Repo's up and some startling numbers

shortchanged_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And yes, he does get quite angry.

But being a smart young lad, the last thing he wants to see is another UK housing market crash.

Because that's why he, and millions like him, now can't buy a house....

This is the statement that makes it sound all the more bull.....

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

Personally I would say these things go hand in hand.

You can be financially better off by having Talk Talk email you a bill rather than post it (£1.50 better off I think) and yet if still lose your house if you lose your job.

I doubt that we will agree on this, so let's leave it at that. What I find on this forum from reading the Graham Devon vs Chucky and Graham Devon vs Really1 'discussions' is that people really need to know when it's time to give up.

We have both put our points of view across and they didn't make a jot of difference to the banks but it did fill a gaping hole in our lives for at least a couple of hours. You can't ask for much more than that on our long journey to the grave now can we?

shortchanged_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

You can be financially better off by having Talk Talk email you a bill rather than post it (£1.50 better off I think) and yet if still lose your house if you lose your job.

I doubt that we will agree on this, so let's leave it at that. What I find on this forum from reading the Graham Devon vs Chucky and Graham Devon vs Really1 'discussions' is that people really need to know when it's time to give up.

We have both put our points of view across and they didn't make a jot of difference to the banks but it did fill a gaping hole in our lives for at least a couple of hours. You can't ask for much more than that on our long journey to the grave now can we?

Yes fair comments RenovationMan and I agree that we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think you know where I stand on this in that I'm very much in favour of quite strict lending within the mortgage market in order to try to create a stable and sustainable housing market.

I think we have all borne the brunt of the lax lending of the banks in the past and I do not want to see a return to those lending practices.

I know you have a VI in strong house prices for a few reasons being when you need to remortgage you'll want a good LTV and also your plan means you need strong house prices to be able for you to sell up and downsize when you retire. I suppose when this is needed for your lifestyle choice there is no way you're going to agree with my opinions. :cool:

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

I know you have a VI in strong house prices for a few reasons being when you need to remortgage you'll want a good LTV and also your plan means you need strong house prices to be able for you to sell up and downsize when you retire. I suppose when this is needed for your lifestyle choice there is no way you're going to agree with my opinions. :cool:

I have no interest in house prices and have said so many times. I was interested before we moved last year and I secured a decent price on our new home, but now we have bought I'm back to not caring. I don't think we will move for at least 10 to 15 years and so I'll worry about house prices then.

I already have an LTV that's more then enough for any mortgage product available, so I don't need house prices to rise for that either.

My lifestyle choice is to simply live in a beautiful house in a beautiful village, to grow a lot of our own food, perhaps to keep chickens and bees (Mrs Renovation's latest idea), raise our kids and look after my parents (they live in a 1 bed apartment converted from our stables). I don't need high houseprices for any of that.

For what it's worth, I also agree that we need a tighter rein on lending. I just think that every part of a person's finances should be looked at, not just their gross salary multiplied by an arbitrary number.

shortchanged_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

For what it's worth, I also agree that we need a tighter rein on lending. I just think that every part of a person's finances should be looked at, not just their gross salary multiplied by an arbitrary number.

That's fine RenovationMan but I think you have to draw the line somewhere. You obviously have a figure in mind or do you think 8 or 10 times income multiples is acceptable?

geneer

RenovationMan wrote: »

I have no interest in house prices and have said so many times. I was interested before we moved last year and I secured a decent price on our new home, but now we have bought I'm back to not caring. I don't think we will move for at least 10 to 15 years and so I'll worry about house prices then.

I already have an LTV that's more then enough for any mortgage product available, so I don't need house prices to rise for that either.

My lifestyle choice is to simply live in a beautiful house in a beautiful village, to grow a lot of our own food, perhaps to keep chickens and bees (Mrs Renovation's latest idea), raise our kids and look after my parents (they live in a 1 bed apartment converted from our stables). I don't need high houseprices for any of that.

For what it's worth, I also agree that we need a tighter rein on lending. I just think that every part of a person's finances should be looked at, not just their gross salary multiplied by an arbitrary number.

does any body else find the "i dont care about house prices" posturing highly reminiscent of the 2008 bull mantra "houses are just for living in".

hmmmmmm. its a good job renovation man doesnt have a massive sig listing the price of his house otherwise he would be looking a mite silly.

of course i for one am shocked to discover that house prices havent changed "up his street"

still its good that rm has reaffirmed how lovely his life is and how expensive his house is and how well hes doing. if he didnt do so at least twice a week he might put his back out when blowing his own trumpet.

only kidding. but you have to admit rm you do have a regular compulsion to "hamish" yourself up to faceless members of an internet forum.
your not in any way overcompensating for something are you?

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

That's fine RenovationMan but I think you have to draw the line somewhere. You obviously have a figure in mind or do you think 8 or 10 times income multiples is acceptable?

I don't think any multiple should be used because it's meaningless. I can't say this too many times:

If a person has 1x salary multiple but a ton of debts, credit cards, finance then he is a greater risk of defaulting on his mortgage than someone with 3x salary and no debts.

The banks should look at all income and outgoings and judge what they lend accordingly. It might be that some people end up with the equivalent of a 2x salary multiple because of their other financial liabilities and commitements and so it's up to them to either buy a cheaper house or to clean up their finances.

Let's turn this around, do you think that everyone, regardles of their financial liabilities should be given a 4x salary mortgage?

shortchanged_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

Let's turn this around, do you think that everyone, regardles of their financial liabilities should be given a 4x salary mortgage?

No I stated this earlier on being that say 4x a single income or 3 times a joint income is the absolute max a bank should lend. If someone has loads of loans, debt etc then they simply get lent less.

My view being if that there is some maximum ceiling on the amount a bank can lend there should be more control over house prices and there is less likely to be the severe boom and bust market that the UK so often gets.

Surely you are aware that it was the lax lending of the banks that helped fuel the stupid house prices that we now have in the UK. Of which of course earning multiples was only one factor, others being such things as 125% mortgages etc.

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

No I stated this earlier on being that say 4x a single income or 3 times a joint income is the absolute max a bank should lend. If someone has loads of loans, debt etc then they simply get lent less.

My view being if that there is some maximum ceiling on the amount a bank can lend there should be more control over house prices and there is less likely to be the severe boom and bust market that the UK so often gets..

If the mortgage is lent on the basis of affordability then why do you even need to look at a salary multiple? With the affordability check you will always reach a celing, but one based on ability to pay rather than any arbitrary salary multiple.

shortchanged wrote: »

Surely you are aware that it was the lax lending of the banks that helped fuel the stupid house prices that we now have in the UK. Of which of course earning multiples was only one factor, others being such things as 125% mortgages etc.

Yes I am well aware but we are not discussing LTV (Loan To Value) are we? That's a whole new subject and one which we will probably very much agree on. I do believe however that salary multiples did help fuel stupid house prices. If banks looked at their customer's income and outgoings rather than just lending them £XXX x salary, then perhaps so many would not in in financial trouble now (both banks and customers).

shortchanged_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

If the mortgage is lent on the basis of affordability then why do you even need to look at a salary multiple? With the affordability check you will always reach a celing, but one based on ability to pay rather than any arbitrary salary multiple.

I believe you need to have a salary multiple cap in order to have more control in the market as I've stated when money is too freely available in the housing market is when problems occur with booming prices.

It's the horrible words I'm afraid that many people seem to hate so much 'tighter regulation'.