95% newbuy mortgage

squeeks

The_J wrote: »

To call this person subprime, when they have a £1700 underspend, is unbelievable. I would love to see your finances. They could pay off their debts in a year according to their own figures, if the UK could pay off it's debts in a year we'd be in a lot better shape. Try 50 years.

I would say that the weekend definitely brings out the amateurs. Stick to building stuff, something where you don't have to use your brain. If financial advice is so easy give it a try, it's made me a rich man with a happy life and a portfolio of clients who trust me implicitly and you appear to be better than me at it.

The joys or airing your private life in public and inviting anyone to comment. Oddly enough, anyone feels free to comment.

I guess people find it hard to understand how you can have 20k underspend per annum AND amass a debt of 26k over two years. For some reason my calculator doesn't think that 20k + 20k = -26k which leads me to believe the underspend is being spent with bells on it or my calculator is telling me porkies.

But I will take back the subprime, would balance sheet insolvent be a better term?

Thrugelmir

The_J wrote: »

I am regulated by the FSA

Shame there's not a professional body as well. Something which is seriously lacking in my view. Any second hand car or double glazing salesman can obtain the necessary qualifications and became a Mortgage Broker. Despite not meeting the ethical standards that membership of a professional body would demand.

People like you discreet and tarnish the image of mortgage brokers in general. Also those that post on this forum who know how to behave in a fit and proper manner.

squeeks

Thrugelmir wrote: »

May meet the 90% LTV but not the underwriting criteria.

Okay, that sounds interesting. The underwriting criteria I am assuming is in effect the banks policy on lending? Is it something you can see?

In this case it appears that Natwest would underwrite a loan where all the deposit is or could have been derived from a credit card - 17k credit card debt and the mortgage requiring 9-18K deposit.

*edit*
Humm.. found it, all it says regarding personal loans and credit cards is that they are taken into account. That seems to mean that it reduces the maximum you can borrow, rather than something you have to clear before you are considered having a deposit.... so they probably would take your 10k personal loan as a deposit providing the amount you want to borrow isn't on the upper limit of our income multiple (4.9% in this case, which is also nuts!!!!). Unless someone sees something I haven't.

The_J

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Shame there's not a professional body as well. Something which is seriously lacking in my view. Any second hand car or double glazing salesman can obtain the necessary qualifications and became a Mortgage Broker. Despite not meeting the ethical standards that membership of a professional body would demand.

People like you discreet and tarnish the image of mortgage brokers in general. Also those that post on this forum who know how to behave in a fit and proper manner.

There will be a professional body and it can't come soon enough. I welcome it (in fact, I'm involved it lobbying for it but shhhh).

You are the disgrace to this forum providing incorrect information on a regular basis. Plus you do it in a dismissive and counterproductive manner.

Obviously you've been allowed to do it for far too long and are throwing your toys out of the pram when someone shows you up. Tough luck. Didn't you say you can ignore some people on another thread? Can you do it for me? Obviously I can't do it for you because I need to correct your continual mistakes.

By your logic squeeks anyone with debt shouldn't be allowed a mortgage? But a mortgage is just debt? The credit cards could have been for home improvements and the drop in house value wiped that out? It could have been to pay for something for someone in need but because of their income situation (underspend) they volunteered to do that for them. So many reasons, to suggest that someone in debt is financially irresponsible is disgraceful.

Getting a loan for the deposit is allowed by some lenders (again, Thrugelmir wrong :rotfl:). And why not? If both debts are serviceable and affordable where is the problem? Personally, on a moral level, I think people should have to demonstrate a savings record to get a mortgage. Debt is more expensive than savings but if it's short term and is an investment in your life, why not.

shortchanged_2

The_J wrote: »

If you lived somewhere, and needed a car to get to work but didn't have money. What do you do? You borrow money, buy a car, go to work and pay off that debt. Debt facilitates that.

This person wants to provide a better life for their family and are prepared to use debt to facilitate that. If this means a better school their child could be better educated and look after them in retirement.

Just like the Government will not stop spending on healthcare and schools because it realises it has to invest in the future.

This is fine to a point. The majority of people will have had some debt at some time in their life, particularly for car purchases.

However £17,000 on credit cards doesn't indicate to me that they are in control of their finances.

The_J

shortchanged wrote: »

This is fine to a point. The majority of people will have had some debt at some time in their life, particularly for car purchases.

However £17,000 on credit cards doesn't indicate to me that they are in control of their finances.

Depends what it was spent on doesn't it. As it stands it is affordable for them, they have £1600 left over at the end of the month. I said before, maybe it was home improvements which have now been wiped out, maybe it was purchasing an asset, helping family/friends. Maybe then went to Vegas and put it all on black.

Whacking the mortgage up will stretch it further but by no means make it unaffordable. It may mean no holiday for a couple of years just to keep a rein on things but hey, people make sacrifices for their family shocker.

Thrugelmir

The_J wrote: »

Getting a loan for the deposit is allowed by some lenders (again, Thrugelmir wrong :rotfl:).

That's precisely why the dinosaurs died out J. Couldn't adapt to a harsher climate. Times are changing. The days of the bad mortgage broker are numbered. As there's simply not enough mortgage business to go around.

The_J

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's precisely why the dinosaurs died out J. Couldn't adapt to a harsher climate. Times are changing. The days of the bad mortgage broker are numbered. As there's simply not enough mortgage business to go around.

What are you on about? This isn't me saying it. This is a bank saying they will accept it, it's their money. If they turn around and so "No, we won't accept that anymore" then it's water off a ducks back to me.

Plus, all the bad mortgage brokers have gone. It's happened and I'm still here and stronger than ever.

Thrugelmir

The_J wrote: »

What are you on about?

Obviously in your haste to respond. Your OCD means that you don't read properly.

So I repeat "Times are Changing".

The_J

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Obviously in your haste to respond. Your OCD means that you don't read properly.

So I repeat "Times are Changing".

Are you drunk? I have no idea what you are trying to say. That when lenders stop allowing loans as deposit no-one will want my advice? That logic doesn't really work.

Mainly because I haven't had someone want to do that for about 9 years.