New Build Houses At Lowest Ever Level.

Percy1983

Going4TheDream wrote: »

It brings into question the whole phrase 'mortgage rationing'? It seems that the higher deposits and more stringent checks are the banks way of ensuring less negative equity situations and the actual ability to pay of borrowers on any property?

Don't be stupid that makes way too much sense and doesn't sound as dramatic...

How dare you call it what it really is.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

Don't be stupid that makes way too much sense and doesn't sound as dramatic...

How dare you call it what it really is.

I’m sure that there are lots of people who could pay a mortgage but can’t get one. But if the banks have insufficient funds and have to restrict the amount of people they lend to who can blame them lending the ones who present the lowest risk.

thescouselander

Going4TheDream wrote: »

It brings into question the whole phrase 'mortgage rationing'? It seems that the higher deposits and more stringent checks are the banks way of ensuring less negative equity situations and the actual ability to pay of borrowers on any property?

Of course, it stands to reason that the bank needs to be assured they can recoup their money in the event the mortgagee defaults and they need to repossess the house. Its simply a matter of risk management.

Jimmy_31

wotsthat wrote: »

Are small independent builders known for building houses cheaper than the large builders?

Are small independent builders going to sell a house for less than it's market value just because it, apparently, costs them less to build.

The government could employ me and my workmates to build them some houses or any of the thousands of other construction workers in the country.

All that we would ask is to be paid a wage every week, no profits or bonuses, just a wage.

If the government did this then it would create thousands of jobs in the construction industry and the massive house building companys wouldnt be creaming massive profits out of the pockets of the buyers.

Cheaper houses and people earning a wage, everyones a winner. Except for a few of david camerons mates that is.

Going4TheDream

thescouselander wrote: »

Of course, it stands to reason that the bank needs to be assured they can recoup their money in the event the mortgagee defaults and they need to repossess the house. Its simply a matter of risk management.

I get that, but is there actually 'less money that lenders have to lend' and that is why they are being more stringent...

or are they just sensibly now being more selective due to the problems in the past meaning only the best risk will be offered a mortgage

thescouselander

Going4TheDream wrote: »

I get that, but is there actually 'less money that lenders have to lend' and that is why they are being more stringent...

or are they just sensibly now being more selective due to the problems in the past meaning only the best risk will be offered a mortgage

I suspect its a bit of both really.

Pimperne1

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm quite rude to salespeople that spout this rubbish.

When I purchased in 1999 we were torn between waiting for a later phase 6 months later (we'd already spent enough time living on a different building site). We were told pretty much the same thing - I said if they were so confident that prices were going to skyrocket then why not delay the sales of the current phase.

Then when we looked at the current phase we were told that they were selling like hot cakes and we needed to make a reservation quick. I asked, if they were going so quickly, why the builder had invested in showhomes, converting a double garage to a sales office and employing two full time sales staff for the previous 18 months.

My wife intervened at this point and started being nice.

Okay, I'll bite. Prices did skyrocker in 2000. They "built" the sales room and showhomes by converting a garage and by using houses they were going to sell later. The sales staff were making them money hand over fist by telling you the truth. What if the Scouselander is being told the truth now and we just don't realise it. I suspect your wife intervened because she thought you were being a bit stupid. Turns out she was right.

Pimperne1

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Okay, I'll bite. Prices did skyrocker in 2000. They "built" the sales room and showhomes by converting a garage and by using houses they were going to sell later. The sales staff were making them money hand over fist by telling you the truth. What if the Scouselander is being told the truth now and we just don't realise it. I suspect your wife intervened because she thought you were being a bit stupid. Turns out she was right.

Edit to say you remind me of a post by Jonathan Davis where he was passing by an Estate Agents and saw a young lady looking in the window and he whispered to her as he passed by "Prices are going to plummet next year"*. If she is looking in I am betting she is glad she didn't listen to him in 2005.

*As near as I can recall the post...

thescouselander

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Okay, I'll bite. Prices did skyrocker in 2000. They "built" the sales room and showhomes by converting a garage and by using houses they were going to sell later. The sales staff were making them money hand over fist by telling you the truth. What if the Scouselander is being told the truth now and we just don't realise it. I suspect your wife intervened because she thought you were being a bit stupid. Turns out she was right.

I'd be open to hear how this might work but given that any increase in house prices would have to be funded by an increase in lending from the banks I just don't see it happening.

Pimperne1

thescouselander wrote: »

I'd be open to hear how this might work but given that any increase in house prices would have to be funded by an increase in lending from the banks I just don't see it happening.

I don't see it either but Wotsthat uses a flawed comparison. It was always more likely that he would be wrong than you.