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

Really2

shortchanged wrote: »

So who ultimately benefits from this?

The person who can't afford a whole house as they can buy half and rent the other half at HA rates.

Part owning the same as buying full could be a win or a lose.

But if it allows some to live in a house they could not afford to buy outright I can't see the problem.

I would say it helps single people or couples on lower incomes.

shortchanged_2

Really2 wrote: »

People have already said on here the demand is there and also seem to admit that it is the deposit size that is the issue (25%) not so much the cost to more houses being sold.

Even with the current strict lending in place there are deals around for 10-15% deposits.

Fact is it's more difficult to save £15,000 for a £150,000 mortgage than it is to save £10,000 for a £100,000 mortgage.

shortchanged_2

Really2 wrote: »

The person who can't afford a whole house as they can buy half and rent the other half at HA rates.

Part owning the same as buying full could be a win or a lose.

But if it allows some to live in a house they could not afford to buy outright I can't see the problem.

I would say it helps single people or couples on lower incomes.

I would say it ultimately benefits the landowner, who gets the inflated price for the piece of land they sell to the developer.

Really2

shortchanged wrote: »

Even with the current strict lending in place there are deals around for 10-15% deposits.

How good is the rate compared to 95% products in the boom?

shortchanged_2

Really2 wrote: »

How good is the rate compared to 95% products in the boom?

The rates are not as good but at the end of the day it was the lax lending that helped create and sustain a boom in prices that are now causing the problems we have today.

Really2

shortchanged wrote: »

I would say it ultimately benefits the landowner, who gets the inflated price for the piece of land they sell to the developer.

Without rewriting history that may be hard to change. If people own land they should be able to sell it for the price the market dictates.

Really2

shortchanged wrote: »

The rates are not as good but at the end of the day it was the lax lending that helped create and sustain a boom in prices that are now causing the problems we have today.

Is 95% with a decent rate lax lending? AFAIK I do not think 95% loans at a decent rate were the problem. (seeing the have been available from the early 90's and possibly before)

I thought it was self cert, 100% + and how the banks repackaged these debts.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

As soon as more houses are being sold more houses will be built. Once that reaches target levels it should reduce the chance of any future above inflation HPI.

The flaw in this theory is that we went through a massive boom, and target levels were not reached for new builds. Not even close.

As for land. There is a difference between selling land off at BELOW market value and releasing cheaper land to build on.

There are many examples of cheaper land all around the country. Many new towns are being planned on this cheaper land, but never get off the ground due to planning restrictions and NIMBY's.

shortchanged_2

Really2 wrote: »

Without rewriting history that may be hard to change. If people own land they should be able to sell it for the price the market dictates.

You mentioned earlier open markets.

So what are shared equity schemes doing? Are they not artificially helping to sustain property prices?

nembot

Really2 wrote: »

Hang on a minuet any thing is an option if demand is there.
If people want to take on a 40 year mortgage it is up to them, they suffer the outcome of the decision if it goes wrong.

Unless the nation is a group of brain washed lab rats.

There is more desperation to retain their personal wealth if you are happy for houses to fall but never build any new ones.(because you want to buy at the bottom and never risk losing a penny then see it boom)

The argument is providing options to get building started in my eyes so you can sustain a level house market for all.

It shouldn't be an option though.... unless that is the situation is completely f00ked up (which is is).

Not "I really want them to fall to a level I can buy then F@$& everyone else?"
Which many on here seem to adopt.

Seems you're happy enough when the shoe is on the other foot, hardly surprising.