High deposit/bad credit lenders....

ElCapitanoII

What is the market in very high deposits (70% to 90%, secure employment and easy affordability) and bad credit history like? From a strictly business perspective there is a lot less risky involved than a lot of people with impeccable credit and a 20% deposit in these uncertain times so it would at least seem as though interest rates offered should be competitive.

Are there any lenders that spring to mind that cater for these situations or do they all?

Thanks in advance for any insights.

GMS

Is this a residential or commercial transaction?

How much are you looking to borrow?

What is the bad credit exactly and when?

Income(s)?

A lender cannot advance funds on the basis of them 'being safe'. They need to demonstrate affordability and responsible lending.

Thrugelmir

The risk to a lender is that if the borrower defaults then all the profit is lost. As mortgage lending is priced on very low margins. The fact that the debt is ultimately recovered is neither here nor there.

amnblog

If you are talking heavy or recent adverse the market is so slim it is almost transparent.

ElCapitanoII

Thanks for the replies. There wouldn't be an issue with affordability (demonstrable) and we'd be able to buy the property (main home) outright if we wanted anyway.

I'd like to give a lender the opportunity to earn some money in these hard times ( ) and also build up a relationship with them for once the post-credit crunch fallout debt is past expiry.

GMS

You need to answer the questions if you want any help.

Without details of the adverse there are no answers.

ElCapitanoII

Thanks, yes of course that makes sense and I'll see a financial advisor about the nuts and bolts of my own situation.

I was interested in the general market sentiment regarding, in disagreement with Thrugelmir's assessment of risk (which could almost be equally applied to someone simply switching lenders or redeeming early (in which case those with the best credit rating would be high risk because they would have access to the best deals)), secured lending on practically risk free terms to someone who happens to have bad credit. I mean the reason I have bad credit in the first place is because of the credit crunch which wasn't my fault the last time I checked.

GMS

You asked a question which cannot be answered without you providing further information which you don't want to provide.

You can disagree with people and say none of the bad credit is your fault. Whether right or wrong the lender will want to know how, why and when it occurred.

The details of the adverse are crucial so until you provide it you will not get any accurate assistance on here.

With adverse though a broker is crucial

ElCapitanoII

Thanks for your reply, the thread was more intended for 'information and discussion purposes' as indicated by the signatures of mortgage advisers such as yourself. It would be helpful to future searchers to reveal what the situation would be if the bad debt age/quantity/type/settled status was x, y or z.

amnblog did provide an answer for heavy/recent bad debt which is very helpful. I don't however know how 'recent' or 'heavy' is quantified.

I can understand the reluctance not to distil this down to a set of conditional statements and/or an algorithm too.

All the best.

Thrugelmir

ElCapitanoII wrote: »

I was interested in the general market sentiment regarding, in disagreement with Thrugelmir's assessment of risk (which could almost be equally applied to someone simply switching lenders or redeeming early (in which case those with the best credit rating would be high risk because they would have access to the best deals)), secured lending on practically risk free terms to someone who happens to have bad credit. I mean the reason I have bad credit in the first place is because of the credit crunch which wasn't my fault the last time I checked.

Never is the borrowers fault. At least from their own perception. However a situation is arrived at. It's happened due to something. Which more often or not is after a whole series of choices and decisions on the part of the borrower. In themselves taking a high risk strategy rather than a more cautious one.

Borrowers themselves fall into distinct groups themselves. Statistically those that default are likely to do so again in the future. That's human nature and the persons genes. Hence why an extended period of time is an ideal way of indicating a change of attitude.

ElCapitanoII

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Never is the borrowers fault. At least from their own perception. However a situation is arrived at. It's happened due to something. Which more often or not is after a whole series of choices and decisions on the part of the borrower. In themselves taking a high risk strategy rather than a more cautious one.

Borrowers themselves fall into distinct groups themselves. Statistically those that default are likely to do so again in the future. That's human nature and the persons genes. Hence why an extended period of time is an ideal way of indicating a change of attitude.

Of course in the case of macro, inherently unpredictable events such as the credit crunch, or wholesale outsourcing and/or automation of your particular sector/department/company being a reality it could be argued that one should not have any credit which would not be repayable should you end up earning a lot closer to the minimum wage than you do at the moment going forward - after the emergency savings fund runs out. So everybody gambles on these real events not happening - borrowers and lenders alike.

Having bad credit is therefore not necessarily an indication of the extent of the risk taken or of behaviour or even of a decision making process not engaged in by the vast majority of people. We humans unfortunately do have a propensity to credit ourselves for events and outcomes that are essentially down to luck rather than individual prowess.

So I suppose an alternative perspective could be of two groups of gamblers with identical financial commitments with one set currently on a lucky streak criticising the others who have lost most of their money because clearly they didn't wear lucky socks or pat their heads three times before the cards were dealt and so can't meet repayments.

Baah, pesky humans!