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

Percy1983

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

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



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:



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

Let's move on.



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

Yet in the same post you claim



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



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.

Sorry for using a very short summary but I am sure I can clear this one up for you.

The £9k is made up of the £4k mentioned + a ford focus at £4995 which was added during the debt clearing, fair enough it wasn't there at the start but I added it there for simplicity.

As for incomes thats quite simple I have just used an average, both have increased (mine more so than hers) so yes in reality progress should have been slower at the start and ramped up with time.

By all means I could add more detail and make it slightly more accurate but the fact still remains, how ever you cut it, I put more debt it andhave paid more money in ever since, we can tweak the figures as much as you like and move the 'breakeven' but it will still happen.

Try it for yourself, change my income down if you want, it will take longer but still break even.

How do you fancy 2 - 0?

Mr._Pricklepants

I knew there was a plausible explanation. :rotfl:

I'm done here.

Percy1983

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

I knew there was a plausible explanation. :rotfl:

I'm done here.

Shame I was looking forward to 3-0

I do take it as a compliemnt that my life is so exceptional its unbelievable.

So is that the end of it? no more bitterness on your half?

Mr._Pricklepants

Percy1983 wrote: »

Shame I was looking forward to 3-0

I do take it as a compliemnt that my life is so exceptional its unbelievable.

So is that the end of it? no more bitterness on your half?

That's it.

Final score : 24-3

Percy1983

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

That's it.

Final score : 24-3

Well I didn't think I had 24 points over you but hey, I will take it if offered.

Cheers :beer:

Graham_Devon

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"?

Isn't part of the problem what I referenced earlier?

The lack of interest only mortgages has removed the ability for X number of people to be able to afford the repayments?

You are comparing times when a MIG was required. You are comparing times when interest only payments were all that was required. What you are not doing is taking these things into account and only looking at the absolute number of mortgages given.

The repayment mortgage costs more each month, therefore, it stands to reason less will be able to service them.

To make a simple point even simpler....

£130k mortgage @ 6%
Repayment - £847
Interest Only - £650

£200 per month makes a large difference to most peoples budgets per month. £650 might be achieveable. £850 might not be.

The removal of IO mortgages, IMO, will have made a large difference to how many people can afford to service the mortgages you want to see offered in abundance again.

Of course, if house prices dropped, more and more people would be able to afford those mortgages, as the monthly repayment dropped. If a 130k house drops to 100k, the repayment mortgage costs the same as what the IO mortgage did. You'd then find more and more people are able to take the mortgages again, boosting the amount of mortgages given.

Kennyboy66

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

When base rates had a reasonable prospect of hitting 15%.

Whereas today it's more likely they'll not rise as high as 5% than hit 15% within the term of a mortgage today.

Before 1973, base rates had never been above 10% in the previous 280 years.

The norm, for many people prior to 1973 was for 95% but just as importantly it was 3 times single earnings. In addition there was rationing of a sort in that building societies had x amount to lend each month and when it was gone it was gone.

I'm really not sure why people are so desperate for borrowers to get into a level of debt where they are unable to spend on anything else or save for retirement.

The answer really is just to build more properties and arguably reduce the tax incentives on BTL for existing properties but retain the tax breaks for new build properties for rent.

Graham_Devon

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Before 1973, base rates had never been above 10% in the previous 280 years.

The norm, for many people prior to 1973 was for 95% but just as importantly it was 3 times single earnings. In addition there was rationing of a sort in that building societies had x amount to lend each month and when it was gone it was gone.

I'm really not sure why people are so desperate for borrowers to get into a level of debt where they are unable to spend on anything else or save for retirement.

The answer really is just to build more properties and arguably reduce the tax incentives on BTL for existing properties but retain the tax breaks for new build properties for rent.

Re: the highlighted bit, this is of course key. 95% LTV at strict 3x earnings is very much different to 95% at 5x joint earnings. The room for error at 5x joint earning is FAR bigger than 3x one income. Child comes along and bang, one of those earners now has to carry the can for the other. Wouldn't have made a difference to the 3x single income.

Women weren't even allowed to be on the mortgages at some point....anyone know when that claptrap stopped? All makes a high difference considering Hamish is comparing up to 80 years back.

chucky

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

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

hahaha, he's busted. Poor little Percival is still trying to explain and justify himself too.

Percy1983

I still fail to see what there is to justify?

Which ever terms you use it still comes to the same conclusion.

ie,

A, I brought more debt in but have contributed more for long enough to cover it.

B, I borrowed money from a loved one to cover debts and have now paid it all back.

C, I tricked somebody into paying my debts and then paid them back.

D, I sold my mothers donkey to pay my debts and have since replace the donkey.

The point is however you try to make it out I have done something wrong, however you look at it the answer is I have worked hard upped my income and cleared what I owe to all involved.

I sense much bitterness in you.

ps, the actually version is A but as you seem to like to make up other ways I cleared my debts I thought I would try and add a few.