What percentage of mortgages issued should require only a 10% deposit?

DervProf

Most.... 75%

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Eh ?
I was talking about his (24K) personal dowry .

But you knew that.

You are wrong, I did not know that.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

A moderate amount.... 30%

grizzly1911 wrote: »

So your evaluation of financial risk is from where?

From the fact that such products (90% and 95% mortgages) have been commonly available since the 1930's, and have not caused a single banking crisis since.

Are you really trying to tell me that you think historically normal, prudent, and sensible long term lending practices in the UK have suddenly become "high risk"?

DervProf

Most.... 75%

DervProf wrote: »

So, Hamish, what would you say would happen to house prices if 95% LTV mortgages were to become widely available ?

And the same question for the price of renting ?

I am genuinely interested to know what you think.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

A moderate amount.... 30%

DervProf wrote: »

I am genuinely interested to know what you think.

The biggest immediate change thanks to greater mortgage availability would be enabling a lot of reluctant landlords to sell, and reluctant renters to buy.

So sales stock and buyers would increase, and rental stock and renters would decrease.

Somewhere north of a million people could buy without changing the balance of supply and demand at all, so little if any change to prices or rents from that.

Over the longer term, greater mortgage availability would increase prices, but would also increase building, so the scale of price rises or otherwise is hard to predict.

In the short to medium term rising prices would also enable more people to sell as fewer remained in negative equity, so supply would also increase, so rises would be constrained somewhat by this.

Over the longer term, if building doesn't radically increase, rises would be significant. If it does radically increase, then less so.

It's likely that prices will rise overall if more people can buy, but then again they're rising now with fewer people being able to buy.

On balance, enabling more people to buy seems the better option.

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

From the fact that such products (90% and 95% mortgages) have been commonly available since the 1930's, and have not caused a single banking crisis since.

Are you really trying to tell me that you think historically normal, prudent, and sensible long term lending practices in the UK have suddenly become "high risk"?

The fact that they were available doesn't mean they were available on the same terms or in a particular mix..

Yes FTB taking on 95 % mortagaes are a higher risk. They haven't just become one. Somebody remortgageing at 95% arguably is higher risk.

In the mid 1900s mortage weren't thrown out of the door like they were recently. Typically you would have proven track record with a local building society, and their appraisal and monitoring more searching. If the mortgage went sour it was on their head not removed in some bundled up derivative package held by a fund in Iceland. .

High LTV mortgages are typically more expensive however the crosselling package, fee, rate, MIGs are bundled. You are happy for punters to be fleeced ?

Percy1983

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Eh ?
I was talking about his (24K) personal dowry .

But you knew that.

I am still failing to see the moral hazard here.

I know in my case if you was to actually add up the net money we have both put into the relationship (money put in - debts put in) all is fine.

Here we go I will do some basic maths.
////////////Me//// Wife
Year 0 -£24000 -£9000 (Morally wrong)
Year 1 -£7800 £2400 (Morally wrong)
Year 2 £8400 £13800 (Morally wrong)
Year 3 £24600 £25200 (Morally wrong)
Year 4 £40800 £36600 (Fine?)

Now I will see this is rather basic as it ignores my business profits or the personal belongings I sold along the way. But however you cut it, if one pays in more than the other consistantly at some point they will catch up and shift the balance, you really can't argue with the logic.

With how many couples would the split ever be 50/50?

So anyway, why is it completely morally wrong when the balance says my wife put more in, but not morally wrong when I have put more in?

Can I put that down as:
Me 1 Bitter Ones 0?

Mr._Pricklepants

Percy1983 wrote: »

Can I put that down as:
Me 1 Bitter Ones 0?

Put it down whichever way you wish, Percy.
I don't really get your table above, but please don't explain.
If you can live with your actions and Mrs. Percy is happy, it's all good.

Percy1983

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Put it down whichever way you wish, Percy.
I don't really get your table above, but please don't explain.
If you can live with your actions and Mrs. Percy is happy, it's all good.

You reallly can't understand it? sorry about that, but fair enough I won't explain.

But Yes I can live with myself after loading more debt in at the start and Mrs Percy can live with herself not paying as much in every month (lets be honest shes on a winner in financial terms).

So can it now be dropped, as its:
A, actually a non issue.
B, nothing to do with any of the debates it keeps getting brought up in.

Thank you

wotsthat

You spent years explaining how your life was as good as over because you were young and then managed to pay off all your debts and put a deposit together in a few short months.

How you've managed to overcome the crippling disability of being born in 1983 is nothing short of inspirational.

Mr._Pricklepants

Percy1983 wrote: »

You reallly can't understand it?

No, I can't.
But if you insist....

Percy1983 wrote: »

////////////Me//// Wife
Year 0 -£24000 -£9000 (Morally wrong)
Year 1 -£7800 £2400 (Morally wrong)

Here you claim you bringing 24K debt to the table and she 9K.

Yet in this post http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=19104053&postcount=1

you claim:

and she has £3k on a car and £1k on a credit card.

That's 4K, not 9K. Ok, maybe small oversight.

Let's move on.

Percy1983 wrote: »

////////////Me//// Wife
Year 0 -£24000 -£9000 (Morally wrong)
Year 1 -£7800 £2400 (Morally wrong)

Year one total debts 33K
Year two down to 5400, an amazing reduction of 27600

Yet in the same post you claim

I am earning 17k while she earns 13.5k

if this is gross, net would be about 25K, well done on repaying 27.6K on that

You see Percy, you're a liar.
You should be more careful crafting your forum stories.
At least back then you seemed to have some morals left

This makes me feel bad as it isn't her debt

Now all this would be irrelevant if you didn't go traipsing around the forum with your "I'm allright Jack, pull the ladder up" attitude when it comes to high LTV lending for FTB's.

Coming from a bailed out debt junkie, it's quite rich.