Officially in recession

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That would include endowments, and making an arrangement to sit down with your bank manager though Hamish. You up for that too?

We had to sit down with a bank manager who reviewed our accounts in 1990. For that matter, we had a meeting with a mortgage manager in our bank who looked at our our accounts and credit score in 2007.

Why would such a thing be unusual?

As for endowments, they didn't seem to work very well. And I'm not really in favour of I/O mortgages for the masses. They should be a specialist product reserved for specialist applications.

I'd also have no issue with MIG's being mandatory for anything below a 10% deposit. As I recall, it used to be about 1% of the purchase price paid up front, but this seems fairly reasonable to me.

DannyRadclif

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Where a 5% deposit, a stable employment history and a decent track record of paying your bills were enough to get a mortgage without any difficulty.

A 5% deposit at these overvalued prices would put the banks under extreme risk, everyone knows that large numbers of repossessions are looming.

Your next bit is applying to less and less people nowadays. "a stable employment history and a decent track record of paying your bills."

A bit unfair to those who are finding it hard to pay their bills because of 18% inflation in utilities. A bit unfair also to the increasing number of people being laid off or their business going under due to the crisis. Oh no that's right Hamish you don't think the global financial crisis is real, there are green shoots everywhere and we are in recovery?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DannyRadclif wrote: »

A 5% deposit at these overvalued prices would put the banks under extreme risk, everyone knows that large numbers of repossessions are looming.

Putting aside the fact that you're wrong about both prices and risk, a MIG would solve that problem. Which you ignored.

Your next bit is applying to less and less people nowadays. "a stable employment history and a decent track record of paying your bills."

A bit unfair to those who are finding it hard to pay their bills because of 18% inflation in utilities. A bit unfair also to the increasing number of people being laid off or their business going under due to the crisis. Oh no that's right Hamish you don't think the global financial crisis is real, there are green shoots everywhere and we are in recovery?

95% of the people in full time work before the recession are still in full time work today.

michaels

I'm afraid I completely disagree on this one. Where things went wrong was because spending exceeded income and thus the country was borrowing to consume, whther it was individuals mewing or the govt spending more on current expenditure than tax revenue brought in.

Extra borrowing to invest in infrastructure (and I am talking real investment, not the sort Gordon Brown would recognise like paying NHS staff more) might make sense, borrowing to consume would be fatal.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well I was thinking we could do some other things...

We could invent another £1tn to pay the welfare bill for a while, no need for caps then. £2tn to pay for the NHS for a while. £3tn to go to war with whoever and whatever we see as a "problem" and the country not "doing it's job" regardless of the pressures the country is under.

Infact, there are quite a few problems pressing just a few buttons will solve.

Do I need to go further, or will you gloss over this too, and pretend I'm just talking a load of rot and your idea is actually worthy?

We could even start a telly box show, called "Merv'll fix it".

Conrad

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

self cert should of course never return,

Lender reps tell me thier SC books are performing well, better for example than shared equity / Gov't schemes have.

Ken Livingston and millions of others have a perfectly valid need.

IronWolf

The problem is if you borrow money for these infrastructure projects you need to get the money back somehow. That means toll roads, toll bridges, buildings with high rents.

All this BS about just employing a few builders to make something will kick start the economy is drivel, these projects need to be income generating and eventually everyone will be complaining about the toll roads and bridges after this recession is long forgotten.

DpchMd

Graham must have wet himself when he saw the recession headlines.

DannyRadclif

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Putting aside the fact that you're wrong about both prices and risk, a MIG would solve that problem. Which you ignored.



95% of the people in full time work before the recession are still in full time work today.

But how many of the population are in full time work? And out of those how many will still be in a few years time as the crisis worsens?

shortchanged_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And I'm not really in favour of I/O mortgages for the masses. They should be a specialist product reserved for specialist applications.

This puts a bit of a spanner in the works for your plans for HPI Hamish because IO mortgage and the ease of their availability was one of the main drivers of the rampant HPI because people could lend more money and get higher earning multiples because they could 'afford' the bigger mortgage with the smaller monthly costs.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

This puts a bit of a spanner in the works for your plans for HPI Hamish because IO mortgage and the ease of their availability was one of the main drivers of the rampant HPI because people could lend more money and get higher earning multiples because they could 'afford' the bigger mortgage with the smaller monthly costs.

Nonsense. That's just another discredited bear meme.

I'd be quite happy to see I/O reserved for very specialist applications.

Almost all normal people should be going full repayment, and the vast majority can afford it just fine.