never rains but always pours - been turned down

PasturesNew

An OPs past history of threads started often gives clues
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/search.html?searchid=18987389

dunstonh

Reading some of those past threads confirms the the OP has had credit problems. Some have included a ballif turning up and payment agreements being set. These were little over 12 months ago. Plus there are posts this month showing ongoing issues and posts about bounced direct debits in July last year.

That would explain the sub-prime. If you are not honest with the mortgage advisers then how can you expect to get honest and accurate advice back?

HelpWhereIcan

Can't help it.... head hurts... fed up of HPC quoting all things American ... have to respond.... sorry right minded MSErs...

GavP wrote: »

"Prime borrowers have a credit score above 620 (credit scores are between 350 and 850 with a median in the U.S. of 678 and a mean of 723),

Unlike the US the National Credit Score here means nothing except as a general guide. Every lender has their own credit scoring process and model

GavP wrote: »

a debt-to-income ratio (DTI) no greater than 75% (meaning that no more than 75% of net income pays for housing and other debt),

75% is horrendous for the UK. The maximum you see here is around 50% and you often find people raising their eyebrows at that level. That is part of the US problem - some of what they called prime lending (let alone sub prime)would be called irresponsible lending here and impossible to place. NINJA mortgages etc

GavP wrote: »

and a combined loan to value ratio of 90%, meaning that the borrower is paying a 10% downpayment.

no indication of whether sub prime (adverse credit) or not. Lots of prime lending is done at 95% or above.

The more accurate term for the UK market (the one we are in) is non conforming. Sub Prime here has purely adverse credit connotations. Stop trying to hijack a thread by incorrectly interpreting a post. The use of sub prime in this thread was only directed at credit history.

GavP wrote: »

Any borrower seeking a loan with less than those criteria is a subprime borrower by Fannie Mae standards."

Obviously posted by someone who has no idea what Fannie Mae is, let alone what influence they have on US lending policy or why.

No relevance to the current UK market - other than we may end up with a similar body in the UK before long. I found it interesting to have a look at the Basel II and CRD to see the effect they have had upon UK lenders' pricing and lending policy.

Walter_J wrote: »

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? They have a vested interest in talking up the housing market! They are moneylenders - therefore they are not to be trusted!

And you have no vested interest in talking the market down ? ... not even to make you look good in the pub or when you post a link back to this on HPC?

Walter_J wrote: »

My credentials as an 'expert' come from having called the top of the market in 1989 when I sold to rent.

In the interests of transparency I take it you are willing to confirm that you did not str in 2003 or 2005 and wisely left it till July 2007... or have tinfoil hats and gold bullion played as big a part in your life as HPC over the last few years.

Walter_J wrote: »

That flat sold again at a price 40% lower in 1994.

In my area the 'average' property was 23% lower in 1996 than it was in 1990 before rising to be worth 2.5 more in 2007 than it was in 1990. The biggest increase was 23% in one year. Just as well most people look long term - especially those looking to buy a place to live.

My main concern in the 1990s was interest rates and how affordable a mortgage was.

Walter_J wrote: »

The house price bubble has grown much bigger this time, and so the crash will be bigger too. My prediction of 40% falls over 5 years is probably on the optimistic side.

Let's hope so. I have some landlords looking for improved rental yields (or are rents going to crash too?).

BTW From Q3 2008 I will be the resident expert on a site that will be constantly calling the bottom of the market and leaping upon every piece of good economic news as proof that I am right before carrying out guerilla missions to various forums to boast about how I have been prediciting the return of 35% pa HPI for the last 5 years so I have been right all along. Anyone care to join my band of followers who I can educate about the 'stupidity' of the Sheeple who see nothing but house prices falling for the next few years?

Sorry everyone. I bite too easily

Pez2

HelpWhereIcan wrote: »

Obviously posted by someone who has no idea what Fannie Mae is, let alone what influence they have on US lending policy or why.

