MSE News: Interest-only mortgages could be 'thing of the past'

RenovationMan

gingeralan wrote: »

1) a rather expensive property in relation to income if you earn around 50% more than me.

2) see above, and previous posts of you weren't worried you would have made your point and left it, not carried on for days justifying your decision.

3) many people feel they played the market well yet simple analysis shows that the houses around increased in value anyway and if you just looked at the % increase in price paid it would have been more than the "profit" they made.

4) don't know it's your prerogative to divulge information. If of you are trying to claim it's because I asked you or someone else, please send me 500k. If that works so well I will pm you with the details of my Nigerian bank account.

1) Why is having an expensive property in relation to my income (just my income, not our household income) classes as 'high exposure to the risks'?

2) Why are you carrying on for days after making your points? As I see it we were having a discussion. Do you just want it to be a monologue where only your opinion is consistently heard?

3) I didn't play the market at all, the HPI was incidental to what I was doing. I bought my first house in 1995 and carried out the renovations over a 2 year period. I had the house valued for a new mortgage in 1998 (pre property boom) and so I know how much I added to its value without the benefits of HPI and I know how much I would have paid, over that same period, into a repayment mortgage.

4) I've hardly given any details and certainly none that could compromise my anonymity or allow scammers to get at me. I divulged the info to you on this thread because shortchanged raised it and you commented on it. I wanted to refute the claims as you were being misinformed.

shortchanged_2

RenoMan you are happy enough to mock people who have a different viewpoint to yours and don't like being challenged on your own.

You openly admit that your current purchase was an 'interest rate gamble' and even you couldn't have forecast in your wildest dreams that interest rates would have stayed as low for as long as they have. So lets face it, it's been nothing more than luck.

Would we be here having this discussion if rates had gone back up the 4-5% by now, I very much doubt it.

gingeralan

RenovationMan wrote: »

1) Why is having an expensive property in relation to my income (just my income, not our household income) classes as 'high exposure to the risks'?

2) Why are you carrying on for days after making your points? As I see it we were having a discussion. Do you just want it to be a monologue where only your opinion is consistently heard?

3) I didn't play the market at all, the HPI was incidental to what I was doing. I bought my first house in 1995 and carried out the renovations over a 2 year period. I had the house valued for a new mortgage in 1998 (pre property boom) and so I know how much I added to its value without the benefits of HPI and I know how much I would have paid, over that same period, into a repayment mortgage.

4) I've hardly given any details and certainly none that could compromise my anonymity or allow scammers to get at me. I divulged the info to you on this thread because shortchanged raised it and you commented on it. I wanted to refute the claims as you were being misinformed.

Again still not convinced.

Hpi was still present between 95 and 98 the market bottomed probably in 91 or 92 and had a pretty much unhindered rise till about 2003 when it faltered before rising again.

I think you are looking for the monologue, gloating over your ability to accumulate debt. If you have borrowed on household income why are you telling us you individually have borrowed 5x your income where as you have seemingly borrowed with you're significant other, making your statistic of 5x your income irrelevant. Fyi I quoted our borrowing based on my income as there it's a chance my partner may wish to stop working either for children or to pursue a business idea of hers, so while we borrowed together we just used my income when deciding what we were looking to borrow.

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

RenoMan you are happy enough to mock people who have a different viewpoint to yours and don't like being challenged on your own.

I'm happy to mock people like yourself who pretend that the changes they want to financial systems are to help prevent people from overstretching themselves when it's plain that their real motivation is simply to reduce house prices, even if it causes more pain to more people than they profess to want to help.

shortchanged wrote: »

You openly admit that your current purchase was an 'interest rate gamble' and even you couldn't have forecast in your wildest dreams that interest rates would have stayed as low for as long as they have. So lets face it, it's been nothing more than luck.

