Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

cobbett

New Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cobbett

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie

Profile Information

  • About Me
    "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." G.K.Chesterton
  1. Did they buy the leasehold for 3,185,000 and then pay £1,000,000 later that year to buy the freehold?
  2. I'm in Caseras right now, having driven down (so have seen most of Spain over the last week) there is nothing going on, the sheeple are just getting on with living, have not even seen a single bit of graffiti against the bankers or politicians (and there are elections going on here right now) The revolution isn't happening and it probably won't.
  3. The countryside and villages around Chelmsford are pretty, and the commute into London is very quick, but most people have a negative view until they visit/move here. I originally come from Sussex and think Essex is a much nicer place to live.
  4. So borrowing with 75% has not limited your business too much because your company has capital in order to pay 25% deposits which most first time buyers don’t have. Thank you for proving me right.
  5. This is about 25% deposits not 10%. My wife and I got a 95% mortgage on a £335k house 6 years ago will have it paid off in August due to overpayments, had 95% mortgage because the extra costs such as removal men, stamp duty and lawyers fees took up the rest of our savings, we also wanted to keep some cash back for emergencies, which was quite good as we had a plumbing bill for £7k within 9 months. Am not saying it is right for everyone but we knew that we would have lump sums and pay rises to help pay it off. We are lucky that we managed it so quickly but with low LTV we would have had to stay in rented accommodation for at least another couple of years which we didn’t have to do in our situation. It should be done on ability to pay back the mortgage rather than some random LTV figure plucked out of the air.
  6. But 99.9% of people in the country couldn’t buy 50 BTL properties if they couldn’t use the rent in their multiples, if they were relying on earned income and each property was worth say £200k they would need a income of £2.5 million a year at 4x multiple. It’s the unearned income multiples that are the problem here.
  7. Lets build over all the barratt estates before we ruin perfectly good farmland that can feed us.
  8. ‘where I live I am surrounded by thousands of square miles of empty fields - many of them uncultivated - the only crop being grass.’ Yeah useless stuff that grass, it’s not like things like sheep and cows can eat it....
  9. I agree, they should have been limited to 4x their earned income. (I will say it again, rents shouldn’t be used in the income multiples)
  10. Because as I said in my post, we are not communists. If Frank earns enough to buy 5 propertys with ‘earned income’ I have no problem with it. I would agree with you if he was doing what many BTL do and relying on his tenants to pay the mortgage. But if he decides to buy 5 £100k houses rather than 1 £500k house as long as he earns enough or has enough cash to pay for it I don’t have a problem with it (I don’t have have a problem with such owners having to pay 2x council tax, if you want to do it you should pay extra for it). Also I would agree that a house or shelter is a basic human need, but owning rather than renting that house or shelter is not. Some people earn more than others, that’s life (unless you are a socialist and think that life isn’t fair so you want to punish those who manage to do better). By the way I choose to have one £400k house than four £100k houses but that is my choice.
  11. My point was that if you imagine a man earns £50,000 a year he should be able to borrow say 4x that income no matter how many houses he wants (in my perfect world he wouldn’t be able to include any rents in his income multiple). So on your street he could buy 3 houses because he has his £100k savings plus £200k mortgage. We can’t stop people owning more than one house as most people here aren’t communists, what we can do is make sure people can only borrow what they themselves could pay back with their hard earned income if they had no mug tenants. Under the 75% LTV the above man could buy 4 houses no matter how little he earned because he has the capital for 25% deposits. It would be a screwed up world where someone with £100k cash but only earning £10k a year could end up with 4 properties but someone with only £10k cash but earning £50k a year would be refused a loan. Like I said in my original post this sort of world would only benefit the boomers. We need to limit the multiples.
  12. I think MikeSouthWest has a bit of a point (I am a new member too so will probably get flamed for saying this). High loan to value is essential to many new buyers, limiting LTV to 75% will just help people with large deposits and will make it even harder to buy property for people in their 20s and 30s. Any LTV above 95% is stupid and is one of the reasons prices are unaffordable but the main reason for prices is the high multiple earnings mortgages, limit these and not allowing LTV above 95% would do more for keeping house prices lower. The BTL problem should be solved by not allowing rent to be included in the mortgage so people could only get a BTL when they can afford to pay it off their main income. By concentrating on LTV the boomers still win as they own most of the wealth in this country. I am ready for all the abuse I am about to get...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.