22 year average wait for FTB's

shortchanged_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Of course it is.

I was a 95% mortgage in 1990, my parents were offered one in 1967, and in fact 100% mortgages were available at least as far back as 1982.

95% lending has been around and commonly used for at least the last 50 years.

Good for you and your parents Hamish. It doesn't mean it was the norm though does it. Just like 125% mortgages weren't the norm but they were available.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

It doesn't mean it was the norm though does it. .

Nor does it mean they were imprudent.

shortchanged_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Nor does it mean they were imprudent.

So does that mean you think 125% mortgages were prudent Hamish?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

So does that mean you think 125% mortgages were prudent Hamish?

Anything over 100% is imprudent, and should be banned.

Anything between 95% and 100% should only be used in very limited circumstances, such as for low earners with stable histories whose rent already exceeds what mortgage payments would be, as is the case in much of the country.

But 95% or below is a historically normal, prudent, and sensible level to be lending at. It's been fine for the last 50 years, no reason to change it now.

Le_Chuck

A couple earning just over £20k should be able to save a 20% deposit on a £125k house within 3-4 years, if they're living with parents before buying & put off having kids until such time that they can afford them.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But 95% or below is a historically normal, prudent, and sensible level to be lending at. It's been fine for the last 50 years, no reason to change it now.

You are fixated on the percentage.

What did you have to do to get it Hamish?

shortchanged_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But 95% or below is a historically normal, prudent, and sensible level to be lending at. It's been fine for the last 50 years, no reason to change it now.

But is it only prudent in your eyes because house prices are so high, therefore 10% deposits and greater are now much more difficult to save for.

macaque_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But 95% or below is a historically normal, prudent, and sensible level to be lending at. It's been fine for the last 50 years, no reason to change it now.

Would you lend your own money at 95% with a graph like this?

Percy1983

I really shouldn't need to keep saying this, but all ALL the young have iphones and foreign holidays.

As for what other have said the who FTB home idea has changed massively, as a FTB the house we are buying is well above the FTB home people on here keep saying we should buy.

Simple...

If I had had a chance of buying at 18-25 the FTB homes people refer to on here would be fine, but price me out until the age of 28 and that FTB just isn't enough. As it is I have gone straight to a 3 bed semi (actually quasi semi so end of 4 houses) with a massive garden and drive big enough for 2 cars (would post a link to rightmove, but its not wise giving my address away on here), with buying a house and getting married at the age of 28 we aren't going to waste too much time getting on with having children, so to by a 2 bed terrace to have to move in the not to distant future would be foolish.

DervProf

shortchanged wrote: »

This is not a historically normal, prudent and sensible level.

I'm under the impression that 10% has been regarded are the normal, prudent and sensible level for both lender and borrower. 5% was certainly only granted in "special" circumstances when I took out my first mortgage in the 90's.

Maybe I went to the "wrong" broker