64% of FTB's have parental help

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

Schrödinger's wotsthat.

Hmmm, doesn't have quite the same ring about it.

Percy1983

Well Hamish does keep stating things as facts with no real evidence.

I will say if what he says is true we need to get it on the front of every paper and the 6 o'clock news on every channel as there would be a national uproar if the truth came out that mortgage applications are nothing to do with the application but a pure lottery based on the second you choose to apply.

...either that or he is just making it up with no real evidence...

wotsthat

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Schrödinger's whatsthat.

Hmmm, doesn't have quite the same ring about it.

I had to look that up and I'm none the wiser...

A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour, one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat mixed or smeared out in equal parts. It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.

So has Graham proved 2001 was the perfect time to buy a house based on a ratio of price, deposit requirement and FTB engagement despite providing no evidence whatsoever? Maybe the point has been proven after all.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

I will say if what he says is true we need to get it on the front of every paper and the 6 o'clock news on every channel as there would be a national uproar if the truth came out that mortgage applications are nothing to do with the application but a pure lottery based on the second you choose to apply.

Do you think each mortgage application is screened by a nice chap with elbow patches on his blazer assessing each application on it's individual merits?

chewmylegoff

wotsthat wrote: »

I had to look that up and I'm none the wiser...



So has Graham proved 2001 was the perfect time to buy a house based on a ratio of price, deposit requirement and FTB engagement despite providing no evidence whatsoever? Maybe the point has been proven after all.

What on earth do you think you're doing posting here after I proved that you are a figment of Sibley's imagination?

chewmylegoff

wotsthat wrote: »

Do you think each mortgage application is screened by a nice chap with elbow patches on his blazer assessing each application on it's individual merits?

If my experience yesterday with HSBC is anything to go by, each individual enquiry is carefully screened by an imbecile who cannot count. An hour and a quarter it took her to tell me what I had already found out on line in 5 minutes and told her at the start of the meeting. The highlight of the meeting was a five minute argument about whether I wanted to borrow the amount I had asked for or £100,000 less the basis for which was that she could not do basic maths. I know now why people commit suicide instead of completing their mortgage applications.

Percy1983

wotsthat wrote: »

Do you think each mortgage application is screened by a nice chap with elbow patches on his blazer assessing each application on it's individual merits?

Nope, I think a computer does a calculation based on you income, the amount you wish to borrow, the amount of time you wish to borrow it over and the state of your credit file.

So if it says yes one day it will say yes again the week after is all the above is the same.

How logical does that sound!

Or you can take hamish, where the above calulation spits out a red or black number which then goes on a roulette wheel.

Mr._Pricklepants

Poor kitty

Percy1983

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Poor kitty

paradox kitty

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Percy1983 wrote: »

Nope, I think a computer does a calculation based on you income, the amount you wish to borrow, the amount of time you wish to borrow it over and the state of your credit file.

True.

So if it says yes one day it will say yes again the week after is all the above is the same.

False.

Banks can and do change their credit scoring criteria on a weekly, and sometimes daily, basis to ration the amount of funds available to lend.

Last year, there was enough funds to lend around 400 mortgages at 90% LTV each month in the UK between all the banks combined.

If they only had 400 applicants that month that met a certain set of credit scoring criteria, then great.

When they had more than 400 applicants, some were shunted down to 85% mortgage offers, and then some of the 85% were shunted down to 80%, and so on, until enough dropped out that the limited available funds were rationed.

Where any individual credit score/risk profile fits within the banks eligibility criteria for any given product changes on a monthly, weekly and even daily basis.

It is entirely possible for banks to offer one LTV product on AIP, and then change it to a worse LTV product by the time it reaches full acceptance, as they've simply run out of funds at the higher LTV.

In fact, we've seen such cases on threads here on MSE.