Help to Buy is nothing but an election ploy....

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Apparently, according to the radio, Mark Carney has now come out and suggested he does not see Help to Buy increasing the supply of houses as there are too many other factors in play.

It's apparently his "first blow" to Osbournes flagship scheme.

It'll be interesting to see what he actually said (if anything)

I've said all along HTB will be judged on any additional supply. Despite the hysterics (yours included) about price bubbles etc. the figures to date don't indicate a house building boom has been initiated due to HTB.

It's where the debate should have been from the start.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Apparently, according to the radio, Mark Carney has now come out and suggested he does not see Help to Buy increasing the supply of houses as there are too many other factors in play.

It's apparently his "first blow" to Osbournes flagship scheme.

Oh bother!

Looks like we'll just have to put up with even bigger rises in house prices.

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

To quote Wikipedia:

"A bailout is a colloquial pejorative term for giving a loan to a company or country which faces serious financial difficulty or bankruptcy"

Now as shown, I had no difficultly servicing my debts so the word bailout isn't the correct term.

As said I have never denied my wife to be and I (at the time) switched debts between us to reduce interest payments, this was done purely to expedite debt clearance for both of us (to then buy a house) not due to any of us being in financial touble and needing a bailout. If the action wasn't taken I would still have got to a debt free state without intervention. The difference being the debt free date would have been much later.

So would you agree bailout isn't the correct term?

Perfect Percy, that's just perfect.

Now that we have established that home owners weren't bailed out we can see that it is exactly the same as you done but you still point the finger at people when you have done the same thing.

Percy1983 wrote: »

I must say I am also mean spirited by your standards, I don't want 15% interest rates and a massive fallout, but I want a more 'normal' interest rate to which there will be some fallout. With that if I can't afford something I don't expect to keep it so why should overstretch home owners keep there homes? yes its unfortunate but it has to happen, we can't bail them out forever... can we?

Percy1983 wrote: »

Will be interesting to see how many on the edge have been saved by the drop and how many will be back over the edge if it rises.

Of course those with trackers are doing great but many on SVR's will be doing well too.

I am not buying just yet but I would rather rates rise before I do as right now the deals are base +4-5% to which I would arther have a higher base and lower margin. The way I see it as a buyer is the only way is up and with the potential off further house price drops I will be paying most attention to what the SVRs.

I am only getting 3% on my saving right now which is a bit annoying too, why should my savings suffer to bail the overstetched out?

As I said Percy you have double standards and are happy to do what others have done but think it's ok when you do it.

Percy1983

chucky wrote: »

Perfect Percy, that's just perfect.

Now that we have established that home owners weren't bailed out we can see that it is exactly the same as you done but you still point the finger at people when you have done the same thing.


As I said Percy you have double standards and are happy to do what others have done but think it's ok when you do it.

Still failing to see your point, as said by myself I would like interest rates to go back to 'normal' (say 4-5%).

Back to your saying its a double standard, if rates go back to normal many will be just fine, as with my case if my plan failed (say relationship breakdown or such) everything would have return back to the old rates and I would still be fine.

Now here is the point, if I had been bailed out of an impossible situation and rates went back I would be back in trouble which would be fair enough.

Likewise those who have been bailed out by the low rates (those who over borrowed) may suffer if rates go back to normal, if this happens so be it.

I was never bailed out (see definition above) so in my case a return to old rates wouldn't have pushed me over the edge.

So how is it a double standard to say its fair enough if rates return to normal some over indebted people may suffer and this would be fair?

Would you agree, I was never bailed out if you go with the actual definition of a bail out (back to the buckets bailing out the water of a sinking ship)?

cepheus

Government hides risks of controversial Help to Buy scheme

Ministers are refusing to publish the Government’s own risk assessment into its flagship housing policy, it emerged last night – triggering suspicions that they are trying to cover up official warnings that the scheme will endanger the British economy.

A string of independent housing experts have publicly warned that Help to Buy, launched by George Osborne in this year’s Budget to give people a lift on to the property ladder, will overheat the housing market and “detonate a bomb” under the British economy.

