We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
BTL versus home buyers
Comments
-
the_flying_pig wrote: »The possible solutions to increasing BTL are:
Reintroduce rent control. Fair rents for all?0 -
It is designed to limit the amount of money that banks lend to people who cannot afford to repay the loan. To that end, it is successful.So the MMR which is broadly supported by the CML, Shelter etc is wrong with regards to sensible lending being needed? .
According to the FSA and as reported by Shelter, had the lending standards of the MMR been in place between 2005 and 2007, then it would have led to just 17,000 fewer repossessions from 2007 until now.
But as we have seen, those MMR lending standards (pretty much what we've seen since 2007) come at the cost of a million fewer people being given mortgages.
So the way to prevent 17K repossessions is to prevent a million people from buying.
Genius.... Why didn't someone think of that before?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »According to the FSA and as reported by Shelter, had the lending standards of the MMR been in place between 2005 and 2007, then it would have led to just 17,000 fewer repossessions from 2007 until now.
But as we have seen, those MMR lending standards (pretty much what we've seen since 2007) come at the cost of a million fewer people being given mortgages.
So the way to prevent 17K repossessions is to prevent a million people from buying.
Genius.... Why didn't someone think of that before?
About 8% of the mortgage market has problems paying their mortgage at a time when rates are low. rates are expected to be between 2-4% by 2016 and therefore relying on figures at a time when banks in reality are not allowed to repossess in the main is pointless. The MMR points to the problems of defaults among a certain type of borrower in 2008 before rates were reduced and that is probably why the CML Shelter are in favour of the reforms rather than any you suggest.
As I say maybe you or Juliq could provide your research to support that lending practises in 2007 are sustainable going forward and the types of bodies which support your view?0 -
Hamish. Do you think it is a good thing for people to be renters? Being of an age when a single person could buy a home close to London, I now find the situation is becoming really difficult for my family youngsters.
Regardless of good incomes, they still cannot get a place of their own. Going back about 14 years ago, a decent 3 bed terrace in Reading was about 45ki or just a bit more. Now hitting the market at a staggering £175k. Kids are priced out and they are the ones to get the housing market moving.
Why do people always talk about the mid 90s as the norm when in fact property prices were at the lowest level since the war.0 -
As I say maybe you or Juliq could provide your research to support that lending practises in 2007 are sustainable going forward and the types of bodies which support your view?
I don't think either of us have ever suggested that 2007 mortgage lending standards are either sustainable or to be desired.
Nobody wants to see the return of 125% mortgages, liar loans, etc.
What rational people do want to see is the return of historically normal, prudent, and sensible lending standards, where a 5% deposit, a stable job, and a decent credit score were enough to get a mortgage.
Not the situation of today where less than 2% of mortgages issued are for LTV's of 90% or greater.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
-
A deposit of 5% would be fine if we had not had crazy house prices and banks are not stupid and know that a correction will happen and they do not want to be the one left holding the baby..your 20k deposit will do nicely thank you..It is nice to see the value of your house going up'' Why ?
Unless you are planning to sell up and not live anywhere, I can;t see the advantage.
If you are planning to upsize the new house will cost more.
If you are planning to downsize your new house will cost more than it should
If you are trying to buy your first house its almost impossible.0 -
Savers are getting rogered irrespective of interest rates. Lenders are currently charging between 5% and 20% on loans and paying 0 - 0.5% interest to savers (which they more than claw back through account charges).
TBF, it's "lazy" savers who are being "rogered". 3%+ is readily available to those who can be bothered to fill in a form.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
3% wow,, savers who live off interest such as me will be laughing all the way to the bank with that.It is nice to see the value of your house going up'' Why ?
Unless you are planning to sell up and not live anywhere, I can;t see the advantage.
If you are planning to upsize the new house will cost more.
If you are planning to downsize your new house will cost more than it should
If you are trying to buy your first house its almost impossible.0 -
However that 3.1% is boasted further when you are saving for a property which is falling in value while you save.:exclamatiScams - Shared Equity, Shared Ownership, Newbuy, Firstbuy and Help to Buy.
Save our Savers
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards