Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Total_Injustice

Mortgage Borrowers Face Restrictions On Income Multiples And Minimum Deposits

Recommended Posts

Its a bit unfair to those with irregular or unprovable incomes, let alone paying for another loads of people to monitor the lot.

Far better is have a minimum deposit say 25% (cleared funds not loans) you cannot stop prices going up and down but it will certainly prevent people buying blocks of houses with nothing and also importantly protect the banking system from itself.

I feel for your situation but this just isn't enough. However, it demonstrates that no method is suitable for all.

Having a dedicated BoE interest rate for mortgages (decoupled from business lending) would also be helpful. This way they could temper house prices without impacting upon the small business man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel for your situation but this just isn't enough. However, it demonstrates that no method is suitable for all.

Having a dedicated BoE interest rate for mortgages (decoupled from business lending) would also be helpful. This way they could temper house prices without impacting upon the small business man.

No! Gov't could then have control over houseprices and allow them to ramp up again to feed a feelgood factor in the sheeple. It would only give gov't a better handle to do what they have already done!

It's simple. Make loans only repayable to the extent of 95% of the amount outstanding at foreclosure. It would make all mortgages repayment, which would cutoff many of the financial products which follow the smell of a mortgage - leaving less flies around the honeypot. It would also make banks a damned sight more cautious about who they lent to and how much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But when prices started to take off, putting many properties beyond reach if loans were restricted to that level, some banks started to lend as much as six times salary.
Do you know something interesting?

When the light comes on in my bedroom, it makes my finger move on the light switch.

:lol:

And that's it in a nutshell, really.

If they'd kept the lending criteria tighter, we wouldn't have seen such a boom. Fecking idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is that if the government lets all the banks (bar one) go bust, and doesn't waste a single penny of taxpayer's money on any of them, then they will all magically be a lot more careful about how much they lend. The last thing we need is another empire of bureaucrats, pretending to regulate when they can't keep up; the city boys will always run rings round them.

The reason the government will not let the banks go bust, is ... remind me someone, I can't for the life of me remember.

Incidentally, once a major high street bank goes bust despite the government's efforts, everyone will take all their money out of the remaining banks anyway, so they won't have anything to lend.

Edited by 24gray24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When asked about 100pc mortgages, Lord Turner told the committee: "I do not think we can simply narrow it to the 100pc issue. I think the bigger issues might be should we be into 85pc or 90pc" – implying that the FSA might prevent loans being granted unless buyers had deposits of 10pc or even 15pc of the property value.

But he hinted that income multiples could be targeted instead. Before the property boom lenders typically restricted home loans to 3.5 times the borrower's salary. But when prices started to take off, putting many properties beyond reach if loans were restricted to that level, some banks started to lend as much as six times salary..."

YYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and HURRAH !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No regulation. No planning controls. No building controls. If it falls on your head tough. Just buy a plot of land and build, build, build.

Dear Gordon,

Why can't I just by a patch of land and build a flipping house? I only want to keep the rain off.

Ta.

Crispin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An affordability model for mortgage lending is certainly not required.

that's been one of the biggest culprits, a vague interpretation on 'affordability' as undertaken by the lenders.

Exactamundo.

It should mean affordable over the lifetime of the loan. not just for this month, or the next 12 until the teaser rate resets.

personal responsibility does not exist in a lot of people. That is where Liebor falls down. They tell us to respect everyone. even if he/she only has learning difficulties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3x highest earner, i.e no option for two salaries to be taken into account. It would stop working mother inflation that forces us all to work harder in the hamster wheel just to keep in the same place. Houses would be cheaper and more time could be spent with families.

Sadly it will halve the house prices, slashing tax take and interest take.

The VI's would never allow it depsite the huge advantage for most of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3x highest earner, i.e no option for two salaries to be taken into account. It would stop working mother inflation that forces us all to work harder in the hamster wheel just to keep in the same place. Houses would be cheaper and more time could be spent with families.

Sadly it will halve the house prices, slashing tax take and interest take.

The VI's would never allow it depsite the huge advantage for most of society.

I know this is well out there but I actually have to agree. We all have to live with each other, even if an individual doesn't have children, all our lives would improve if good parenting was encouraged.

Society places no value in family when it demands two full-time incomes just to put a roof over your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3x highest earner, i.e no option for two salaries to be taken into account. It would stop working mother inflation that forces us all to work harder in the hamster wheel just to keep in the same place. Houses would be cheaper and more time could be spent with families.

Sadly it will halve the house prices, slashing tax take and interest take.

The VI's would never allow it depsite the huge advantage for most of society.

^^^^^

IIIIIIIII

THIS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Full reserve banking

No bailouts for savers or debtors ever

No central bank base rate

Income multiples deposits and all this crap is rubbish. People just need to appreciate the risk involved in their financial dealings.

Full reserve banking - Yes. This would make the banks very robust institutions.

No bailouts for savers or debtors ever - No. As a saver you have it all to lose, as a debtor you almost have it all to gain. Although 'point one' ought to negate most of the risk, any residual risk is with the saver. How would they have assurance that the bank were playing by the rules? We cannot trust either the Government or the Banks to play fair. Who ever assures 'point one' should be the guarantor for 'point two'.

No central bank base rate – Depends on how easy / costly it is to move mortgages. I could see unscrupulous lenders using all manner of tricks to use this as a money making tool.

Edited by Total_Injustice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the biggest issue to consider is that the main source for loose borrowing was btl mortgages.

with these you dont even need to prove any income.

mortgages were obtained via stating rent earnings, which the mortage company based their lending criteria by asking YOU how much do you think the property will get in rent.

if the monthly payment was £1000 you just state that rent will be £1250 and that was enough to borrow £200,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the biggest issue to consider is that the main source for loose borrowing was btl mortgages.

with these you dont even need to prove any income.

mortgages were obtained via stating rent earnings, which the mortage company based their lending criteria by asking YOU how much do you think the property will get in rent.

if the monthly payment was £1000 you just state that rent will be £1250 and that was enough to borrow £200,000.

Self licking lollipops are great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I'm German and have been living here in England for 18 years. An the mortgages

HANDOUTS shoked me since I came to this country.

In Germany you must have minimum of 20% deposit, and no more than 3 x times salary!!! our house prices only increased with inflation of about 1.2 or

2%. And nobody talks about is obsessed with the value of houses :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The chairman of the Financial Services Authority has also hinted that the amount that buyers could borrow as a multiple of income could be controlled in future.

In evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, Lord Turner said: "We can certainly see a strong argument for us getting more involved in product regulation than we have in the past."

Gordon Brown recently suggested that 100pc mortgages should be banned. Loans of 100pc – or even more in some cases – are seen as part of a culture of "irresponsible" lending during the boom years.

When asked about 100pc mortgages, Lord Turner told the committee: "I do not think we can simply narrow it to the 100pc issue. I think the bigger issues might be should we be into 85pc or 90pc" – implying that the FSA might prevent loans being granted unless buyers had deposits of 10pc or even 15pc of the property value.

But he hinted that income multiples could be targeted instead. Before the property boom lenders typically restricted home loans to 3.5 times the borrower's salary. But when prices started to take off, putting many properties beyond reach if loans were restricted to that level, some banks started to lend as much as six times salary..."

Time to nail your colours to the wall Gordon and state your future aspiration for mortgage lending.

I'm sure it would be frigged to rely upon dual family income but I'd like to see it happen.

Can't understand why this has only got 164 signatures: Lending Reform

Consider this scenario:

Mortgages become more freely available but at reduced multiples/ltv's

The number of homes available at lower prices to meet this criteria is restricted as the numbers having to sell is reduced by Brown's help for those facing repo/deferring repayments.

