Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Bank of England to cap mortgages 
Author Message
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... gages.html

Quote:
The powers will mean that, for the first time in the modern era, the Bank could impose restrictions on the amount banks can lend.
The reforms, to be sketched out in the Chancellor's first Mansion House speech in the City of London, represent a revolution for the City, since in the past banks have always had freedom to decide to whom they can lend.
The Bank and its Governor, Mervyn King, would be able to prevent banks from lending too much, or to over-extended customers, if they judge that this would destabilise the economy.
The precise details of the controls the Bank is to be given will be detailed fully at a later date.
However, they are likely to include restrictions on the loan-to-value ratios offered to customers. For instance, families could be prevented from taking out a mortgage for anything more than 75 per cent of the value of their home.

A good thing but really if this had been in place we would have had a far more stable property market.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:43 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
I agree in principle, but a maximum mortgage of 75% is just stupid. 90 to 95% (including any fees etc) is a more realistic limit.
100% mortgages (and over) should be banned. If you can't afford to save a small deposit, how are you going to afford the repayments? Mortgages are nearly always more expensive than the rent people pay before they buy a house.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:28 am
Profile WWW
Doesn't have much of a life

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:23 pm
Posts: 638
Location: 3959 miles from the centre of the Earth - give or take a bit
Reply with quote
Surely a mortgage should be based on how much money you earn, not the price of the house?

_________________
i7 860 @ 3.5GHz, GTX275, 4GB DDR3


Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:58 am
Profile
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 4141
Location: Exeter
Reply with quote
dogbert10 wrote:
Surely a mortgage should be based on how much money you earn, not the price of the house?


Well both really, as the mortgage is secured against the value of the property, so it is important in assessing the risk involved to the lender.

_________________
"The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."


Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:00 am
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
dogbert10 wrote:
Surely a mortgage should be based on how much money you earn, not the price of the house?

How much they'll lend you is based on what you earn. The rate at which they'll lend it you depends on the loan to value ratio. The higher the ratio, the greater the risk of negative equity for the bank. The greater the risk the greater the interest rate to help protect the bank from losing any money.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:55 am
Profile WWW
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
I agree in principle, but a maximum mortgage of 75% is just stupid. 90 to 95% (including any fees etc) is a more realistic limit.
100% mortgages (and over) should be banned. If you can't afford to save a small deposit, how are you going to afford the repayments? Mortgages are nearly always more expensive than the rent people pay before they buy a house.

Over the long term I do agree with it being a maximum of 75% but until then it should be higher and come down slowly. People need to realise that housing is not a great investment and if everyone had a loan to value of 75% it would eliminate foreclosures in a crash. This last crash property values fell more than 20% much more than than they have ever fallen before, yet people still think of it as a investment. Banks like the fact that people can borrow way more than they can afford because they can charge higher interest rates on high loan to values.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:36 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
Reply with quote
Negative equity is not a problem as long as you can keep making repayments. Over the long term house prices continue to increase, and thus property was/is about the best investment you can make.

_________________
timark_uk wrote:
That's your problem. You need Linux. That'll fix all your problems.
Mark


Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:38 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm
Posts: 12030
Reply with quote
dogbert10 wrote:
Surely a mortgage should be based on how much money you earn, not the price of the house?


They certainly used to be.
During a garage tidy out, we found some info on a house my parents owned in the 70s.
They bought it for about £4,500.

Over the long term, property is still a very sound investment. It's a commodity of very limited supply in a time when housing is in demand due to a growing population. It's not rocket science. We don't have limitless space or homes, so what we have therefore commands a premium above what you might reasonably expect.
The price of a house isn't going to get significantly cheaper in the long term.

_________________
www.alexsmall.co.uk

Charlie Brooker wrote:
Windows works for me. But I'd never recommend it to anybody else, ever.


Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:45 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
Linux_User wrote:
Negative equity is not a problem as long as you can keep making repayments. Over the long term house prices continue to increase, and thus property was/is about the best investment you can make.

Add in the fact that it is tax free unlike any other investment. ;)

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:03 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
Reply with quote
Amnesia10 wrote:
Linux_User wrote:
Negative equity is not a problem as long as you can keep making repayments. Over the long term house prices continue to increase, and thus property was/is about the best investment you can make.

Add in the fact that it is tax free unlike any other investment. ;)


Unless it's not your primary residence, in which case it will attract capital gains tax when you come to sell it. And that's not to mention stamp duty etc.

_________________
timark_uk wrote:
That's your problem. You need Linux. That'll fix all your problems.
Mark


Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:08 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
Linux_User wrote:
Amnesia10 wrote:
Linux_User wrote:
Negative equity is not a problem as long as you can keep making repayments. Over the long term house prices continue to increase, and thus property was/is about the best investment you can make.

Add in the fact that it is tax free unlike any other investment. ;)


Unless it's not your primary residence, in which case it will attract capital gains tax when you come to sell it. And that's not to mention stamp duty etc.

And why do you think MP's were flipping their residences? To avoid that tax. It is very easily avoidable. It might take some time to sell a large number of homes to avoid the tax but it is avoidable for the vast majority who only have half a dozen homes or less.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:11 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 11 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.