Help to buy? Yes please, say bankers!

Loughton_Monkey

As a taxpayer, we are all 'in the frame' to guarantee these HTB mortgages. As a taxpayer, we are getting something like 0.9% of total mortgage to guarantee 15% of the loan.

Given that scenario, what situation is likely to be better for the taxpayer?

1. Lend 95% to Joe Bloggs who has used his very last penny to get into the house.

2. Lend 95% to Little Lord Rothchild, who is sitting on a minimum of £250K in his cash ISA's, but just happens to take a 95% mortgage (rather than 80%) 'because it's there'?

Given the extra cost of a 95% mortgage, I reckon this (if it happened) would be a case of bankers making money out of bankers.

House Price Doomsters won't have a good word said about HTB.

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The itsy bitsy company being the largest independant estate agency company in the UK?

Que?

I humorously referred to Cenkos Securities as an "itsy-bitsy little securities firm"(*). As far as I'm aware they are not an estate agency company, independant or otherwise, and it would be a waste of time to approach them with a view to selling your house.

It's the chap from the securities firm whose quote is the basis for the Guardian piece. The chap from Haart is only wheeled on to say that they've been very busy so far this month. He doesn't even mention bankers at all.

(* With due apologies to Cenkos Securities. But I've never heard of 'em, and when I looked 'em up they had a market cap of £60 million. Which is the kind of money that Lloyds Bank should be making each and every week.)

chucky

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I read this article with eagerness, expecting some substance to it. But I can summarise it here:

"Some of the people who use help to buy may be bankers."

Well I never!

I guess it must be a very bad slow day for bad news then...

Of course there will be people taking advantage of this scheme, just like every other government scheme there will be people taking advantage.

However, as soon as someone mentions banker it causes frothing at the mouth by the lesser members of our society.

purch

Graham_Devon wrote: »

city bankers

Is it only "City" bankers who are doing this.

Are the one's based in Canary Wharf not involved ?

I was never one of these despised "City" bankers..............we were based in Berkeley Street W1 :eek:

Loughton_Monkey

purch wrote: »

Is it only "City" bankers who are doing this.

Actually, it's "City Workers".

That Mr & Mrs Chaterjee who have been faithfully turning up as contract cleaners at Mansion House for the last 15 years, having done evening shifts as well, having finally saved up £7,500 so that they can buy their 'dream' one bedroom flat just off Brick Lane for £150K are being vilified by the Guardian for taking advantage and 'speculating'.

I don't care how hard they work, and how frugal they have been over 15 years, I think it's disgusting that lowly cleaners should consider it 'OK' to take up a national scheme backed by taxpayers. And I give full marks to the Guardian for pointing this out. I always thought the journalists there were pinko, liberal, namby-pamby, trotskyite, socialists to a man. Seems I was wrong.

chewmylegoff

I'm not sure what the problem is? If person X could have afforded to buy the £600k house with a 25% deposit but decides to use help to buy to buy it with a 5% deposit, whilst person X might be applying more leverage to the house purchase how does that affect anyone else. They don't pay more for the house so the impact on house prices is 0. Isn't this just am overreaction at the use of the word "speculation".

Loughton_Monkey

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I'm not sure what the problem is? If person X could have afforded to buy the £600k house with a 25% deposit but decides to use help to buy to buy it with a 5% deposit, whilst person X might be applying more leverage to the house purchase how does that affect anyone else. They don't pay more for the house so the impact on house prices is 0. Isn't this just am overreaction at the use of the word "speculation".

The Guardian seem to be getting more like Mr Muddle every day. Or is it the other way round? It's just another way of demonstrating hatred for (a) HTB, and (b) that nastiest of all creatures, the 'Banker'.

To get both in the same article is a jackpot. Two for the price of one!

Moby_Tide

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This isn't a pop at bankers per-se, not from my point anyway

Exactly, its not like you specifically mentioned them anywhere rather than any other profession....ah wait....I see what you did there

Thrugelmir

He added: "The interest is so great we predict lenders will need to put a cap on the amount they lend under the scheme."

Seems to know little of how banks operate their lending books!

JencParker

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

As a taxpayer, we are all 'in the frame' to guarantee these HTB mortgages. As a taxpayer, we are getting something like 0.9% of total mortgage to guarantee 15% of the loan.

Given that scenario, what situation is likely to be better for the taxpayer?

1. Lend 95% to Joe Bloggs who has used his very last penny to get into the house.

2. Lend 95% to Little Lord Rothchild, who is sitting on a minimum of £250K in his cash ISA's, but just happens to take a 95% mortgage (rather than 80%) 'because it's there'?

Given the extra cost of a 95% mortgage, I reckon this (if it happened) would be a case of bankers making money out of bankers.

House Price Doomsters won't have a good word said about HTB.

Nothing to do with being a House Price Doomster (or any other HP insert description here.

A scheme to help people get buy their first home is not a bad thing, but to introduce it and increase demand when supply is short without doing anything to address the shortage is IMO a deliberate ploy to keep the cost of housing inflated and a shallow short term policy that will only benefit a few but is hoped will be a vote winner. I can see the benefit of the original HTB on new homes that would encourage building new homes and increase the supply - the new scheme does nothing to address this, but just increases demand so fuelling house prices.