64% of FTB's have parental help

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Percy1983 wrote: »

I understand what you are saying, prices go up more will get built...but,

where are all the houses which got built in the 2000-2007 boom?

House building increased every year from 2001 to 2007.

If it had not been interrupted by the global credit crunch (which of course had nothing to do with UK lending) and building had continued on the same trajectory, we would now be building enough houses to meet ongoing housing need.

We were so close to meeting housing need, for the first time in decades, it's not even funny.

That anyone can celebrate the appalling setback in house building we've endured since then, simply to avoid a bit of HPI, is just, well, unbelievable.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

About the same being nearly 20% less?

My point is proven.

OK deposit 0.5 of salary instead of 0.6 making it even easier to save deposit compared to now.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

OK deposit 0.5 of salary instead of 0.6 making it even easier to save deposit compared to now.

Yes....see.

BTW, LOVE how you have switched now to using 10% deposits for both years now.

To make the figures work before now, you were using a 20% deposit for today and a 10% deposit for 2002. That's now dropped all of a sudden in favour of 10% deposit for both years!

Just like that, you've switched again in this game of smoke and mirrors

Even WITH your quick switch to massage the figures, it still comes out harder today

I have to say though carper, you will, in the end, always agree to show the figures, unlike others. Just don't know why you start with such cherry picked figures in the first place, as you know full well they are going to get picked up on.

wotsthat

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't know what the equivalent data for 2001 will show. You make it sound like you've got them waiting on the tip of your keyboard waiting to make a killer point - post them - I'll wait.

Come on Graham I'm still waiting. You don't like my figures; you don't like Carper's - let's see yours.

I assume that with all this talk about 2001 & 2002 that you've now understood why 64% of FTB's needed help in 2012 vs 2007 and are trying to derail your own thread.

Percy1983

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

House building increased every year from 2001 to 2007.

If it had not been interrupted by the global credit crunch (which of course had nothing to do with UK lending) and building had continued on the same trajectory, we would now be building enough houses to meet ongoing housing need.

We were so close to meeting housing need, for the first time in decades, it's not even funny.

That anyone can celebrate the appalling setback in house building we've endured since then, simply to avoid a bit of HPI, is just, well, unbelievable.

The problem is it wasn't just 'a bit of HPI' was it, it was massive rampant hpi, and the building you speak of would only have happened if rampant hpi continued, to which I would rather have not enough but affordable housing than enough but only those with equity to cash can afford (ie 70% of homes owned my people like you).

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes....see.

BTW, LOVE how you have switched now to using 10% deposits for both years now.

To make the figures work before now, you were using a 20% deposit for today and a 10% deposit for 2002. That's now dropped all of a sudden in favour of 10% deposit for both years!

Just like that, you've switched again in this game of smoke and mirrors

Even WITH your quick switch to massage the figures, it still comes out harder today

I have to say though carper, you will, in the end, always agree to show the figures, unlike others. Just don't know why you start with such cherry picked figures in the first place, as you know full well they are going to get picked up on.

I have used 10% for 2001 and 2002 and 20% now, in both the earlier years you need to save half as much as you do now and as you are always telling us its almost impossible to save you must see this is having a big impact.

As people only get help with deposit they must earn enough to meet current affordability standards .

It would obviously be easier to buy if prices were lower and I think it would have been better if the boom hadn't happened but we are we are.

Personally I think it would be better if mortgages were available with low deposits say 5% but affordability standards were strictly applied. As people keep telling us demand is the people who can afford to buy not want to buy prices should be kept to a level where people who earn enough can buy and not be forced to rent.

I realise why the banks are lending less and want bigger deposits so I know this is unlikely to happen.

Percy1983

ukcarper wrote: »

I have used 10% for 2001 and 2002 and 20% now, in both the earlier years you need to save half as much as you do now and as you are always telling us its almost impossible to save you must see this is having a big impact.

As people only get help with deposit they must earn enough to meet current affordability standards .

