Government Mortgages

homer_j_3

£200 million has been allocated to help buy up some social housing today so its looking like they are trying to make a small inroad into this

buck2001

toonfish wrote: »

what an utterly stupid idea - £50bn would allow a tiny handful of folk to buy a property at the expense of everyone else wo is paying market rates.

It's not stupid! It's only stupid if those on market rates didn't switch to a gov. rate!
What were talking about here is stabalising the market.
My kids, who earn next to nothing, will not suddenly get a mortgage because it's only at 3-4% interest rate; they can't suddenly afford a mortage because the rate is low; that's utterly stupid!
What they might do is get a mortgage that they could afford, as people currently do according to earnings etc. and then they would be safe in the kowledge that it wouldn't rise to.. ooo 14%, at the whims of the greedy bankers, so they could safely get on the property ladder.
Creating low mortgage rated gov. backed mortgages engenders stability and would stp the likes of this moronic, incompetent sub-prime fiasco!

buck2001

ManAtHome wrote: »

Sounds like a good idea - throw taxpayer's money at the housing market... Banks do a bit more than mortgages you know - why should we prioritise greedy speculators over genuine businesses?

I thik you'll find that the "genuine businesses" as you call them are the greedy speculators hence the sub-prime disaster we are suffering now.

What has the banks other business got to do with anything? My understanding, from years and years of governments telling me, is that competition makes for a better deal for customers! OK, lets get the gov. in on the competition and see if it makes the banks operate in a more responsible way.

In answer to your question, we should prioritise people over banks because its the people that are suffering, losing homes etc. because of the banks incompetences and greed.

buck2001

dunstonh wrote: »

We had that in the UK before. It was called MIRAS and it helped fuel the last house price boom (which ended in a crash). Do we really need another attempt to push house prices up?

It's not stable, cheap mortgages that fuel house booms it's irresponsible banks that offer 5 times salaries to people over 35 years and tell people they can afford it and, unfortunately, silly people who also think they can afford it.

buck2001

mr_fishbulb wrote: »

It will artificially allow the prices to continue to increase and then you will get into the same situation in a few years time where 3-4% is too much and people will be demanding 1-2% mortgages from the government.

No it won't! It's not cheap stable propositions that force house prices up it's a housing market ran by unscrupulous agents and unfettered by rules.

If the gov. says look, we'll allow 2 or 3 times your salary over 25 years and reign in all the nonsense thats going on now then that will force people to only attempt what they can afford. At low interest rates that are fixed (similar to long term fixed rate mortgages in the rest of the world) people will not be as susceptible to sub-prime fiascos and bank rates jumping all over the place and will definately not suffer from being wiped out by banks pulling out of the deal because they raised the rates so much the customers can no longer afford to pay.

Remember, banks pull you in with nice low rates knowing full well they will pull that nice comfortable rate from under you in a few months or years! Thats what causes all the problems,

dunstonh

It's not stable, cheap mortgages that fuel house booms it's irresponsible banks that offer 5 times salaries to people over 35 years and tell people they can afford it and, unfortunately, silly people who also think they can afford it.

If lending is cheap then people will borrow more by other means. To say that cheap lending has had no impact on house prices is crazy.

bordercars

correct me if im wrong, but isn't a bank a business, if i went bust tommorrow would they help out my creditors. i think not.

dont they all say things like your investment can go up as well as down, well im fed up the railtrack went sour the shareholders cried did they give some back when they made a mint,

northern rock , same again.

on mortgages, how many went self certified, then neg equity , then cried.

you makes your choice and takes your chance

ManAtHome

buck2001 wrote: »

I thik you'll find that the "genuine businesses" as you call them are the greedy speculators hence the sub-prime disaster we are suffering now.

What has the banks other business got to do with anything? My understanding, from years and years of governments telling me, is that competition makes for a better deal for customers! OK, lets get the gov. in on the competition and see if it makes the banks operate in a more responsible way.

In answer to your question, we should prioritise people over banks because its the people that are suffering, losing homes etc. because of the banks incompetences and greed.

The majority of "genuine businesses" don't trade in property - the speculative bit is growing the business, why shouldn't the govt give them more help (instead of increasing taxes and red-tape).

The govt has to either use taxpayer's money or (as now) print or borrow a heap more - either higher taxes or higher inflation for all whether you manage to get a govt mortgage or not.

We should prioritise people, so why encourage them to lock up ever-increasing amounts in unproductive assets rather than a business which could grow and provide employment and tax (and more tax on what the employees spend etc). Maybe we (public and govt) then wouldn't be up to the eyes in debt due to buying stuff instead of selling stuff.

buck2001

dunstonh wrote: »

If lending is cheap then people will borrow more by other means. To say that cheap lending has had no impact on house prices is crazy.

I can understand financial advisers and mortgage advisors talking like this because its you who stand to make more money the greater the size of the mortgage so your response is not suprising.

It's not cheap loans that have had this impact on housing, not even near, it's bad lending practices. It's people taking on more than they can cope with because the loaners let them! i.e. you and the banks. You advised them and the banks loaned them and then it all went sour because your all in over your heads. You like to blame cheaper lending but its simply not true; thats a bankers excuse. The sub-prime disaster is a one made and generated by greedy bankers and we all know it is.

Its not cheap mortgages that create the problems its the massive increases in rates that see peoples homes taken from them. If the rates are affordable AND remain at a constant rate them theres no need for the borrowers to default is there? It's when the rates go through the roof, or the banks start to raise rates because of their stupid crazy lending that's when the customer gets into difficulty because the market is unstable and they can't afford to prop up banks. Stabilise the business and becomes a much better proposition to all, bankers, advisers and customers.

And for those who agree to propping up the banks why? Why should we? We don't do this for any other business we just watch them go to the wall so why not the greedy bankers and advisers? They deserve it!

dunstonh

I can understand financial advisers and mortgage advisors talking like this because its you who stand to make more money the greater the size of the mortgage so your response is not suprising...

....It's people taking on more than they can cope with because the loaners let them! i.e. you and the banks.

I'm am IFA not a mortgage adviser and I dont make a penny out of mortgages.

You appear to have chip on your shoulder with those in financial services and its letting it cloud your judgement. No-one is trying to excuse the banks but you need to see the bigger picture rather than being narrow minded and anti financial servicses.