64% of FTB's have parental help

Percy1983

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.



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.



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:

Yet again I am willing to bet if an exact clone of me applied for the same mortgage everyday they would get accept everytime, unfortunately I can't prove this without setting off a few fraud flags.

I will tell you what the bigger difference is, we baught well within the affordability criteria, we have 2 incomes either of which could fully support our way of life. Yet again we got a mortgage with a 10% deposit because we had a good application, not because with what the 3rd thursday of the month after a full moon.

I still see no evidence of this rationing happening, all I see is you saying its heppening with very vague definitions of how and when.

Sounds more like a conspiracy, you can get tin foil hats to sort that out you know.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

I still see no evidence of this rationing happening, all I see is you saying its happening with very vague definitions of how and when.

You do see it happening. You're just calling it a return to sensible lending.

Where you think it's returned to I don't know - when was the last time the average FTB needed a 20% deposit?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Percy1983 wrote: »

we got a mortgage with a 10% deposit because we had a good application, not because with what the 3rd thursday of the month after a full moon.

:rotfl:

Awwww, bless.

You really have convinced yourself, haven't you?

Never mind Percival, one day you'll realise it was all down to blind luck, a mortgage application lottery.

And that the many tens of thousands of people in just as good a financial and credit position as you, but that are rejected for 90% LTV anyway, had equally good applications.

But were just less lucky with their timing....;)

Percy1983

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

:rotfl:

Awwww, bless.

You really have convinced yourself, haven't you?

Never mind Percival, one day you'll realise it was all down to blind luck, a mortgage application lottery.

And that the many tens of thousands of people in just as good a financial and credit position as you, but that are rejected for 90% LTV anyway, had equally good applications.

But were just less lucky with their timing....;)

I am still awaiting your evidence this is happening...

Is the tinfoil hat blocking my words?

I agree lending criteria has got tighter, to which there is many who would have got a mortgage on the old scheme won't get one now, but I see no evidence of this mortgage roulette you talk about.

Do you not even have a story a 2 twins you knew applied within a day of each other for 2 identical sides of a semi detached or such like.

Out of interest was it just luck that I actually had 2 banks offer me the money? and a took the best deal of the 2? they must have both got there rations on the same delivery.

Seriously do you know how silly (and paranoid) the whole thing sounds?

woodgreen2013

One thing is for sure the next generation will not have funds to lend to their kids.

wotsthat

I guess Graham didn't have any data for 2001 and he was just bluffing that the data would show houses were being given away in cornflakes boxes then but they're 'simply' too expensive now.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I guess Graham didn't have any data for 2001 and he was just bluffing that the data would show houses were being given away in cornflakes boxes then but they're 'simply' too expensive now.

You appear to be banging on about this a bit now.

Trouble is, you are now trying so hard, first you accuse me of not having the data and in the vety next breath you are accusing me of bluffing the data.

It's either one or the other. But it cant be both.

The data is all around us by the way. No real point in putting it up, I'm comofortable enough without it.....secondly, you'd only ignore it as per usual and go off on a tangent about facebook credits....you are the same every time a point is proven....so much so, it's pointless proving anything to you.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You appear to be banging on about this a bit now.

Trouble is, you are now trying so hard, first you accuse me of not having the data and in the vety next breath you are accusing me of bluffing the data.

It's either one or the other. But it cant be both.

The data is all around us by the way. No real point in putting it up, I'm comofortable enough without it.....secondly, you'd only ignore it as per usual and go off on a tangent about facebook credits....you are the same every time a point is proven....so much so, it's pointless proving anything to you.

What point has been proven the size of deposit is the major factor stopping people buying. After all the number of people buying with help now is very similar to 2007 and they must meet new affordability standards.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The data is all around us by the way. No real point in putting it up, I'm comofortable enough without it.....secondly, you'd only ignore it as per usual and go off on a tangent about facebook credits....you are the same every time a point is proven....so much so, it's pointless proving anything to you.

What point have you proven? Nothing to do with the OP whatever it is.

chewmylegoff

wotsthat wrote: »

What point have you proven? Nothing to do with the OP whatever it is.

anything can be proved without data. i can prove that you don't actually exist as there is no requirement for me to prove it. i just say "FACT" afterwards and you disappear.

you don't exist...FACT.

see? well, i suppose you don't because you don't exist.

i'm off to collect my nobel prize.