Negative equity is back: leaves buyers stuck & on high rates

geneer

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2045281/House-prices-What-home-fallen-negative-equity.html


Never mind. Bullish favourite market expert Ray (House prices are unlikely to fall (C) Sept 2007) Boulger is on hand to dispense advise.

Ray says "sorry love, your fooked. Shouldn't have listened to me" :rotfl:

Priceless.

House prices are plunging across Britain. As a result, many families face the financial heartache of being trapped on expensive mortgage rates, while others are unable to move home. Ruth Lythe reports.
It’s the secret nobody will talk about, but is blighting the lives of millions.
Outside London, in streets in every town in Britain, middle-class families are trapped in their homes.
Some of them are stuck in properties that are now far too small for their growing family.



Others are desperate to move for a new job, to live nearer to elderly relatives or to be closer to good schools — and simply can’t.
They all have one thing in common: their properties have fallen into negative equity after they bought at the peak of the last boom market between 2000 and 2007.
In just four years, tens of thousands of pounds have been wiped off the value of their properties.

Graham_Devon

This example.....She had debts of over 10k before she bought, with no deposit, hence took a 125% mortgage.

She was in negative equity from the word go. So don't really understand what the article's point is in all honesty when they suggest shes "now in negative equity", she's just in more negative equity, and the plan didn't pay off as well as it was probably sold to her.

CLAPTON

strange how they choose their examples

the young lady will be paying just 4.79% which doesn't seem too bad
and has had 4 years to do some overpayments or at least some savings
she doesn't seem to have any specific reason to have to move
and we have no idea what her income is

presumably she is some-ones mate

Dan:_4

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This example.....She had debts of over 10k before she bought, with no deposit, hence took a 125% mortgage.

She was in negative equity from the word go. So don't really understand what the article's point is in all honesty when they suggest shes "now in negative equity", she's just in more negative equity, and the plan didn't pay off as well as it was probably sold to her.

First sensible post i've seen in a while from you Graham.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

and has had 4 years to do some overpayments or at least some savings

Majority are on interest only mortgages with no repayment plan. Bought in belief that house prices could only carry on rising.