Homeowners trapped in first house as repayments cancelled out by fall in prices

Aberdeenangarse

Increasing numbers of homeowners are trapped in their first homes after being priced out of moving up the property ladder, research shows.

According to a report published by HSBC, as many as 360,000 buyers who bought their first homes in 2007 could be stuck in them for years to come.
This is due to the fact their properties have either not appreciated in value in the last four years or are worth less than they paid for them.


Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2067085/Young-homeowners-trapped-house-repayments-cancelled-fall-prices.html#ixzz1f01gClcZ

I thought I'd better post this, before it's in the Express! Also I know that the Mail is Turnbull's favourite read after the Dorset Echo

PasturesNew

It's been done before .... and, "so what" - it happens every time house prices go down etc. So, it's not even news that the newspapers are regurgitating old news.... that wasn't news then, but simple maths.

Quick 2+2 = something. That's maths.... and just as newsworthy.

Heyman_2

One important point to remember as well is that the lending criteria has changed even since 2007, which creates a potential problem if, say, you have one of those fantastic low Lifetime Tracker deals and you want to port your mortgage to a new property.

The deal you may have managed to get on a 90 or 95% basis with your bank in 2007, they may only offer you 75% when you come to port, meaning that you'll have to make up any shortfall on the valuation to retain your original rate. Either that or get a new mortgage at a higher LTV on less favourable terms.

So even if you don't have NE, it could still prove difficult to move depending on your circumstances.

IveSeenTheLight

Aberdeenangarse wrote: »

Homeowners trapped in first house as repayments cancelled out by fall in prices

Surely this will mean that potential supply is not being realised.

ILW

Is a house not somewhere to live?
It seems that many only see it as a rung on a ladder.

Going4TheDream

ILW wrote: »

Is a house not somewhere to live?
It seems that many only see it as a rung on a ladder.

Needs and wants and not maybe knowing the difference?

geneer

ILW wrote: »

Is a house not somewhere to live?

The bears have always thought so.
The bulls thought so in 2008. Cos they kept saying it.

WhiteHorse

Sheesh! Like there's some right to an obscene profit when you sell your house?

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

ILW wrote: »

Is a house not somewhere to live?
It seems that many only see it as a rung on a ladder.

I've never worried about house prices myself since whether they go up or down,any other property I want to buy will have done the same so I'm not losing out.

newDude

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

I've never worried about house prices myself since whether they go up or down,any other property I want to buy will have done the same so I'm not losing out.

I'm sure you are happy :j It's the people in their 30's and 40's who live with their parents, or in rented accommodation and don't own a property who have been s****ing themselves from 1999~2008.

neverdespairgirl

PasturesNew wrote: »

Quick 2+2 = something. That's maths.... and just as newsworthy.

My Dad asked Isaac what 2 + 2 was last year, when he was 4. He answered, "about 5", and wouldn't be shifted.

He had a point, though.