We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
What percentage of mortgages issued should require only a 10% deposit?
Comments
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »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.
Graduate tax will have an impact for longer.
General cost of living higher.
Commuting costs higher.
3X earnings looks generous."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
There is an interesting thing with the whole 'I'm alright jack' argument.
It has been put that now I have a house I want first time buyers to struggle.
I will say to a point I do believe they should struggle, the same as we struggled, its well within the realms of reality anybody can get debt free and save a deposit, the severity of this challenge varies depending on the persons actions.
So is it better to have the current system where its within reach of anybody it may just me hard to get there, or do we go for a system of free of all lending leading to rampant hpi, its easy for the first through the gate but then gets harder and harder for others later to the game?
Surely we can all see loosening leading may help a few through but just lead to rampant hpi, fair enough if somebody is willing to admit they are selfish enough to want rampant hpi, but please don't pretend its out of concern for young buyers.Have my first business premises (+4th business) 01/11/2017
Quit day job to run 3 businesses 08/02/2017
Started third business 25/06/2016
Son born 13/09/2015
Started a second business 03/08/2013
Officially the owner of my own business since 13/01/20120 -
A moderate amount.... 30%Surely we can all see loosening leading may help a few through but just lead to rampant hpi, .
No, absolutely not.
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.
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 price rises would be constrained by this.
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.
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.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
A moderate amount.... 30%So is it better to have the current system where its within reach of anybody it may just me hard to get there, .
Wrong again.
The entire point of current restrictions is to exclude the majority of potential buyers.
That's why it's called "mortgage rationing".
If a million people saved up a deposit and got themselves debt free tomorrow, the banks would have no choice but to move the goalposts again so as to exclude the vast majority of them.
Your preferred system, by definition, means most people have no hope of ever buying.
My preferred system, by definition, means most people will have the opportunity to buy.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »No, absolutely not.
Of course not.
I know risk assessmet isn't your forte. A little insight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7882581.stm"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »
That's why it's called "mortgage rationing".
Your preferred system, by definition, means most people have no hope of ever buying.
My preferred system, by definition, means most people will have the opportunity to buy.
Thats why you call it mortgage rationing, many others see it as sensible lending.
I agree what you propose would allow more to buy right now, but the after effects is prices rise and less are able to buy.
I say leave it as it is until more houses are built, I stand buy its possible for anybody right now, those who can't buy right now just need to modify there behaviour, up incomes and/or lower expenditure if your credit rating is down get improving it.
Prices go up the bar will be higher than I had jump over, leave it as it is and people will have to jump over the same bar I did, you know the bar you jump over to get an 'impossible' to get mortgage.Have my first business premises (+4th business) 01/11/2017
Quit day job to run 3 businesses 08/02/2017
Started third business 25/06/2016
Son born 13/09/2015
Started a second business 03/08/2013
Officially the owner of my own business since 13/01/20120 -
Hamish, you made a song and dance (and around 10 posts) stating I had ignored a question of yours.
You are now ignoring my question to you.0 -
A moderate amount.... 30%Thats why you call it mortgage rationing, many others see it as sensible lending.
It doesn't matter what you call it, the end result is most people cannot buy.
And it doesn't matter how many of them save up the deposit, or get rid of debt.
They'll still be unable to buy, as the banks will have to move the goalposts, to continue rationing limited funding.
Only with an increase in the availability of mortgage funds, will more people be able to buy.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
A moderate amount.... 30%Graham_Devon wrote: »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? .
No, absolutely not.
The vast majority of renters pay a similar or greater amount in rent as they would for a full repayment mortgage.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards