No money no problem 100% mortgages are back in attempt to keep bubble inflating

idkwhattosay

Ban BTL (owning more than one home where you live) mortgages and there's your housing crisis problem solved.

CLAPTON

idkwhattosay wrote: »

Ban BTL (owning more than one home where you live) mortgages and there's your housing crisis problem solved.

how does that create more houses or reduce the number of people living in them?

Garethgrew

Looks like the final death throngs of an exploding bubble.......

Conrad

Generali wrote: »

Will nobody think of the landlords?

Oh the humanity.

I was discussing this with a broker the other day. I asked her whether B2L lender reps are hammering down her door asking where the new cases are, given my expectation this tightening of B2L criteria is going to reduce the number of applications.


We both expect lenders will soon back-track - I've seen this so many times - as their monthly sales targets start getting missed.


When all said and done these organisations are sales generators, not compliance organs that get rewarded for missing sales targets.

Conrad

Garethgrew wrote: »

Looks like the final death throngs of an exploding bubble.......

No chance, you need a significant external shock to drive a crash - this was my very argument back in 2005/6 - and it was a credit crunch that provided that jolt in 2007.


I think the UK market has way more to go, the entire world wants bit of London / UK real estate, and the population rise in London and the SE if anything will accelerate for all sorts of reasons, to include the Muslim Mayor effect on places such as Pakistan and Bangladesh (underestimate at your peril), afterall they all want one of Khans 'homes for Londoners'

cells

mwpt wrote: »

But won't someone think of the poor tenants. Before BTL became dinner conversation they were living under bridges, making soup from moss and stones. This tax will return them to the dark times.

Before BTL. Or rather let's say before 1990. The stock of social homes as a percentage was greater.

Some will see social homes as fantastic but I would recommend going on YouTube and typing hackney social homes to see documentaries filmed in the 1970s and 1990s to look at the reality. In one the social tenants were complaining to the councilor that if a private tenant had to live like they did the landlord would be in jail but since it was the council they were forced to endure.

Also back then there were much fewer single person households.


So if you want or think a return to 1990s is desirable you are going to need

1 about 3 million more social homes
2 somehow to force a lot of single person households to convert to dual and triple people households.

Neither of which is remotely possible. So you simply can't turn the clock back. If you try to do it (say you put stamp duty on second homes from +3% to +30%) you will rapidly form a real hosuong crysis (the type were people are sleeping under park benches rather than complaining that prices in London are too high)

Pete9501

cells wrote: »

Neither of which is remotely possible. So you simply can't turn the clock back. If you try to do it (say you put stamp duty on second homes from +3% to +30%) you will rapidly form a real housing crysis (the type were people are sleeping under park benches rather than complaining that prices in London are too high)

Or encourage BTL Landlords to sell. Perhaps scrap any capital gains taxes for a couple of years in return for them not buying more properties for those years.

Then to encourage them even a little more, don't ban them, just carry on taxing them till they squeak.

Hmm, not a bad idea, must write to the Chancellor again. I know he won't see it, but one of his minions who is trying to go places might take it up as his own idea and hey presto up the gravy chain it goes

Generali

Conrad wrote: »

I was discussing this with a broker the other day. I asked her whether B2L lender reps are hammering down her door asking where the new cases are, given my expectation this tightening of B2L criteria is going to reduce the number of applications.


We both expect lenders will soon back-track - I've seen this so many times - as their monthly sales targets start getting missed.


When all said and done these organisations are sales generators, not compliance organs that get rewarded for missing sales targets.

i agree.

My experience of banking is that this sort of compliance change means you chase different clients: FTBs rather than BTLers for example.

cells

Pete9501 wrote: »

Or encourage BTL Landlords to sell. Perhaps scrap any capital gains taxes for a couple of years in return for them not buying more properties for those years.

Then to encourage them even a little more, don't ban them, just carry on taxing them till they squeak.

Hmm, not a bad idea, must write to the Chancellor again. I know he won't see it, but one of his minions who is trying to go places might take it up as his own idea and hey presto up the gravy chain it goes

The problem with the idea of renters becoming owners and everyone lives happily ever after with rainbows and unicorns is that it wont work its a simple math equation

Let me give you an example. I have a house with 4 teachers in their 20s. Two women two men. Lets say two of them got together and formed a couple and I was compelled to sell. I sell and the couple buys. What happens to the other two teachers who are now evicted by the owner occupiers?

Repeat this across say half a million homes in London. its fantastic you have converted half a million rentals to owners but what about the now 1 million people who were living densely as renters who have been evicted? Where will they go?


Either

1: 500,000 homes are built in London at a price they can afford so as to house them. Do you think this at all possible? (this building is on top of the current building needed)

2: That these 1,000,000 evicted people would have no choice but to move into the rentals that remain. These rentals would become very densely occupied as A: the rental stock has shrunk by 500k units and B: there are now 1 million more renters to squeeze into the stock that remains


There are also many secondary effects which i am sure you have not considered. For example if house prices were forced to crash artificially then build rates will plummet. If rents were pushed down artificially then more people would want to move to London (how will that work?)

Filo25

Garethgrew wrote: »

Looks like the final death throngs of an exploding bubble.......

Why exactly?

The bank still has 10% security against the loan, I'm not sure I see the issue on this product, good marketing for the bank though.