HSBC targets the FTB

Pimperne1

It all comes down to who better knows what a property is worth. Would it be the buyer, who has researched for months or years and who knows what the local property market is like or a surveyor, who has an educational qualification but who, on many occasions, doesn't now local conditions and has to rely on anecdotal evidence or unrepresentative comparisons. I have had numerous experiences where the surveyor has been clueless as regards what the value or rental value of a property is.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

It's worth noting that picky lenders (eg HSBC, Nationwide) are solvent whereas less choosy ones (Northern Rock, RBS) aren't.

What do you want from lenders: cheap mortgages for FTBs followed by a bailout or risk priced correctly?

That's a bit much like rabble rousing for you Generali......

I think you know full well that it wasn't mis-priced risk on UK mortgage lending that dropped RBS, Lloyds and even Northern Rock into liquidity and solvency problems.

A 4% above base lifetime tracker at 90% LTV is quite frankly absurd profiteering and nothing more than that.

crash123

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I think you know full well that it wasn't mis-priced risk on UK mortgage lending that dropped RBS, Lloyds and even Northern Rock into liquidity and solvency problems.

what about the 125% mortgages and the self cert mortgages. Birmingham and Midshires offered me a substantial amount based on my earnings in 2003 self cert no checks.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A 4% above base lifetime tracker at 90% LTV is quite frankly absurd profiteering and nothing more than that.

Absurd profiteering?!!?

You make it sound like you have no choice but to stick to the tracker for 25 years. You have argued elsewhere that you shouldn't do that and only fools don't re-mortgage.

Now you forget your previous argument and rely on people thinking they can never change their mortgage again, to make another desperate argument.

Why is this mortgage "absurd profiteering"?

What do YOU want to see from a 90% LTV mortgage?! Or do you just want 125% back, but won't quite admit it?

reweird

Well if we had 125% back at least it would kick start the economy.

Thrugelmir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I think you know full well that it wasn't mis-priced risk on UK mortgage lending that dropped RBS, Lloyds and even Northern Rock into liquidity and solvency problems.

Northern Rock 125% mortgages. HBOS self cert. B&B Buy To Let. Three main product lines.

Had badly wrong can risk be priced?

The UK taxpayer is picking up the tab......

Scudlink

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

No, because I'd rather not have to rely on parents for the gap in value, we have offered what we feel the property is worth to us, The sellers may not agree with the valuation and refuse to lower the price. Therefore we would possibly lose the house, I hope not, as it's an exceptional property.

Fair enough argument if you were stumping up 100% of the funds out of your own pocket.

Unfortunately in this case you are asking someone else for a near 90% liability, therefore it's not unreasonable for them to get a valuation against their asset.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What do YOU want to see from a 90% LTV mortgage?

Approvals routinely granted for the average UK credit score, rather than a requirement for perfect credit.

No more than 2% above base.

Lending maximum limits of 4.5 times single or 3 times joint income, but with the average being less.

In other words, historically normal, sensible, prudent lending.

Certainly not the over loose and cheap lending of 2007, but certainly not the over tight and absurdly restricted lending of today.

vivatifosi

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No more than 2% above base....

....In other words, historically normal, sensible, prudent lending.

Sorry for the edit Hamish, but I think that there's a problem with the 2% above base. The base rate is artificially low at the moment and doesn't reflect the cost of borrowing money that banks incur, nor does it reflect currently high inflation.

What you're saying I agree with for normal markets, but we aren't in normal markets at the moment. As a result prudent lending needs to find new paradigms for now and hence the rates ticking up over base.

I would like to return to the (more prudent) norms of the past, but I think we are some way from that at the moment.

macaque_2

reweird wrote: »

Well if we had 125% back at least it would kick start the economy.

Like kicking a ball filled with petrol into a burning house.