Help to buy now advertised nationally on TV

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

My original soundbite also mentions the little checking going on.

Thanks for confirming you like posting soundbites.

I'm still waiting for Devon to tell us if he has a problem with Help to Buy if house prices rise. But then again it's normal to run away from discussions.

Percy1983

Well actually I just like posting points which appear to be missing.

To which do you actually have a counter arguement to the point I actually made or just the way I made it?

MFW_ASAP

Percy1983 wrote: »

In short turning up to the bank and saying 'mortgage please' was more or less the only criteria.

I'm sorry Percy, but this is simply not true. I bought a house during the boom (and remortgaged to a new lender) and I bought a house post credit crunch (and remortgaged to a new lender) and all times the process was the same, just as rigid.

While it might have been the case that due diligence was not undertaken on some mortgage applications, this simply is not the case for the vast majority of mortgages.

Percy1983

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I'm sorry Percy, but this is simply not true. I bought a house during the boom (and remortgaged to a new lender) and I bought a house post credit crunch (and remortgaged to a new lender) and all times the process was the same, just as rigid.

While it might have been the case that due diligence was not undertaken on some mortgage applications, this simply is not the case for the vast majority of mortgages.

So if it has always been as rigid, that means the whole idea of mortgage rationing is false?

mayonnaise

Percy1983 wrote: »

So if it has always been as rigid, that means the whole idea of mortgage rationing is false?

Percy, you really should try to differentiate between mortgage rationing due to restriction of the funds supply to lenders (and the cost of it) and stringency of application criteria. It's two wholly different things.

Percy1983

mayonnaise wrote: »

Percy, you really should try to differentiate between mortgage rationing due to restriction of the funds supply to lenders (and the cost of it) and stringency of application criteria. It's two wholly different things.

But don't they work hand in hand?

If there is restricted funds the only way to restrict mortgages is is to make the criteria tougher.

But apprantly the stringency is the same as it was before?

mayonnaise

Percy1983 wrote: »

But don't they work hand in hand?

If there is restricted funds the only way to restrict mortgages is is to make the criteria tougher.

But apprantly the stringency is the same as it was before?

Stringency is (more or less) the same, money supply has increased.
Which means that people with excellent credit files and who pass all affordability criteria and were refused during 2008-2013, now get accepted.

And the myth that mortgages were just available for anyone walking into a bank and asking one pre-2008 is just that, a myth.

MFW_ASAP

Percy1983 wrote: »

So if it has always been as rigid, that means the whole idea of mortgage rationing is false?

I didn't have any problem with arranging a mortgage (or re-mortgage) either pre or post-credit crunch. I assume that as I have a reasonable amount of equity, that I represent a small risk and so have not been subject to mortgage rationing? I therefore cannot comment on mortgage rationing from a personal standpoint.

However, I can comment on the process I went through to obtain a mortgage or a re-mortgage and I can say that they were as stringent before the credit crunch as they have been afterwards. I sincerely doubt that as a lower risk borrower, the mortgage providers applied more rigid controls to myself than they applied to a higher risk borrower with little or no equity.

The only change post-credit crunch that I did see was the withdrawal of interest only wage types, which prevented me from managing my money more efficiently and personally I feel it actually increased my risk levels. This was more to do with government 'nannying' than any real issue with IO mortgages.

Thrugelmir

grizzly1911 wrote: »

There is an election to win after all, don't spare the horses, or the exchequers pockets whilst we still have our hands in them

My concerns are for the wider economy. Politicians come and go. Hopefully we have another coalition. As stops the nonense we've endured for the past few decades.