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
-
Most.... 75%
Arent they able to get funding at 0.5% which would be an ok profit margin. Alot will be paying fees and effectively moreMy bank is earning 2.25% on the £60k
How much risk there is depends on your LTV, I presume as its 60k you are risking a bit of capital yourself and receiving no money but of course 'free' rent!0 -
Most.... 75%Where as I don't believe it is. I wouldn't based my predictions on what would happen in future if employment fell and house prices fell on what has happened on the previous 6 years.
The smoking analogy was to highlight the risk of automatically using historical data to predict the future. It has no relevance to zagfles original post, nor was it intended to, as it was related to your question.
I wasn't using historical data to predict the future.
they were two seperate questions.
One was regarding what was the reposession statistics during statistically the biggest correction in the last century
The other was a seperate question on whether they thought properties with negative equity would return to the purchase price within the next 19 years.
Of course the realistic number of properties innegative equity is a fraction of the overall market and even those bought at peak could be out of negative equity had a repayment mortgage been kept during the last 5 years.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
A moderate amount.... 30%Lets be honest no way is perfect but I want the lessor of 2 evils.
No you really don't.
You are so blinkered that you are oblivious to the misery and harm to an entire generation being caused by mortgage rationing.You want a system where the first to bank and say 'show me me money' get it. This makes a system where the first there do best as prices rocket as the free for all bidding war takes place.
I prefer the current system where, yes as you say some are pushed into enriching landlords a little longer but the goal is still attainable as prices aren't shooting out of reach.
Wrong.
I want a system where the average person, with an average job, and an average credit rating, can walk into an average bank and get a mortgage with the historically normal, prudent and sensible 5% to 10% deposit.
Not the current system where up to 90% of such applications are rejected.
So they are then being forced to enrich landlords for many, many extra years to save an abnormally high and onerous 20% or 25% deposit.
Generation Rent is being financially penalised like no previous generation, and you're too blind to see it.
They are dramatically adding to their lifetime housing costs through being forced to buy much of a house for someone else, as well as then buying one for themselves.The ability to buy is based on each individuals actions, the bar maybe high but is open to all, those with poor credit files and improve them and those with goods ones get the first bite of the cherry.
Nonsense.
The bar is not open to all, by definition, most are excluded.
If the number of FTB-s who reached your so called "high bar" doubled tomorrow, banks would have to move the goalposts immediately so they could still reject most of them.
You are promoting a system where by definition most people can never reach that goal. Because if they do, the banks will move them.
That's why it's called "mortgage rationing".
These new restrictions are there for one reason, and one reason only, to shrink the pool of borrowers to match available funding.I am happy to leave it there and agree to disagree if you admit your only interest is further hpi and nothing to do with concern for those who can't buy.
Oh bring it on sunshine.... your hypocrisy on this one is just breathtaking, as MP pointed out here......Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »How ironic to see our dear Percy assume the "I'm allright Jack, pull the ladder up" position when he only got into a home buying position thanks to sharing his personal debts with his other half.
“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 -
Most.... 75%I don't care about the answers to your questions, because they are irrelavant.
Well I guess we agree to disagree then on the relevancy.
Certainly it has to be more relevant than your point belowThe fact it hasn't happened yet in the UK is not relevant, it has happened in the US, it could happen here. That's why the banks are rightly wary.I remember some numpty telling me in the late 80's that house prices would never go down, just because they hadn't gone down in living memory :rotfl:
There is always fluctuations in the housing market, the question is for how long in either direction which affects the trending.
Certainly I'm not aware of a time in the UK where house prices have decreased nominally over the standard term of a mrotgage.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
More irrelvant tosh. Prices decreasing over the "standard term of a mortgage" is totally irrelavant, unless it's an interest only mortgage it'll be paid off then, so who cares?IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Well I guess we agree to disagree then on the relevancy.
Certainly it has to be more relevant than your point below
There is always fluctuations in the housing market, the question is for how long in either direction which affects the trending.
Certainly I'm not aware of a time in the UK where house prices have decreased nominally over the standard term of a mrotgage.
The potential problem is house prices dropping early in the mortgage term and the borrower losing their job, negative equity a few years into the mortgage and the borrower unable to pay.0 -
Why? If you buy shares in a company that goes bust does the taxpayer compensate? I'm not suggesting high street banks do this, more like buying bonds via a stockbroker. A bit like, err, the CDOs which were so popular 6 years ago :rotfl:The issue with that would be that many people who did not fully understand the risks would be attracted by the higher rates. If they invest, when more informed people would say they should not, and end up destitute then it is the tax payer who picks up the pieces.0 -
Most.... 75%More irrelvant tosh. Prices decreasing over the "standard term of a mortgage" is totally irrelavant, unless it's an interest only mortgage it'll be paid off then, so who cares?
The potential problem is house prices dropping early in the mortgage term and the borrower losing their job, negative equity a few years into the mortgage and the borrower unable to pay.
Your straying off topic now with your irrelevance.
Your spouting scenario's of prices dropping going forward that you have no guarantee off.
I've already shown that the average house, bought at peak, on a 100% repayment mortgage, despite the average house being just short of 11% from peak would no longer be in negative equity because of the repayments over the last 5 years.
The discussion was that people losing jobs and income would not be able to pay the mortgage, driving forced sales and price reductions, yet you have not considered how much of an impact during the last 5 years of this economic crash has had as a percentage of owned properties.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »There most certainly is a limit now, and has been since the credit crunch started.
"Credit crunch".
The clue is in the name....
If theres a limit, what is it?0 -
Guarantee of? :rotfl:You really can't be this thick...surely? I raised it as a possibility, not a prediction!IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
Your straying off topic now with your irrelevance.
Your spouting scenario's of prices dropping going forward that you have no guarantee off.
"It didn't happen in the last 5 years so it can't happen in the next 5" :rotfl:Famous last words...I've already shown that the average house, bought at peak, on a 100% repayment mortgage, despite the average house being just short of 11% from peak would no longer be in negative equity because of the repayments over the last 5 years.
The discussion was that people losing jobs and income would not be able to pay the mortgage, driving forced sales and price reductions, yet you have not considered how much of an impact during the last 5 years of this economic crash has had as a percentage of owned properties.0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
Your straying off topic now with your irrelevance.
Your spouting scenario's of prices dropping going forward that you have no guarantee off.
You are doing the exact opposite...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
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards