George Osbornes £130bn FFLS

dotdash79

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So many will be in for for a shock if their expecting to remortgage onto a similar rate in the future.

I expect rates to go up, however my LTV will be lower so I should be able to decrease the impact. It gives me 3 years to get myself sorted and in the groove and get my rainy day fund back up.

I've budgeted for rates up to 12% A lot of fun stuff would have to go but I would be able to deal with it.

pricedout_1

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Good stuff.:T
Great to see real world examples of this policy being effective.

In the mean time, we'll just have to ignore the eternal whiner's view on the FFL scheme, such as;

But there are pros AND cons. At the end of the day this is being done to prevent a house price correction which would give more people access to own a home and is using tax payer backed money in order to do this. My arguement is that this maintains the general unaffordable levitation of current house price valuations...

Thrugelmir

hughgallagher wrote: »

But there are pros AND cons. At the end of the day this is being done to prevent a house price correction which would give more people access to own a home and is using tax payer backed money in order to do this. My arguement is that this maintains the general unaffordable levitation of current house price valuations...

Banks would be severely exposed if there were to be a sharp sudden fall in property values. Better to allow the bubble to deflate slowly.

grizzly1911

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Banks would be severely exposed if there were to be a sharp sudden fall in property values. Better to allow the bubble to deflate slowly.

Perhaps Ozzie should just explain that point, as you have done, to the general public openly rather than hide behind we want to increase the ability to borrow etc.

princeofpounds

Is this level of centralised planning and allocation of public funds not tantamount to communism?

The government share of GDP in the uk is about 40%. In some regions it is higher than the average for the Soviet Union, which was only in the upper 40s/lower 50s if I recall correctly.

As much as we like to kid ourselves, it's a pretty socialist society (as are many Western 'liberal' democracies).

pricedout_1

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Banks would be severely exposed if there were to be a sharp sudden fall in property values. Better to allow the bubble to deflate slowly.

No ... what should happen here is what happened in the US ... a sharp drop in prices to sane levels instead of prolonging the lies and deciept. The US now has a much healthier housing market as a result.

michaels

hughgallagher wrote: »

But there are pros AND cons. At the end of the day this is being done to prevent a house price correction which would give more people access to own a home and is using tax payer backed money in order to do this. My argument is that this maintains the general unaffordable levitation of current house price valuations...

Would there be any more houses if prices were lower?

I am guessing not so the only way it would give more people the chance to own their home is if increased the chance that houses were owned by owner occupiers rather than renters. Unless rents fell by more than prices then lower prices would actually increase the return on BTL and increase the potential for capital gains thus making it more likely not less that BTL buyers would outbid owner occupiers.

Surely we need higher rices to encourage more building to increase the stock of homes or am I missing something obvious?

Thrugelmir

hughgallagher wrote: »

No ... what should happen here is what happened in the US ... a sharp drop in prices to sane levels instead of prolonging the lies and deciept. The US now has a much healthier housing market as a result.

USA as a whole is a very different market to the UK. Direct comparisons are meaningless.

wotsthat

hughgallagher wrote: »

No ... what should happen here is what happened in the US ... a sharp drop in prices to sane levels instead of prolonging the lies and deciept. The US now has a much healthier housing market as a result.

Has it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/30/foreclosed-zombie-homes_n_2974263.html

A national survey found 301,874 "zombie" properties dotting the U.S. landscape in which homeowners in foreclosure have moved out, leaving vacant property susceptible to vandalism and degradation.

The number of homes overall in foreclosure or bank-owned rose by 9 percent to 1.5 million properties nationally in the first quarter of 2013 compared to a year ago, according to RealtyTrac.

Another 10.9 million homeowners nationwide remain at risk because they owe more than their property is worth, according to company vice president Daren Blomquist.

Reuters revealed the plight of people who walked away from their homes not realizing that their names remained on the deed and that they were financially liable for taxes and other bills related to the abandoned property.