That's what you believe because YOU could not have forecast in your wildest dreams that interest rates would have stayed as low for as long as they have. I DID believe that they would and I bought our house based on that belief. Let's face it, I analysed the economic situation, acted accordingly and it's working out. This is what you find annoying. You were annoyed back in 2010 when I first came here with a belief that rates would stay low for years and it sticks in your craw that 2 years later I'm proved right.

shortchanged wrote: »

Would we be here having this discussion if rates had gone back up the 4-5% by now, I very much doubt it.

Why not? What has interest rates got to do with this thread discussion about interest only mortgages?

shortchanged_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

I DID believe that they would and I bought our house based on that belief. Let's face it, I analysed the economic situation, acted accordingly and it's working out.

Don't resort to lying now RenoMan, you're better than that.

shortchanged_2

RenovationMan wrote: »

I'm happy to mock people like yourself who pretend that the changes they want to financial systems are to help prevent people from overstretching themselves when it's plain that their real motivation is simply to reduce house prices, even if it causes more pain to more people than they profess to want to help.

What is wrong with wanting a stable economy, less prone to boom and bust, surely that is better for the majority.

House price inflation in this country in the last decade has seriously messed up this country and it is now coming home to roost.

RenovationMan

gingeralan wrote: »

Again still not convinced.

Hpi was still present between 95 and 98 the market bottomed probably in 91 or 92 and had a pretty much unhindered rise till about 2003 when it faltered before rising again..

Can you supply a link to info that backs this up (house prices in Manchester, where I live)?

gingeralan wrote: »

I think you are looking for the monologue, gloating over your ability to accumulate debt. If you have borrowed on household income why are you telling us you individually have borrowed 5x your income where as you have seemingly borrowed with you're significant other, making your statistic of 5x your income irrelevant.

I haven't said I borrowed 5* my income, that was shortchanged. I said that we borrowed enough to enable us to buy this house and that "My current mortgage is coincidently 5 times my salary (just my salary, not the household income)". It's not 'seemingly' at all, it's factual and I provided you with the facts. The facts I provided, make SHORTCHANGED statistic of 5x my salary irrelevent.

gingeralan wrote: »

Fyi I quoted our borrowing based on my income as there it's a chance my partner may wish to stop working either for children or to pursue a business idea of hers, so while we borrowed together we just used my income when deciding what we were looking to borrow.

We borrowed on my income for the same reason and the bank was happy to loan what we wanted just based on my income.

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

Don't resort to lying now RenoMan, you're better than that.

Why am I lying?

Do you think I bought an expensive house with a 23 year mortgage, based on the belief that we would only have low rates for 1 year?

The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

What is wrong with wanting a stable economy, less prone to boom and bust, surely that is better for the majority.

House price inflation in this country in the last decade has seriously messed up this country and it is now coming home to roost.

Nothing, but I don't believe the financial ideas you are promoting will do this. There is nothing in what I have said that can be misinterpreted to mean that I want a housing boom. I have probably suffered more from HPI than yourself (I believe you have owned the same house for the last decade?).

I merely want the banks to tighten up lending. I believe they can do this better by having more stringent affordability criteria than your salary multiples idea that does not prevent the indebted from obtaining mortgages that are going to overstretch them.

gingeralan

RenovationMan wrote: »

Can you supply a link to info that backs this up?



I haven't said I borrowed 5* my income, that was shortchanged. I said that we borrowed enough to enable us to buy this house and that "My current mortgage is coincidently 5 times my salary (just my salary, not the household income)". It's not 'seemingly' at all, it's factual and I provided you with the facts. The facts I provided, make SHORTCHANGED statistic of 5x my salary irrelevent.




We borrowed on my income for the same reason and the bank was happy to loan what we wanted just based on my income.

You have just priced my point, you borrowed 5x your income, and need Isaac lending and low interest rates to keep you in your precarious situation. What if your other half stopped working and interest rates went back to their historic norms of around 4%.

Btw a link to your chart http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/property/uk-house-prices-will-plummet-look-at-this-scary-chart-14664