Loughton_Monkey

cepheus wrote: »

Government hides risks of controversial Help to Buy scheme

Ministers are refusing to publish the Government’s own risk assessment into its flagship housing policy, it emerged last night – triggering suspicions that they are trying to cover up official warnings that the scheme will endanger the British economy.

A string of independent housing experts have publicly warned that Help to Buy, launched by George Osborne in this year’s Budget to give people a lift on to the property ladder, will overheat the housing market and “detonate a bomb” under the British economy.

I've managed to get sight of a leaked document for that risk assessment. Very well worded but I don't see why Gideon should show it to the smelly brigade on the other benches.

Here it is:

Gideon,

I've done the risk assessment you asked for. The Help to Buy one. Here is the executive summary:

Basically, Gideon, you're stuffed! You didn't reduce benefits quickly enough or throw all the public dead wood onto the scrap heap where they belong. So borrowing is going to cost you an arm and a leg.

What you are suggesting is to bung a few quid into the housing market. First of all get the youngsters buying new houses only, and you buy part of it for them. This is a brilliant idea because you can put all the 'spending' in the capital account so it's not spending. Johnny Builder will dust off his JCB's and gladly offer the supply side. You can screw these poor people down when they come to buy the share back again. Good on you. No risk there.

The plan for guaranteeing £600K mortgages for everyone else is also brilliant. Punter pays the guarantee insurance. House Price Inflation pumps back up to record levels. Johnny Builder throws them up at a lightening rate. Huge profits all round.

Embarrassingly large profits on Mortgage Guarantee swells the coffers of the banks as owner equity hits the roof. Then bung up interest rates - steady as she goes - to soak up all the real pay rises that will, by then, start to come through. Punters will feel richer even though they aren't.

Bit of a master stroke, really. HTB2 will pump up prices so high to (a) win you the next election, (b) ensure that HTB1 costs you nothing at all.

The risk is Johnny Builder going too fast too soon. Could dry up the market and have all those bricklayers messing up the dole queues again. So just keep squeezing those planning monkeys and make sure they don't push it too far. We reckon you've got until about 2018 to ride on a high before there's a lull. Punters will have forgotten all about HTB by then - especially if you can keep a gag on that Carney boy. He's your main risk. Just stop him spouting all that cautionary nonsense.

Take the boy out to lunch. Tell him he's not a card-carrying Labour supporter so stop behaving like one! Remind him who controls the pay and rations. Issue a Green Paper moving 70% of the boy's responsibilities to OBR, and wave it up his nose over the brandies. He'll get the drift.....

So in summary, the advice is "steam ahead".

Graham_Devon

I thought there wasn't an official risk assessment and that they were leaving that to the BOE?

At least that's what Osbourne suggesed some time back in an interview, while suggesting, try as he might, he simply can't see any bubbles.

Now there was one...but they don't want the rest of us to see it?

the_flying_pig

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I thought there wasn't an official risk assessment and that they were leaving that to the BOE?

At least that's what Osbourne suggesed some time back in an interview, while suggesting, try as he might, he simply can't see any bubbles.

Now there was one...but they don't want the rest of us to see it?

Hilarious. Well, kinda.

Dave in 2011:

"I think we should remember how far we’ve come. We inherited an economy built on the worst deficit, the biggest housing bubble, the most leveraged banks, the most indebted households..."

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2011/04/camerons-other-speech/

Two and a half years on, well...

cepheus

I thought it was going to be stopped anyway for mortgages?

Reconsider Help to Buy, Cable says

The government's Help to Buy scheme to lift the housing market should be reconsidered, according to Business Secretary Vince Cable

Masomnia

cepheus wrote: »

I thought it was going to be stopped anyway for mortgages?

Reconsider Help to Buy, Cable says

The government's Help to Buy scheme to lift the housing market should be reconsidered, according to Business Secretary Vince Cable

You're thinking of funding for lending, I think.

I hope they do reconsider.