"Affordability" - the new endowment?

dwsjarcmcd

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

I agree with eatmyfish - people need to take personal responsibility for their actions. IMHO. I also don't see why someone who has bothered to reply to your post, albeit with a different response from what you were hoping for, should be a troll? Am happy to know why you consider that to be. Your posting did ask for answers!

Regards
Jen

Couldn't agree more with Jen and eatmyfish. What a ridiculous reply by the OP. Everyone's fault but yours and there will be quite a few 'trolls' around disagreeing with you

eatmyfish

meanmachine wrote: »

I'm talking about how high street lenders *claim* to use a complex system of affordaiblity criteria to work out the MAXIMUM someone can afford.

Clearly that is total nonsense since this particular lender is prepared to offer me more this year than last even though I can afford to borrow much less.

It really isn't that difficult to grasp.

In truth banks will now saddle you up with as much debt as they can get away with - before bad publicity and bad debts hit home.

What I object to is that they make claims, and still give the appearance of being patriarchal organisations when of course they're mercenary profit machines.

I actually agree with you, you've summed up the situation perfectly
But the obvious logical step is to buy bank shares and get share of that profit, N'est pas?

meanmachine_2

dwsjarcmcd wrote: »

Couldn't agree more with Jen and eatmyfish. What a ridiculous reply by the OP. Everyone's fault but yours and there will be quite a few 'trolls' around disagreeing with you

No, it's not the reply I object to.

Although clearly you'd happily have gun shops on every street corner? After all, people are free to make their own mistakes, right?

Why do we need any form of protection from big business?

Er, and also, why are you on a consumer revenge website in the first place?

dwsjarcmcd

meanmachine wrote: »

No, it's not the reply I object to.

Although clearly you'd happily have gun shops on every street corner? After all, people are free to make their own mistakes, right?

Why do we need any form of protection from big business?

Er, and also, why are you on a consumer revenge website in the first place?

Jibberish and this is not soley consumer revenge website it is about money saving and education

meanmachine_2

dwsjarcmcd wrote: »

Jibberish and this is not soley consumer revenge website it is about money saving and education

Now who's the troll?

Care to look at the VERY TOP OF THIS WEBSITE?

What does it say. Read v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y.

EDIT: AAh, you edited your reply very quickly I see.

CYBERCIDERSAVER

1. These so called "responsible" institution like banks are all here to make money.

2. If these companies are not to blame at all, then how can they offer differing amounts to the same person? surely there is a limit? no it's all about weighing up the risk.

So when they offer you a ridiculous amount, they are gambling on you. Treating you like a horse in a race.

Also if there was a limit on the amount they could lend, (ie NOT 5 x like some lenders) then maybe that would help limit demand and therefore house prices.

Just random thoughts. Feel free to shoot them down

dolce_vita

meanmachine wrote: »

I'm talking about how high street lenders *claim* to use a complex system of affordaiblity criteria to work out the MAXIMUM someone can afford.

Clearly that is total nonsense since this particular lender is prepared to offer me more this year than last even though I can afford to borrow much less.

It really isn't that difficult to grasp.

In truth banks will now saddle you up with as much debt as they can get away with - before bad publicity and bad debts hit home.

What I object to is that they make claims, and still give the appearance of being patriarchal organisations when of course they're mercenary profit machines.

What the OP has described here and in their first post is designed by the banks to get as many people as possible onto the money-go-round before it comes to a grinding halt.

It is typical end of bubble activity and through fear of "missing the boat", many people will be seduced by these and other schemes.

Other things to look out for are shared-ownership, 125% mortgages, 5,6,7 times salary mortgages, 30 year mortgages etc.....
All of these tell you that affordability is way off historical averages and something will have to give.

My money is on house prices coming down.

meanmachine_2

CYBERCIDERSAVER wrote: »

1. These so called "responsible" institution like banks are all here to make money.


Just random thoughts. Feel free to shoot them down

I agree.

Your "friendly" banks and building societies are nothing of the kind.

Jennifer_Jane

meanmachine wrote: »

Er, because all their other posts have been troll bait?

OK - I assume you know eatmyfish better than I do, so I cannot comment on your response to me, except that it is sarcastic and lacks charm.

Have you actually been accepted for the £205000 by Alliance & Leicester or is it just a 'selling' communication that you have received? ie have Alliance & Leicester done their credit checks on you?

In truth, no-one has ever felt that I was worth offering more than £5000 to, so you must have a very different risk profile to me.

Regarding the gun shop on every corner, this is a spurious debate. Guns are designed to kill. Offering somebody the choice of whether they take a large loan is not. Your choice! We live in a capitalist society with a mixed economy.

Jim_B_3

To add fuel to the fire, if someone comes to me to buy a car (who really doesn't know about cars and engines and so forth, but I market myself as someone you can trust to take care of that sort of thing for you when looking at your options), giving me lots of information to help me work out which car is best for them, and then I go and sell them something utterly unsuitable to line my own pockets, I'd expect to be investigated and shut down.

Why should it be different if I'm selling them a mortgage?