Demand for rented accomodation rises

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Now were getting somewhere.

Did people really get 3.5x joint income though? Or did they always get 1x second income. Certainly all mortgages I looked into when taking mine always stated 1x second income, and for good reason.

3.5x on both incomes is stretching to the max.

So try again on 3x and 1x income (standard on most forms when I bought, though I admit, I did have the choice of other options which ignored multiples).

As I said i got more than that in the 70s

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

As I said i got more than that in the 70s

Doesn't matter.

Thats 40 years ago. Were talking about now.

So far, you've suggested it's ok as the average family earn 64k. Now it's been reduced to the 30th percentile, but based on 3.5x both incomes, which I don't believe lenders actually leant on, due to the insane risk.

All I'm asking is you work it out using real figures. You'll then see the problem. Which is the reason I guess for the hesitant responses.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Doesn't matter.

Thats 40 years ago. Were talking about now.

So far, you've suggested it's ok as the average family earn 64k. Now it's been reduced to the 30th percentile, but based on 3.5x both incomes, which I don't believe lenders actually leant on, due to the insane risk.

All I'm asking is you work it out using real figures. You'll then see the problem. Which is the reason I guess for the hesitant responses.

I’m not sure what they would really lend me but with a joint income of £45k both Halifax and Nationwide how much can I borrow calculators have given me figures in excess of £190k.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Doesn't matter.

Thats 40 years ago. Were talking about now.

We borrowed somewhere around 4 times joint in 1990. With interest rates at 15%.

on 3.5x both incomes, which I don't believe lenders actually leant on, due to the insane risk.

How do you think 3.5 times joint is an "insane risk" with base rates never likely to see double digits again in our lifetime?

work it out using real figures. .

It doesn't get any more real than the actual figures of actual borrowers, which never crossed 3.5 times income (blended of single and joint) even at peak.

geneer

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Now were getting somewhere.

Did people really get 3.5x joint income though? Or did they always get 1x second income. Certainly all mortgages I looked into when taking mine always stated 1x second income, and for good reason.

3.5x on both incomes is stretching to the max.

So try again on 3x and 1x income (standard on most forms when I bought, though I admit, I did have the choice of other options which ignored multiples).

Hamish still playing that game where he compares joint incomes to single incomes. Comparing apples with oranges.
Thats an old skool bull gambit that one.

julieq

What insane risk? There was none. OVERWHELMINGLY people afford their mortgage repayments - those that don't even under extreme conditions of recession and elevated interest rates are in low single figure percentages.

If it was sensible to lend 2.5x joint income at a time when mortgage rates were at 7%, it's more than prudent to lend at 3.5x when rates are far lower and likely to stay there.

This has nothing to do with the "average family". When there is constrained supply, prices are set by the prices those willing or able to participate can pay, and that excludes those who can't afford it. Because supply is squeezed there is competition even then.

You may not like it, but it's what happens if you don't build enough houses. Honestly you can blather endlessly on about average salaries or prudent lending or what your parents could afford, but it's like any scarce commodity, when supply drops off, prices rise. And as we're seeing (and as was roundly dismissed as a possibility by the bears a couple of years ago), as the value of housing rises, if people can't buy the rents they have to pay go up as the competition moves to the rented sector.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ukcarper wrote: »

I’m not sure what they would really lend me but with a joint income of £45k both Halifax and Nationwide how much can I borrow calculators have given me figures in excess of £190k.

Interesting point.....

I just loaded up the Nationwide calculator with our actual salaries, living expenses and actual achieved bonus from this year.

It reckons we're good for £600,000.....

Which is somewhere close to 5 times joint income

Try it for yourself.

geneer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

g'nu, you silly, silly boy....

The verifiable truth is that "lending multiples" DID NOT rocket to 5.4.

The link you post to merely asserts that prices rose, not that banks were lending higher than 3.5 times income on average.

From the link....



Absolutely nothing to do with the actual lending multiple to actual buyers.

Epic fail. Try again. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You are for once, correct.

All Ive done is demonstrate how the average first time buyer would have required 5.4x their average salary at the peak of the bubble.

Do please enlighted us with the supporting evidence which backs up your assertion.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I’m not sure what they would really lend me but with a joint income of £45k both Halifax and Nationwide how much can I borrow calculators have given me figures in excess of £190k.

Darn tahat pesky mortgage rationing!

<rolls eyes>

geneer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Interesting point.....

I just loaded up the Nationwide calculator with our actual salaries, living expenses and actual achieved bonus from this year.

It reckons we're good for £600,000.....

Which is somewhere close to 5 times joint income

Try it for yourself.

Oh look. Hamish is telling us what a Big Swinging D#ck he is. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
That hasn't happened for, oh, at least a day.

I have to agree. Apart from the big swinging part naturally.

Wassamatta Hamish. Forgot the insteps today?