Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Flash

The Bbc Are At It Again

Recommended Posts

How much can you borrow?

Keep borrowing...income multiples are a thing of the past...you can borrow up to 7.5 times your salary...more credit...gimme, gimme, gimme...AARGH! This stuff is really irresponsible. :angry:

I like the way the editor puts the following at the bottom:

The opinions expressed are those of the author and are not held by the BBC unless specifically stated.

Rubbish. To give these guys webspace and to present the article in such a way, with nice little highlighted soundbytes implies support for its content.

Edited by Flash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much can you borrow?

Keep borrowing...income multiples are a thing of the past...you can borrow up to 7.5 times your salary...more credit...gimme, gimme, gimme...AARGH! This stuff is really irresponsible. :angry:

I like the way the editor puts the following at the bottom:

Rubbish. To give these guys webspace and to present the article in such a way, with nice little highlighted soundbytes implies support for its content.

This article was really strange, there seemed to be no reason real for the BBC to publish it. It was more like an advert for mortgages.

When I read it I found myself thinking, "Is there no news today or something?"

Very odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keep borrowing...income multiples are a thing of the past...you can borrow up to 7.5 times your salary...more credit...gimme, gimme, gimme...AARGH! This stuff is really irresponsible.

BBC actually stands for "Boost Borrowing Corporation".

Edited by IPOD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A clear case of irresponsible reporting from the BBC, sort of like saying here is a way to harm yourself, but the BBC is not responsible - certainly not the first time the BBC publishes drivel, when it comes to finance and politics best take their reporting with a pinch of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A clear case of irresponsible reporting from the BBC, sort of like saying here is a way to harm yourself, but the BBC is not responsible - certainly not the first time the BBC publishes drivel, when it comes to finance and politics best take their reporting with a pinch of salt.

What a crock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, by way of example, if you earn £50,000 a year and your partner takes home £30,000 annually, and you're applying for a mortgage on a joint basis, many lenders will offer you in the region of either £200,000 (2.5 times £80,000) or £180,000 (3 times £50,000 + £30,000).

WTF! I would think <5% of couples outside of London earn that.

F**k the BBC!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F**k the BBC!

mate do what i did - cancel your licence direct debit.

why pay for property propaganda. this isnt what the agreement for the licence was for.

sack them.

i did. in april. research the laws for the tv inspectors. you DONT have to let them in at all.

bollock them off at the door. not convenient mate. SLAM.

fancy being forced to pay for this tripe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone actually read this, or did people just read the title and make up the rest of the article for themselves?

All it talks about is the fact that changing work patterns mean that for an increasing number of people, the traditional multipliers of salary do not work, simply because they either have no salary, or a small one, despite having a sizeable income. Clearly for those where commission forms a large part of their earnings, the traditional mulipliers do not form a valid reflection of what they can afford. Also the self-employed or freelancers - I didn't buy a house in 1997 because hardly any lenders would talk to me as an IT freelancer, despite earning over double what I'd been earning the previous year as a salaried employee, as my income wasn't a salary.

It is also possible to see the logic in lending more to those in careers where high future earnings are pretty much guaranteed if a person applies themselves - the examples being given as medicine, law and accountancy - but can start with a modest income.

With the ease with which employees can be made redundant nowadays, a salary is hardly a guaranteed form of income. Those who do not make their targets in sales are let go, just like other employees who do not perform are let go (exception here for the public sector of course). Freelancers may find that work dries up, and if a company find work dries up, it makes people redundant.

Mention was made that people who take out debt should ensure they can afford to repay it. It is abuse of what is pretty sensible really that is the problem (people lying for self-cert mortgages, etc).

My main problem was that it wasn't actually news. All this information has been around for ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My main problem was that it wasn't actually news. All this information has been around for ages.

my main point is that the bbc know this to be true as above, but still feel its within their remit to broadcast it on our/your licence fees.

isnt the bbc's constant property talk growing tiresome ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone actually read this, or did people just read the title and make up the rest of the article for themselves?

