NewBuy Guarantee Scheme

neilem

If this was purely to help first time buyers, then the support wouldn't be limited to new builds.

CRASH_BANG_WALLOP wrote: »

this dude has a point

I'm wondering why MPs are so interested in keeping house prices at inflated levels. Are they scared of a collapse, which will then have a strain on the banks and economy? Is it just to help out their buddies at the construction sector? PR spin for election time? Obviously they aren't as stupid as they seem, so there must be some incentive to them...

Either way, if they don't let the market correct itself naturally then they aren't helping whatsoever. When people can't afford housing now, it doesn't make sense to force prices to remain the same using some gimmick scheme. The longer they cling on, the more hurt it will bring when interest rates increases.

Just wondering what their game is. At the moment, it is depressing to watch the people in charge that are supposed to help, but making things worse.

Sibley

HPC are devastated.

It's knocked them sideways.
Will they finally admit defeat or do they want some more?

CRASH_BANG_WALLOP

Conrad wrote: »

As I keep on saying (even to Schapps himself), lending is severly hampered by regulation, thus millions are forced to rent.

wrong dude. its the 'i want it now' generation who wont save for a deposit

Emy1501

Conrad wrote: »

Haven't read whole thread, but I can't see the benefits of the scheme as the FSA's stringent 'treating customers fairly' and affordability tests will still need to be met by lenders. In other words only the best 95% risks will qualify, which is what we have already anyway.

It might have modest impact.

As I keep on saying (even to Schapps himself), lending is severly hampered by regulation, thus millions are forced to rent.

I don't think its to do with regulations. The banks are not interested in lending on new builds at 95% because they know that as soon as the buyer walks through the door of a new build the price has dropped by 10-15%. therefore they want protection and its the government and homebuilders who have agreed to underwrite 10% of the debt if the buyer becomes repossessed.

other problem which has been suggested is government wanted interest rate on loan at below 5% whilst banks want it above 5%.

I suspect event if you take regulation away the banks would not lend because of the risk.

Reality is New builds are at least 10% over priced. If they were reasonably priced and enough people could save a 10% deposit then the mortgages would be there. Of course builder are not interested in reducing prices so the government comes up with a scheme which will build new houses but the FTB takes the hit and is left in negative equity for probably at least 5 years if not longer.

CRASH_BANG_WALLOP

Sibley wrote: »

HPC are devastated.

It's knocked them sideways.
Will they finally amit defeat or do they want some more?

devastated dude? from what i see the dudes are looking at the finer points of the scheme and moligating it not frothing about the scheme like you seem to be

AMILLIONDOLLARS

Over priced rubbish, had a look at the Berekely Homes development in Woolwich out of interest they wanted to sell me a two bed flat that you could hardly swing a cat in,. for between £300 - 340K God help any couple who buys one of these, my thought were, there would be no room for a baby and they'd be stuck trying to sell it on it on, what is this Government thinking trying to push inflated property prices!

AMD

FTBFun

wotsthat wrote: »

Even Shelter would be embarrassed by a survey based on 27 comments on the BBC website.

It is quite obviously a victory for the bears - you're just saying that because you have a VI (and we know what that means - you're automatically wrong).

Graham_Devon

CML have come out to warn potential buyers that new builds are more expensive in the first place. Reading between the lines, they appear to be suggesting instant negative equity.

Theres some more details on the mortgages too. All apparently have application costs etc on top.

NatWest will lend at a fixed rate of 4.29% for two years and at 4.99% for five years; Barclays' rates are 4.99% fixed for two years or 5.89% for four years; and Nationwide is more expensive at 5.69% fixed for three years and 5.99% fixed for five years.

Natwests fee is £500. After the initial fix, it reverts to 4%, so would assume 3.5% above base.

Graham_Devon

Christ, and theres this from the BBC!!

Buying now might be very attractive, especially if you feel you have been locked out by high deposit requirements for the past few years or are desperate to get out of rented accommodation or your parents' home.

But you might be better off in the long term by waiting a while and saving up a larger deposit.

And if you cannot do that, should you be buying at all in the first place?

It's not a commentator either. It's the BBC's personal finance editor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17338787

Jimmy_31

Sibley wrote: »

HPC are devastated.

It's knocked them sideways.
Will they finally admit defeat or do they want some more?

I think the question you should be asking is will the government admit defeat when this scheme does not work.

I think this is the last throw of the dice myself.