Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Northern Rock Launches Riskier 90% Mortgage 
Author Message
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Busine ... 2379?f=rss

:lol: :roll:

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:13 pm
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 still think there should be a law banning 100% mortgages.
Maybe a maximum of 95% would be about right?

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


Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:29 pm
Profile WWW
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:38 am
Posts: 2967
Location: Dorchester, Dorset
Reply with quote
That doesn't bother me so much as too high multiples of earnings. Negative equity isn't such a problem as people who can't afford their mortgages.

_________________
I've finally invented something that works!

A Mac User.


Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:33 pm
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
That's also true.

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


Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:48 pm
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 5837
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
I still think there should be a law banning 100% mortgages.
Maybe a maximum of 95% would be about right?

I think 90% would be better.

Think how quickly a house can drop 10% of its (supposed) value.

_________________
Jim

Image


Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:04 pm
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
True but during times of downturn, that could be self limited by the banks (as it has been the last year or two).
When prices are rising, banks tend to be much less cautious. But as recent history has shown, they don't always see the bust coming.

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


Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:15 pm
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm
Posts: 5837
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
they don't always see the bust coming.

That's the point though - there's always a bust.

So why not lend assuming that it's coming?

_________________
Jim

Image


Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:00 pm
Profile
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 4876
Location: Newcastle
Reply with quote
tombolt wrote:
That doesn't bother me so much as too high multiples of earnings. Negative equity isn't such a problem as people who can't afford their mortgages.


The main issue is the organisations lending more than those lending can realistically repay, fiddling sums so you get a mortgage of x degrees more than your net (not gross, so most of that is taxed to start) salary is insane

_________________
Twitter
Charlie Brooker:
Macs are glorified Fisher-Price activity centres for adults; computers for scaredy cats too nervous to learn how proper computers work; computers for people who earnestly believe in feng shui.


Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:15 pm
Profile
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:38 am
Posts: 2967
Location: Dorchester, Dorset
Reply with quote
rustybucket wrote:
l3v1ck wrote:
they don't always see the bust coming.

That's the point though - there's always a bust.

So why not lend assuming that it's coming?


The short termism that is a result of being answerable to shareholders. Pragmatism and long term strategy goes out of the window when there're huge profits to be made.

By the time it goes south, those few people responsible would hope to have made a huge profit and got out before it was too late.

I'm generally not one for government regulation, but certain markets need it. You really can't let Market forces run riot when the organisations involved are too big to fail.

_________________
I've finally invented something that works!

A Mac User.


Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:20 am
Profile
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
tombolt wrote:
That doesn't bother me so much as too high multiples of earnings. Negative equity isn't such a problem as people who can't afford their mortgages.


Quite agree - if people aren't earning enough, then they shouldn't be given a mortgage that's beyond their finances. Anything else is just asking for trouble.

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


Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:51 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:43 pm
Posts: 5048
Reply with quote
rustybucket wrote:
I think 90% would be better.

When I worked in the field (early 00's) it would be a maximum 90% LTV IIRC. Maybe 95%.

100% and even 110%/120% mortgages were available at one time which just seems a stupid idea from the outset.

_________________
Fogmeister I ventured into Solitude but didn't really do much.
jonbwfc I was behind her in a queue today - but I wouldn't describe it as 'bushy'.


Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:20 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 11 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 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.