Not sure why you're getting a bee in your bonnet. I know perfectly well what Fannie Mae is, and didn't suggest that it was directly relevant to the UK. However, the term "sub-prime" was exported here from the US and I was simply pointing out what it originally referred to, i.e not just people with a bad credit history but also people with high LTV.

Just because people in the UK think it only means adverse credit don't make it so. Moreover, just because during a credit/property booming mortgage lenders are happy to lend at relatively high LTV doesn't mean that if* things start to turn sour that they won't see those kinds of mortgages as carrying a greater risk and start to charge higher rates accordingly.

(*Note my use of the word if there, before anyone starts accusing me of "talking the market down". I realise that rising property prices is a religion for some and far be it from me to commit the ultimate blasphemy.)

_Andy_

Helpwhereican - fantastic post and saved me typing a similar response!

UK007BullDog

I was going to mention property type might be an issue if it is not of the vanilla flavour UK lenders prefer.

However the past posts of the initial poster clearly show a denial of present debt problems and therefore not being able to get best rates.

HelpWhereIcan

GavP wrote: »

Not sure why you're getting a bee in your bonnet. I know perfectly well what Fannie Mae is, and didn't suggest that it was directly relevant to the UK.

Little pointless posting their definition of sub prime then. Why not use a UK based source or body for their definition of Sub Prime or their classification of High Loan to Value deals?

GavP wrote: »

However, the term "sub-prime" was exported here from the US and I was simply pointing out what it originally referred to, i.e not just people with a bad credit history but also people with high LTV.

Again, the relevence to this thread was whether someone looking for a high ltv mortgage in the UK would get prime rates, not whether Fannie Mae classed them as sub prime.

They will and Fannie Mae classing them as sub prime does not change that.

GavP wrote: »

Just because people in the UK think it only means adverse credit don't make it so.

If you have a problem with things such as Buy to Let, High Loan to value, self cert, fast track etc you should really learn to make your point more intelligently by showing people that you are aware there is more to the market than just an arbitrary Prime/Sub Prime definition.

Your understanding of the effect that house prices and interest rates have on the mortgage market (and the problems that undoubtedly lie therein) would be so much better illustrated if you were able to do more than incorrectly try to use a US definition to refute a valid point made by another poster.

GavP wrote: »

Moreover, just because during a credit/property booming mortgage lenders are happy to lend at relatively high LTV doesn't mean that if* things start to turn sour that they won't see those kinds of mortgages as carrying a greater risk and start to charge higher rates accordingly.

They have always charged a higher rate for higher risk - Like I said, look up Basel II for more info on this and how the mortgage market is changing as a result.

If you had posted something along the lines of

"homer is right that high loan to value mortgages are available at prime rates. However, you should be aware that rates are higher than those for lower loan to value. Having said that, 8-9% does sound high for a prime high loan to value deal. Have you had any adverse credit?"

You would have made your point so much better.

GavP wrote: »

(*Note my use of the word if there, before anyone starts accusing me of "talking the market down". I realise that rising property prices is a religion for some and far be it from me to commit the ultimate blasphemy.)

I think most people accept that drops are to be expected. The scale is disputed, but that does not make your opinion that prices will fall any more or less correct.

What matters in this thread (and most importantly to the OP's situation) is whether you understand how mortgages are priced and underwritten and whether you actually have the practical experience of lenders' criteria and deals to back up your assertions.

Pez2

HelpWhereIcan wrote: »

If you have a problem with things such as Buy to Let, High Loan to value, self cert, fast track etc you should really learn to make your point more intelligently by showing people that you are aware there is more to the market than just an arbitrary Prime/Sub Prime definition.

Why do you assume you know what my opinions are on Buy to Let, High LTV, etc? Maybe my point wasn't as well made as I thought it was, and maybe I was lazy to use a US definition of sub-prime from Wikipedia. Still not sure why you couldn't just say that in a friendly manner instead of going on the attack. But I've been around internet forums for too long to get drawn into arguments over nothing in particular, so let's just leave it at that.