Yes, and I'm sure the other posters did too.

Over the past few years, some of the big lenders have started to turn their backs on income multiples, which they see as crude and simplistic.

Instead, they are using a new criterion called 'affordability'.

This is considered to be a far more sophisticated and responsible approach to mortgage lending.

One high street lender even went so far recently as to announce that income multiples will soon be a "thing of the past".

Rather than apply a multiple to the applicant's gross annual salary, it sets out to determine the disposable income the applicant will have after all the other essential monthly spends and outgoings.

I wonder...Do they take into account future interest rate rises?

Answer: No. All the banks care about is their short term lending targets and bonuses for top execs.

The irony is, that all this easy credit actually compounds inflationary pressure already evident in the economy, as a result of high resource prices.

I take your point homeowner595, that this old news. I just wish the BBC would inject a bit of balance. That's not too much to ask is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bart of Darkness
All it talks about is the fact that changing work patterns mean that for an increasing number of people, the traditional multipliers of salary do not work, simply because they either have no salary, or a small one, despite having a sizeable income

So it's not high house prices that are a problem, just "old fashioned" attitudes to lending?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's not high house prices that are a problem, just "old fashioned" attitudes to lending?

Old fashioned attitudes to lending made old fashioned assumptions about the way people worked, which are increasingly invalid. Take a self-employed plumber. Unlikely to be out of work very often if the popular press is to be believed, but unlikely to be able to afford a shed using the old lending criteria. (S)he clearly falls between the gaps the way things used to work.

High house prices are a different issue, except where abuses of the new criteria have led to some people being lent too much money, which may inflate the price of property. That is the borrower, and possibly the lender being irresponsible. Perhaps the commission-led sales model of lenders is at fault.

Lending institutions have always made their money (shock) lending money to people, who pay it back, with interest, so they have an incentive to lend. If people are irresponsible with what they borrow, that is their problem. The nanny state hasn't reached that far yet. Market forces will regulate things.

Traditional multiple don't take into account future interest rises for people in salaried work - that's why the large interest rises of the early '90's were such a problem for so many. Why are we so worried about protecting the stupid from themselves? There's an old phrase about a fool and his money. Now the fool can borrow money too, and it's up to those lending it to check that they aren't lending it to someone who's foolish, in case they don't get it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote homeowner595 "Why are we so worried about protecting the stupid from themselves? There's an old phrase about a fool and his money. Now the fool can borrow money too, and it's up to those lending it to check that they aren't lending it to someone who's foolish, in case they don't get it back."

Sorry but we already protect the "stupid" from themselves by a) forcing banks to maintain reserves and therefore limiting the amount they can lend and B) outlawing the traditional "mortgage your knees" loanshark.

It remains beholden to a society that refuses to educate the public about the real consequences of debt, to prevent the people having to sell their kidneys to pay it back. How can the idiot public be expected to make a reasonable decision not to enslave themselves, when they are faced with continuous propaganda and barefaced lies by those who are supposed to be looking out for their interest, the politicians of this sad sorry country?

The fallout from the current irresponsible lending will be a very nasty correction, where even those that didn't partake lose their jobs. Those lucky enough to remain gainfully employed actually creating something in the real economy will then be taxed even further to provide their benefits, and pay the tax parasites dishing out the dole. All of whom end up as NULab client voters....

Do I detect a perfectly resonable plan by the current twits to permanently entrench their power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF! I would think <5% of couples outside of London earn that.

F**k the BBC!

Dom, you have to ask the question, If a couple are only on £18,000k and the other partner is on the dole, how are they still getting £200k morgages??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC website really is bl**dy comic, and the BBC as an organisation (except for its radio output) really is past its sell-by date.

I happily download any programmes I want from torrents and not having a TV, I don't have to suffer paying a licence fee for these muppets.

As you were.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 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.