Over 50's will bit hit by new mortgage regulations

Conrad

Percy1983 wrote: »

This is all well and good, but what if houses prices decrease and there isn't enough to cover the mortgage? (yes I agree its unlikely, but there is a risk)

But Percy it's about deciding the least worst outcome.

Do we want millions of people cast into renting (remember FSA regulation is causing detriment to many categories of borrower) all for a modest benefit of a few thousand less repossessions?

Or do we want to allow grown adults, within reason to be allowed to make thier own decisions, meaning millions more get the chance of home ownership?


The FSA are utterly blind to whats going on in the trenches. It's tragic really.

the_flying_pig

Conrad wrote: »

...This has to be the greatest financial injustice in UK history.

:why no sobbing smiley?:

grizzly1911

Conrad wrote: »

Do you think it's fair on all these people to have thier life chances curtailed by a nanny state? Keep in mind the very low proportion of repos.

If they genuinely tick all the boxes and they are prepared to pay the appropriate cost are you telling me mortgages aren't available?

The number of repos may be low but the amounts written off and cost of non performing debts held in forbearance does cost the institutions dear. (Not to mention PPI).

By life chances what do you mean? Making money from property? Perhaps the new world order will mean that his will be more unlikley going forward and that rental is becomes a more likley option.

Don't dispute that whichever way it goes there isufficent housing stock of the right type in those locations in demand and that longer term rentals need to be available..

Conrad

the_flying_pig wrote: »

:why no sobbing smiley?:

Well it isn't that tragic, as for me personally it's quite useful as I have little competition and charge nice fat fees for a few days work here n there:beer:


But seriously, it's tragic for so many adults, that a knowing nanny state thinks it makes better decisions on behalve of them.

Even in 2008, repossessions represented a tiny slice of the pie and the market is in fact very well run. The FSA just keep dreaming up ever more nanny rules, it's what they do. Smiling self satisfied middle class regulators with not the slightest notion of the detriment they cause hard working sensible adult would be buyers.

abaxas

Better underwriting of mortgages has to be a good thing.

Why do we need mortgage brokers again?

Graham_Devon

Conrad wrote: »

Or do we want to allow grown adults, within reason to be allowed to make thier own decisions, meaning millions more get the chance of home ownership?

These WERE adults, who made decisions within their own reason, who now face problems.

You can't suggest we should be able to make our own decisions on way, but then claim that SMI is perfectly reasonable etc etc (which you have done in the past).

A lot of your posts revolve around the pretence that everything is rosy, very few get reposessed, but an insistance in ignoring the reasons people aren't reposessed.....prefering to pretend it's because they are just paying their bills without issue.

This isn't the case, and that's precisely the reason the FSA is having to do this.

We can't have increased lending, sitting alongside increased bank forebearance, sitting alongside lower capital ratios and lower regulation. That's cooking up disaster.

grizzly1911

abaxas wrote: »

Better underwriting of mortgages has to be a good thing.

Agree.

Why do we need mortgage brokers again?

For those that CBA or incappable and are happy to pay for someone else to do it and those non standard, difficult to fit possibly riskier cases possibly.

I remember (just) when a long term savings track record was the first prerequisite before building societies would countenance your approach for a bog standard repayment or with profits (assigned and monitored) policy.

abaxas

grizzly1911 wrote: »

For those that CBA or incappable and are happy to pay for someone else to do it and those non standard, difficult to fit possibly riskier cases possibly.

I remember (just) when a long term savings track record was the first prerequisite before building societies would countenance your approach for a bog standard repayment or with profits (assigned and monitored) policy.

YEs all the riskier stuff.

As I keep telling people, brokers were involved to protect the lenders from miselling, nothing more.

It appears they are no longer needed as underwriting has made them irrelevant to the lender.

ukcarper

Lets take someone in their mid 50s who gets divorced after selling family home they need a mortgage of £30k to buy a small flat. They have a final salary pension of £10k can you give me a good reason why they shouldn't be given a 25 year mortgage.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Lets take someone their mid 50s who get divorced after selling family home they need a mortgage of £30k to buy a small flat. They have a final salary pension of £10k can you give me a good reason why they shouldn't be given a 25 year mortgage.

Do they have any kind of deposit? I'm assuming they wouldm and quite a chunk.

I'd suggest a 25 year mortgage therefore is simply the wrong product, could be a lot shorter, especially as they have 10 years before drawing a pension.