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

Really2

chucky wrote: »

they're very good points.

you won't get an answer, it will be the usual nonsense taking the thread on a tangent.

He has already done that on the rolling head post.

Graham can't wont answer so calls me blind and gets the rolling heads out.

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

Very true, but at least this way those who do work hard and get in to reasonable payed jobs still can get somewhere.

As I say the current system isn't perfect, but its better than the previous 'first to the bank' system.

that's an economic cycle though, boom and bust.

in the boom it's much easier for the man on the street to make money from investments, property, whatever really.

in the bust or the recovery from the bust it's much harder until we're in boom times again.

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

He has already done that on the rolling head post.

Graham can't wont answer so calls me blind and gets the rolling heads out.

he did that on another thread.

have a read of this, he hasn't got a clue. he reckons that the mortgage debt amount is higher on an interest only mortgage than a repayment one and accuses me of being wrong and being blind and obtuse...

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Do you understand it?

The debt on a repayment mortgage is larger because you are repaying the capital aswell as the interest.

The debt on an interest only mortgage will be lower, because you are only paying the interest.

Therefore switching the debt from repayment to interest only turns an average 200k debt to an average 109k debt.

That will be the reason for the difference. That's why the payments become smaller.

Pretty poor chucky, for someone who questions everyone elses intelligence.

Really2

Percy1983 wrote: »

Very true, but at least this way those who do work hard and get in to reasonable payed jobs still can get somewhere.

As I say the current system isn't perfect, but its better than the previous 'first to the bank' system.

I would argue they would not get a house. The pension money would flood the housing market as the "money" made BTL a norm as a pension proposition.
Cash will always be king in that situation so those retired, coming up to retiring, downsizing or just plane rich would buy in to housing greatly to fill the void of rental demand.

I would argue proportionally you would have to be on a higher average buyer wage than now.

Something in the middle needs to be done we need house to be built to increase supply. That will stop future rises being so high.
30/40 year mortgages may not be the answer but for sure builders can just trickle feed the housing market like they are.
More houses selling is the only way I can see more house being built. We are at a stale mate we can stay where we are but it will mean proportionally fewer will own in the future.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

he did that on another thread.

have a read of this, he hasn't got a clue. he reckons that the mortgage debt amount is higher on an interest only mortgage than a repayment one and accuses me of being wrong and being blind and obtuse...

Jesus, you have even got that wrong, and are now posting whats been deleted, and whats already been accepted as wrong, and left by all others apart from you around posts.

If you are going to attempt to spam it everywhere, at least get your description of it right.

I thought, after doing my parents mortgage statements, which only showed interest outstanding, no capital anywhere, that the amount owed, on an IO purchase was less than a repayment mortgage for the amount outstanding purposes. This was due to the fact what my parents IO mortgage only listed the amount outstanding on the interest repayments, and the balance (amount owed for IO purposes) on the statements fell each month.

Therefore, you have even got your attempt to make me look silly (granted you can with that) the wrong way around, after posting over threads. You are too excited about it.

Percy1983

chucky wrote: »

that's an economic cycle though, boom and bust.

in the boom it's much easier for the man on the street to make money from investments, property, whatever really.

in the bust or the recovery from the bust it's much harder until we're in boom times again.

This is the thing houses should be homes and not be part of the whole boom and bust cycle, with that Gordon Brown did say there would be no more boom and bust just before fueling the biggest boom ever known.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

bla, bla, bla

warning e-meltdown, warning e-meltdown, warning e-meltdown

can you get back to really's points please instead of diverting attention.

thanks.

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

This is the thing houses should be homes and not be part of the whole boom and bust cycle, with that Gordon Brown did say there would be no more boom and bust just before fueling the biggest boom ever known.

unfortunately that's the way it is. either you get involved or you don't.

i don't think you can avoid it. if it does change it will take generations and generations to come into place. i can't see it changing though.

shortchanged_2

Really2 wrote: »

Would 30/40 year mortgages not mean more could buy younger.

£160K over 25 years @ 5% = £946
£160K over 40 Years @ 5% = £777

All things being equal if you need a income of £40K to buy the £160 house on 25 years
An income of around £33K would be sufficient for the 40 year term.

I'll tell you what would be better for everyone

£130K over 25 years @ 5% = £769

Plus with the added bonus that the purchaser would need a smaller deposit in the first place.

See, everyones a winner apart from property rampers that is.

Really2

shortchanged wrote: »

I'll tell you what would be better for everyone

£130K over 25 years @ 5% = £769

Plus with the added bonus that the purchaser would need a smaller deposit in the first place.

See, everyones a winner apart from property rampers that is.And the future generations who need houses building for them.

Why is no one answering the building problem, why do people think you can cut the cost, forget building any more and the problem will go away?

Is it the same "I'm alright Jack" attitude people accuse many owners of having on here? It certainly seems so.

Also the idea house prices being lower requires a smaller deposit seems to be a bit wrong? What is the average size of deposit you need to buy now compared to mid boom?