So we have a situation where people can borrow but houses are not available and demand exceeds supply.

Would Brown let prices fall by withdrawing mortgage support to those in trouble? or find a way of 'helping people get on the ladder' by either relaxing lending criteria (possibly politically unacceptable) or lending buyers the shortfall directly as part of some "pay back when you sell the place" scheme.

Either way, I think they have the means to put a floor on house prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consider this scenario:

Mortgages become more freely available but at reduced multiples/ltv's

The number of homes available at lower prices to meet this criteria is restricted as the numbers having to sell is reduced by Brown's help for those facing repo/deferring repayments.

So we have a situation where people can borrow but houses are not available and demand exceeds supply.

Would Brown let prices fall by withdrawing mortgage support to those in trouble? or find a way of 'helping people get on the ladder' by either relaxing lending criteria (possibly politically unacceptable) or lending buyers the shortfall directly as part of some "pay back when you sell the place" scheme.

Either way, I think they have the means to put a floor on house prices.

So either house prices fall or they are underpinned by a shared equity based scheme. Yet another moral hazard, as my taxes are being used to keep house prices high for the benefit of those that bought at the wrong time.

I think that the bitter pill needs to be taken and support withdrawn. It cannot go on forever anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you know something interesting?

When the light comes on in my bedroom, it makes my finger move on the light switch.

:lol:

Brilliant! I'm going to use that line!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and here is another empty promise from Brown:

Brown promises Banking Clean Up

"Mr Brown said that "somehow" the financial world had lost sight of ordinary people's values, such as fairness and hard work. "

But not him of course...

"You need fair rules, rules that reward those that play by them and punish those who don't."

Really, who'd have thought. Best you listen to yourself then.

"He said Northern Rock would be a bank for home buyers and home owners and would this year and next year offer £14bn-worth of additional mortgages. "

Here comes the contradiction, LEND LEND LEND, and LEND some more...

Edited by Total_Injustice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No regulation. No planning controls. No building controls. If it falls on your head tough. Just buy a plot of land and build, build, build.

What if it falls on the postman's head?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3x highest earner, i.e no option for two salaries to be taken into account. It would stop working mother inflation that forces us all to work harder in the hamster wheel just to keep in the same place. Houses would be cheaper and more time could be spent with families.

Sadly it will halve the house prices, slashing tax take and interest take.

The VI's would never allow it depsite the huge advantage for most of society.

Agreed. Two salary households have been a disaster for one salary households...forcing everyone into pointless toil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The chairman of the Financial Services Authority has also hinted that the amount that buyers could borrow as a multiple of income could be controlled in future.

In evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, Lord Turner said: "We can certainly see a strong argument for us getting more involved in product regulation than we have in the past."

Gordon Brown recently suggested that 100pc mortgages should be banned. Loans of 100pc – or even more in some cases – are seen as part of a culture of "irresponsible" lending during the boom years.

When asked about 100pc mortgages, Lord Turner told the committee: "I do not think we can simply narrow it to the 100pc issue. I think the bigger issues might be should we be into 85pc or 90pc" – implying that the FSA might prevent loans being granted unless buyers had deposits of 10pc or even 15pc of the property value.

But he hinted that income multiples could be targeted instead. Before the property boom lenders typically restricted home loans to 3.5 times the borrower's salary. But when prices started to take off, putting many properties beyond reach if loans were restricted to that level, some banks started to lend as much as six times salary..."

Time to nail your colours to the wall Gordon and state your future aspiration for mortgage lending.

I'm sure it would be frigged to rely upon dual family income but I'd like to see it happen.

Can't understand why this has only got 164 signatures: Lending Reform

Some statutory % for deposits and no more than 3.5x multiple mortgages and I'd be happy. House price bubbles would be all but eliminated. We only had a bubble because lending become looser and looser and fraud ignored allowing modest earners to chase the market to amazing heights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 293 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.