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!
Help To Buy - Overwhelmingly popular with voters
Comments
-
How.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Completely different scenario.
Didn't the US government buy up the bundled rubbish and give the lenders new capital to squander again and again?
If the lenders hadn't been able to sell the dross they wouldn't have peddled it."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 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »How.
Didn't the US government buy up the bundled rubbish and give the lenders new capital to squander again and again?
If the lenders hadn't been able to sell the dross they wouldn't have peddled it.
Because we're not talking about "dross", "sub-prime" or "bundled rubbish".
We're talking about highly creditworthy applicants meeting strict affordability tests at LTV ratio's that have historically been proven sensible, prudent and safe.“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 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Didn't the US government buy up the bundled rubbish and give the lenders new capital to squander again and again?
No Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and the like sold on it onto unsuspecting investors in Germany and Japan. While covering their own positions by reinsuring through AIG. Many had realised the poor quality of the back in 2003. Long before the bust.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Because we're not talking about "dross", "sub-prime" or "bundled rubbish".
We're talking about highly creditworthy applicants meeting strict affordability tests at LTV ratio's that have historically been proven sensible, prudent and safe.
But if we apply sensible LTVs and affordability criteria we don't get the volume you are looking for. Even underwriting it only helps a little and simply increases the price.
Only by applying lax criteria will we revert to anything like the volumes you are hoping for and they will still be insufficient, as they were pre crash."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 -
Indeed standards of living are relative.
We are extremeley fortunate to have one of the highest standards of living in the world, which are in no way comparable with indentured servitude.
I guess it depends on which rung of the relativity ladder you stand on.
Never mind keep their nose to the grindstone let make them realise just how lucky they are reactively. At least some more house s can be sold."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 -
More people on the property ladder and some yummy house price rises for everyone else. How could it not be popular?Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0
-
grizzly1911 wrote: »I guess it depends on which rung of the relativity ladder you stand on.
Never mind keep their nose to the grindstone let make them realise just how lucky they are reactively. At least some more house s can be sold.
meaningless utter rubbish
do you really think people in the UK at the moment are worse off than indentured labour?
either yes or no would be a good answer0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »I guess it depends on which rung of the relativity ladder you stand on.
It certainly does.
Why do we always have to compare ourselves to 3rd world nations when it comes to these discussions? It's like the trump card pulled out at every sticky point in the discussion.
None of us live in 3rd world nations and neither does any of the conversations anything to do with 3rd world nations, therefore, it isn't at all relevant to the discussion.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »But if we apply sensible LTVs and affordability criteria we don't get the volume you are looking for. .
Nonsense.
If we reverted to historically normal, sensible and prudent lending standards today, volume would soar.
We don't have that.
We have absurdly tight lending designed to reject sufficient applicants so as to ration limited funds.“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: »Nonsense.
If we reverted to historically normal, sensible and prudent lending standards today, volume would soar.
We don't have that.
We have absurdly tight lending designed to reject sufficient applicants so as to ration limited funds.
Perhaps because the perceived risk as correctly acknowledged again.
Which part of the curve would you like us to treat as normal the bit when 95%/100% and 5+x income multipliers with interest only?
The point where increases in income were comfortably ahead of inflation?
Real incomes are falling for many, disposable incomes are falling for many. In large parts of the country house prices are falling in real terms. We still have 0.5% BOE which will only go one way.
Perhaps 80/90% LTV is the the new normal. Perhaps it was more normal further down the curve."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
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards