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!
Budget 2013 live....
Comments
-
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »That's a, how can I say this politely, unique definition....
The rest of the population, and certainly those with a modicum of knowledge regarding financial services, would use one a bit more like this....
Subprime refers to the credit quality of a category of borrowers, who have previously impaired credit histories and consequently a greater risk of loan default, than prime borrowers.
Or in the US a few years ago, borrowers with no employment, assets or any chance of repaying. But then it was OK as the government were underwriting the loans.0 -
Or in the US a few years ago, borrowers with no employment, assets or any chance of repaying. .
NINJA loans. Find a crackhead with no job, no assets, no income, and no hope of ever repaying the loan and give him a mortgage for $500,000.
Yep, that's subprime.
Which is why US mortgage default rates for some lenders were north of 1 in 3.
Whereas here in the UK, under this scheme, we'll be lending to people with a reasonable, sensible, historically normal and prudent 5% to 10% deposit, stable employment histories, and good credit histories.
So most certainly NOT subprime.“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: »
Whereas here in the UK, under this scheme, we'll be lending to people with a reasonable, sensible, historically normal and prudent 5% to 10% deposit, stable employment histories, and good credit histories.
So most certainly NOT subprime.
As long as they are prepared to pay for the privilege."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 a, how can I say this politely, unique definition....
The rest of the population, and certainly those with a modicum of knowledge regarding financial services, would use one a bit more like this....
Subprime refers to the credit quality of a category of borrowers, who have previously impaired credit histories and consequently a greater risk of loan default, than prime borrowers.
see my post #221 - i'm not overly interested in getting into an online semantics [word meaning 'what words mean'] debate with a couple of estate agents.
i asked, in all sincerity, whether anyone had seen anything in a broadsheet newspaper arguing that the schemes in question are a good idea. it's trivially easy to answer that question [the question i'm asking being hugely obvious] without nitpicking individual words.FACT.0 -
the_flying_pig wrote: »see my post #221 - i'm not overly interested in getting into an online semantics [word meaning 'what words mean'] debate with a couple of estate agents.
i asked, in all sincerity, whether anyone had seen anything in a broadsheet newspaper arguing that the schemes in question are a good idea. it's trivially easy to answer that question [the question i'm asking being hugely obvious] without nitpicking individual words.
If you think that only people who can come up with 15 or 20% deposits should be able to buy, then I believe you will find that none of the newspaper pundits will agree with you.
Is that what you mean by sub prime?0 -
If you think that only people who can come up with 15 or 20% deposits should be able to buy, then I believe you will find that none of the newspaper pundits will agree with you.
Is that what you mean by sub prime?
putting the "sub prime" issue to one side for a moment, I just want to know what the papers say.
there are four main broadsheets, ranging from left wing [gruaniad] to centre left [indy] to centre right [times] to right wing [torygraph]. do any of them contain any praise for this policy? that's my question. i've barely even scan-read any of them myself.FACT.0 -
the_flying_pig wrote: »i asked, in all sincerity, whether anyone had seen anything in a broadsheet newspaper arguing that the schemes in question are a good idea. it's trivially easy to answer that question [the question i'm asking being hugely obvious] without nitpicking individual words.
I've seen the CBI stating it's a very good idea, though it needs to go further. They wanted funding for lending increased at the same time to go hand in hand with the high loan to value loans.
Some house builders "federation" also thought it was a good idea and would help people buy a home.
The CML appear to back it, though are nervous about creating an artificial boom based on artificial demand.
Most other groups or commentators appear to be worried about the risk this places on the taxpayer, risk of a boom based on it and a risk of getting people into debt at low rates...i.e. what happens when they go up. Though having said that, others have said there is a real chance we have now become Japan and mortgage rates may not increase in our lifetimes again as they won't be allowed to and the taxpayer will simply become the lender in the majority of cases. So who knows.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Though having said that, others have said there is a real chance we have now become Japan and mortgage rates may not increase in our lifetimes again as they won't be allowed to and the taxpayer will simply become the lender in the majority of cases. So who knows.
If the tax payer ends up lending the money aren't they in effect back door council houses of a sort?"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 -
Radio is now implying that u-turns may have to be made on the housing policies.
Not sure what they are, but theres a lot of concern over the looseness of this policy and the effects that may have.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »If the tax payer ends up lending the money aren't they in effect back door council houses of a sort?
... with right-to-buy already built into the deal.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
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards