A generation are being priced in order to keep the value up of their parents assets.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Percy1983 wrote: »

The short is we didn't try to over stretch ourselves

Some would say that a 90% mortgage was overstretching yourself.

chewmylegoff

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Absolutely. So why don't tenants look for longer AST's?
I'm happy to give 12 months. I'm happy to provide references to past tenants who've occupied for 5 years before deciding to leave.
It's always me who offers this to tenants, they never seem to have the gumption to ask. I guess they're worried about offending me? If a landlord is getting offended about that they're no kind of professional landlord.

personally i always insist on having a 6 month break clause because you never know if the LL is going to turn out be a complete tool, and as the tenant it's a bit more tricky to get references for the LL. then i usually try to let the tenancy roll into a statutory periodic tenancy (this is tricky when there is a LA involved, but ignoring all of their correspondence is a good start) and sit tight for as long as possible until the LL finally decides to start trying to put the rent up, then move house.

Percy1983

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Some would say that a 90% mortgage was overstretching yourself.

Surely how stretched we are is based on how much we owe, not what percentage is used to get there.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

Surely how stretched we are is based on how much we owe, not what percentage is used to get there.

Not sure I've seen that idea expressed by an accountant before.

If I buy a £200k house with a £100k mortgage but you buy a £100K house with an £80k mortgage then I've clearly had to 'stretch' further?

Don't know why lenders bother with pesky LTV's and mortgage affordability calculations - they should just look at the amount that someone wants to borrow - small loan = low risk/ big loan = high risk.

shortchanged_2

wotsthat wrote: »

- they should just look at the amount that someone wants to borrow - small loan = low risk/ big loan = high risk.

It's good to see you are finally getting it.

JonnyBravo

wotsthat wrote: »

Don't know why lenders bother with pesky LTV's and mortgage affordability calculations - they should just look at the amount that someone wants to borrow - small loan = low risk/ big loan = high risk.

I hope no one warns the banks about the company I work for. I think they owe over £10bn.

Percy1983

I am guessing it does go somewhere towards risk calculations.

ie, my 90% of £93k must be less risky than 90% of £5m.

I asked my bank before I started looking and they said I could borrow £140k, to which if I bought a £140k house with a 25% deposit I would still be borrowing more money.

MiddyMum

£705,000 for an affordable house?! I really do think this shared ownership lark is a big scam.

wotsthat

shortchanged wrote: »

It's good to see you are finally getting it.

Nice selective quoting - it must be a slow day on the forum.

So in Shortchangedland small loans = low risk and big loans = high risk end of? The proportion of the loan covered by assets and the ability of someone to service the loan is unimportant?

Were you on the same accounting course as Percy?

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

ie, my 90% of £93k must be less risky than 90% of £5m.

Things go t*ts up and there's a reposession...

One of those houses has just over £9k of equity and the other one £500k - which one is lower risk for the bank?