Mortgage rates rise for second time in days

LillyJ

!!!!!!? wrote: »

10% is an absolute minimum. Anything above that means you can get a more favourable rate.

I think you'll find that if you have a 10% deposit you can still get quite a decent deal even now as, and it bears to be emphasised, interest rates are still remarkably low.

It's just that the public have become hooked on no-deposit, 'unfeasibly low fixed rates for 2 years and then a remortgage' products.

Well in my opinion people should have had 10% deposit the whole time. We had 10% and have got a pretty good mortgage deal with no issues whatsoever. I also think banks should assess affordability on the SVR to make sure people can afford it if they can't remortgage.

All I am saying is if the credit crunch gets worse, 10% may be no where near enough to get a mortgage. Whilst this will push prices down, it will lead to FTBs being unable to take advantage of the low prices.

LillyJ

!!!!!!? wrote: »

They weren't 'laughing' for about a decade as that's how long it took on average for prices to return to the same levels. I don't imagine that years of negative equity and struggling to meet high repayments for an overblown loan were much fun in the meantime. :rolleyes:

I certainly wouldn't wish that on anyone which is why I've been blowing the trumpet for not buying at the present time, for some time now.

But why would negative equity affect them? They didn't sell. And in those days they didn't remortgage! As far as I am aware none of them had any problems repaying their mortgages as they had high earnings. (my dad was the accountant for half of them so I had a pretty good idea when someone we knew was in trouble as they were seeing our dad a lot).

They may not have even realised their house price went down, and it never affected them. They now have a nice little million pound pension fund, and are moving out of the south east to buy a cheaper house now their kids have moved out.

Stevenic

!!!!!!? wrote: »

I'm sure we'll be quids in by the peak of the next boom.

This is one of your best posts, as you seem to understand that while Governments sit on their hands 'Boom and Bust' is the cycle we're in. For all of your doom and gloom posts now I'm sure that once you have actually bought your home and BTL you'll be cheering on HPI like there is no tomorrow. :rolleyes:

MUDGUTS

smk77 wrote: »

If you really saw this coming and that were that prepared then you would have bought 10 years ago, sold last year and would now be sitting in rented accomodation waiting for a house price drop with a MASSIVE deposit!

Not if he was 13 ten years ago

LillyJ

Stevenic wrote: »

This is one of your best posts, as you seem to understand that while Governments sit on their hands 'Boom and Bust' is the cycle we're in. For all of your doom and gloom posts now I'm sure that once you have actually bought your home and BTL you'll be cheering on HPI like there is no tomorrow. :rolleyes:

I agree. I personally think stagnation then a rise with inflation is the best thing for everyone all round.

He will be on here in 4 years when he has bought saying "quick, buy now, take 125% mortgages, you HAVE to buy now or you will miss out!"

LillyJ

MUDGUTS wrote: »

Not if he was 13 ten years ago

I also doubt he would have seen it coming at 13!

Stevenic

LillyJ wrote: »

I agree. I personally think stagnation then a rise with inflation is the best thing for everyone all round.

I would like to think that the current FTB'ers would want house prices to increase at a sustainable rate over a long period of time so that the current 13 year olds will be able to get on the housing ladder in 10 years time but I fear that once these people are on they will happily draw up the bridge and become the next generation of HPI bores.

$$$_12

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

70% deposit for what?
A house?
Where?
London? Middlesbrough? Lancashire? Turkey?

GG

A 2BR house with a garden in the Leeds(ish) area. I have no interest in anything smaller (or much bigger as council tax etc is only going to increase massively over the next few years). Alternatively plan B is to buy a chunk of land in South East Asia (rellies out there - but frankly I prefer the UK climate).

It hasn't been easy getting it together though - it's involved a lot of belt tightening over the last 3 years and a fair bit of luck (extremely cheap and nasty rented accommodation in London before I moved out).

But even a 10% deposit at today's prices will be worth a lot more in the future if prices continue to fall.

PasturesNew

LillyJ wrote: »

Precisely. Only someone who DIDN'T know what was coming would not have bought 10 years ago. If he had, and had sold last year, Zammo would have a hell of a lot more than 40% deposit right now.

Well, it would depend if the house to be bought was the same one back again...

For me, I bought 8 years ago, sold 1 year ago.
To buy that house back at the same price I'd need a 24% mortgage. But as it had 6 bedrooms and my next house will have 1-2 I will be paying cash.

My original plan was "buy the biggest I can, cling on grimly until I have to let go, then bank and downsize".

PasturesNew

LillyJ wrote: »

Well in my opinion people should have had 10% deposit the whole time.

When I bought in 2000 I put down a 27% deposit and was only allowed to borrow 2.5x my earnings.