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

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Come on carper....answer the question.

How can you make lending easier to achieve for buyers, without going back to 2007 levels?

I'm interested as it's stated so much, and you have taken issue with me saying it would be doing more of the same that led us to problems.

So what are your solutions that don't go back to 2007 levels. As said many times, we have government backed 95% LTV lending. We have 90% lending.

What do you think could be done to make it even easier than that?

You are assuming that there are enough 90 - 95% mortgages available for everybody that wants one I’m not sure that is the case. Perhaps when people say there is a shortage of mortgages they should say there is a shortage of people who meet lending criteria but I don’t think that is what is meant when they say there is a shortage of mortgage funding.

moneyinmypocket

Graham - you post a lot of articles and views on this subject, based on some of your threads and answers within I can tell home ownership means a lot to you, I hope one day you get your house.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

You are assuming that there are enough 90 - 95% mortgages available for everybody that wants one I’m not sure that is the case. Perhaps when people say there is a shortage of mortgages they should say there is a shortage of people who meet lending criteria but I don’t think that is what is meant when they say there is a shortage of mortgage funding.

Giving everyone who wants a mortgage a mortgage IS 2007!

That's my point in case. It throws risk out of the window in preference to giving people what they want.

Graham_Devon

moneyinmypocket wrote: »

Graham - you post a lot of articles and views on this subject, based on some of your threads and answers within I can tell home ownership means a lot to you, I hope one day you get your house.

I have one. Though thanks for your concern buddy

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Because we already have 90% mainstream lending, and 95% government backed lending.

To improve lending further for affordability, you would have to go back to 2007 lending standards. How else can you possibly make it easier without touching the lending levels back then?

If someone can't hit the affordability requirements of a 90% mortgage, the only thing you can do is lower the requirements. Thats 2007 all over again.




Answered above.....so what is the case? What lending do you want to see that isn't boom level lending, but is easier than 90% & 95% lending? Describe it to me.

interestingly the FSA figures for mortgages at 90% or over is less than 1.5% of total mortgage lending

make what you will of that

moneyinmypocket

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I have one. Though thanks for your concern buddy

Just out of interest, what's your beef with house prices if you already own one? Are you thinking of others less fortunate?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Giving everyone who wants a mortgage a mortgage IS 2007!

That's my point in case. It throws risk out of the window in preference to giving people what they want.

Has anybody said they should give anybody who wants a mortgage one. I’m starting to see what people mean by muddling ‘

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

interestingly the FSA figures for mortgages at 90% or over is less than 1.5% of total mortgage lending

make what you will of that

It's all down to risk, again IMHO. Theres only a certain amount of money to lend, and a risk evaluation has to take place.

Theres no denying that 90% mortgages are harder to get. But that's as a result of many things, and many risk assesments to be carried out. To create higher levels of 90%+ lending, you have to lower the risk levels, hence 2007.

There was a piece on the radio the other day where a mortgage broker came on and stated it's not as simple as telling a client that the mortgage will cost them X today, as it will undoubtedly cost them more at a later date, and quite possibly a sum they cannot afford. He stated many people seem to forget we are at rock bottom interest rate levels and that mortgages can only get more expensive. Clients can afford it today, just, but a 1% rise in interest rates could have them scraping the barrel. It's a risk he can't personally advise.

IMO, we can't continuously slam the banks for everything they did, while wanting more of everything we slam them for.

Outside of the conventional bank loaned 90% mortgages, theres the government backed mortgages, which from all accounts always seem to be at low levels of demand. In these cases the money is there, just not taken. That leads me to believe there is far more to it than simply "banks are not lending". I truly believe people don't simply want a house at any cost anymore, they want value for money, and that's simply not given under many of the schemes. Let's be honest, how many of us could advise a close relative they are value for money when you consider just how much they will be shelling out each month for what they get?

PasturesNew

olly300 wrote: »

The government doesn't want the borrowing costs on the books so the only way to do it would be a PFI deal and we all know the problems with those.....

Which is crazy... it's a bit like owing a parent £100 .... then borrowing £50 from a payday loan because you don't want to owe your parent £150. Same amount, same debt .... but more money tossed away in needless profit and interest.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Has anybody said they should give anybody who wants a mortgage one. I’m starting to see what people mean by muddling ‘

What do you mean then?

I have asked you to state what mortgage lending you would like to see, if mortgage lending is the problem.

You stated maybe there are not enough 90% deals for those who want them.

I assumed you were suggesting that you would like to see more 90% mortgages given to people who want them? No? Maybe a misunderstanding, but just responding to the answer you gave to my question.

If that's not the case, what mortgage lending would you like to see, that isn't 2007 levels, but is easier than 90 / 95%?

The point carper, is that there isn't such a thing. You can't get easier than what we have now, without reducing the level of risk to the level which caused many of the problems faced today. If you disagree, then I'm all ears, but I've aksed 4 times now!

All I'm saying is there are plenty of other angles to look at, and if we keep hitting the same brick wall of "well people can't get loans and banks haven't got the money" then we just go around in circles. We have to move on from that, surely, as if there isn't the money to lend, there simply isn't the money to lend. If people can't afford the money there is to be lent, then people can't afford it. You have to therefore move on from that and stop hitting a brick wall of blame with no solution.