someone. there are therefore not many ways like in the old days ie liar loan, overtime etc where people could increase the amount they could borrow plus all the deductions lenders now take into account.

I'm not sure that is the case and they are a lot less generous than help with rent.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It is.

Probably why it's you who came up with it and no one else.

67.8% is the owner occupier percentage.

unfortunately if you were able to actually read you would have seen that shortchanged believes that anyone owning their own home is "driven by personal greed" and/or is "in a precarious financial state"

shortchanged wrote: »

Unfortunately chucky it shows that 67.8% of the population are driven either by personal greed OR are in a precarious financial state.

do you want to squirm, twist it and take it on another tangent?

what a surprise that it's there to be read and Mr Muddle tries to confuse again...