It would obviously be easier to buy if prices were lower and I think it would have been better if the boom hadn't happened but we are we are.

Personally I think it would be better if mortgages were available with low deposits say 5% but affordability standards were strictly applied. As people keep telling us demand is the people who can afford to buy not want to buy prices should be kept to a level where people who earn enough can buy and not be forced to rent.

I realise why the banks are lending less and want bigger deposits so I know this is unlikely to happen.

The banks are current lending quite happily at 10% with strict affordability criteria, anybody can meet the criteria so it is available to all. For the people who can't get them its purely down to decisions they have made, its not the banks fault or due to 'rationing'.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Percy1983 wrote: »

The banks are current lending quite happily at 10% with strict affordability criteria, anybody can meet the criteria so it is available to all. For the people who can't get them its purely down to decisions they have made, its not the banks fault or due to 'rationing'.

That is absolute nonsense Percy.

There are only a few hundred mortgages a month, between all the lenders combined, available at 10% deposits, and when they've gone, they will then offer the remaining people with exactly the same credit scores mortgages at 15% deposits, and when those have gone, 20% deposits, etc.

Until the pool of people able to proceed shrinks to meet the limited funding.

That is rationing, pure and simple, and "sensible lending" or "people's decisions" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I know you like to flatter yourself by thinking that you somehow must have been more sensible than most people because you got a 90% LTV mortgage.

But the reality is, it was pure luck!

Had you applied a day later you might have only been offered a 15% deposit mortgage, or a 20% deposit mortgage, as that is what the banks do when the limited stock of 10% deposit mortgages runs out.

Percy1983

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That is absolute nonsense Percy.

There are only a few hundred mortgages a month, between all the lenders combined, available at 10% deposits, and when they've gone, they will then offer the remaining people with exactly the same credit scores mortgages at 15% deposits, and when those have gone, 20% deposits, etc.

Until the pool of people able to proceed shrinks to meet the limited funding.

That is rationing, pure and simple, and "sensible lending" or "people's decisions" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I know you like to flatter yourself by thinking that you somehow must have been more sensible than most people because you got a 90% LTV mortgage.

But the reality is, it was pure luck!

Had you applied a day later you might have only been offered a 15% deposit mortgage, or a 20% deposit mortgage, as that is what the banks do when the limited stock of 10% deposit mortgages runs out.

Back to another question, when are the rationing periods starting and ending, are you better off applying on a Monday, the 15th of the month, the second sunday of a month, when a distant galaxy aligns?

I am after evidence of this behaviour you keep saying is happening, say in you example I apllied a day later and the ration had gone, why wouldn't they say come back next week/month when the rations are replaced.

I know you hate the fact I prove 90% ltv mortgages are available and possible to get, but to say its just luck is insulting and desperate from your part.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Percy1983 wrote: »

Back to another question, when are the rationing periods starting and ending, are you better off applying on a Monday, the 15th of the month, the second sunday of a month, when a distant galaxy aligns?

Impossible to say.

The banks change their criteria for acceptance every week, sometimes every day, depending on how many applications are coming through and how much money they have to lend.

Always remember Percy, the primary goal of this activity is to reject sufficient applicants at each level of deposit so as to ration limited funds.

I am after evidence of this behaviour you keep saying is happening, say in you example I apllied a day later and the ration had gone, why wouldn't they say come back next week/month when the rations are replaced.

What?

Why would they, when it's to their advantage to lend at lower LTV thanks to the capital withholding requirements?

They'll just punt most people down a notch, until sufficient numbers drop out to match the limited pool of funding.

That's how rationing works.

I know you hate the fact I prove 90% ltv mortgages are available and possible to get, but to say its just luck is insulting and desperate from your part.

We all know it's possible for a lucky few FTB-s to get 10% deposit mortgages.

A few hundred a month get them.

But that doesn't make them anything special.....

Wait, you didn't actually believe that you got one because you were more special than the many thousands of other FTB-s with the same credit scores and income that will be rejected for one, purely down to chance.....

Did you??? :rotfl: