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

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

A moderate amount.... 30%

Percy1983 wrote: »

But if all 100% of the funding is going surely that means people will be getting told no because there is no money left this week/month/year?

They are.

It's called "computer says no".

Banks change their credit scoring criteria by the week and often even by the day to ensure they reject sufficient applicants so the pool of borrowers always matches the smaller pool of available funding.

Aren't the banks claiming there isn't enough demand for the money they got on the cheap, hence why they haven't used it all?

Banker's love to make excuses for why they aren't lending. But that quote referred to business lending, not mortgages.

The UK Treasury said last week that there is "unfulfilled demand" for mortgages. The BOE and government acknowledge the same.

You keep putting it forward that people will be forced to enrich there landlords, but if we let hpi take over again it will just get to the same point, just that landlords will have assets worth 3x more and the only ones who can afford houses are those with equity to cash in, ie landlords.

As said however you cut it many aren't going to be able to buy, just one keeps prices down for the most viable while the other lets prices rockets so its on a first come first served basis.

300% of the people who can buy today could buy in 2007 when prices and mortgage rates were higher.

Your assertion has been disproven by the facts.

Anyway, do you have any further information on how developers can't make a profit at current prices, I am not saying this isn't true I just can't figure it out how its possible.

They are making profit today, and I never claimed they weren't.

Just in single digit percentages.

If they cut by more than a few percent they would only break even at best, and price cuts in double digits would result in losses.

Percy1983

Maybe I am just applying how my business works here, but in undercutting the competition and making less per unit I actually make more profit as I sell more.

I do like the way you keep quoting loose lending stats against tight lending stats, of course more mortgages where approved when they where giving them out like sweets.

The whole country is in a debt hangover, I know this process very well.

Firstly you over spend, ie pre 2007 loose lending, then you have to have some time underspending, ie right now, then you can return to normality, ie in the future reasonable lending, more than now but less than you want for rampant hpi.

Are you still trying to say HPI is our saviour and won't disadvantage future generations? Do you not remember we tried that? look where it got us.

Thrugelmir

Percy1983 wrote: »

Maybe I am just applying how my business works here, but in undercutting the competition and making less per unit I actually make more profit as I sell more.

Price alone does not increase sales. A business also needs to make sustainable margins. Large scale developing is a complex and risky business.

Percy1983

It does make me wonder if a government building scheme could actually be the answer, rather than profit for shareholders its for the good of the country. Helps keep houses cheap enough and creates jobs. Even if they just build a new stock of council houses it would help the market massively.

Thrugelmir

Percy1983 wrote: »

It does make me wonder if a government building scheme could actually be the answer, rather than profit for shareholders its for the good of the country. Helps keep houses cheap enough and creates jobs. Even if they just build a new stock of council houses it would help the market massively.

Rebirth of building societies (or something similar) is what's required. As originally BS funded housing developments. With local connections meant everything was also for benefit of local community. Looks as even housebuilders may become foreign owned as Lloyds sells off its equity stakes. .