Phil 6 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 point proven! Lots of hot air and insults, but nothing to back any of it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desmondTUTU 0 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 ffs you pair are embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30368 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Have a read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24427274 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desmondTUTU 0 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Have a read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24427274 Finally the Troll has posted a link! I'm very disappointed that's what you're basing your insults on!? You really are a mong! It starts with a line the daily mail would be proud of... I am told that It goes on to say... if banks are currently charging 3.5%..which they arent! Lots of people pull him up on it this inaccurate statement... Well, if banks are currently charging 3.5% interest on a tracker loan, where the buyer has borrowed 75% of the value of the property (a 75% LTV), the minimum the banks would feel they could charge for the equivalent new taxpayer-insured mortgage would be 4.4%....even if they were charging 3.5, the 4.4% is only for the first year! It's help to buy, not freemoney.com. drum roll for the best part... ...he retracts everything but the 0.9% arrangement fee and he admits he fucked up his sums! OK. First of all I made a fat finger mistake He's clearly trying to lead the reader by; a) bumping up the current rate banks offer glossing over the fact the 0.9% is an arrangement fee (loads of banks load these in already) c) randomly using 75% LTV, when the government are offering 80% and most bank use 90%, 80%, 60% as the bench marks Only a mong would take that artcle as fact... oh, wait, you are a mong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) I've read it twice now and cant stop laughing! see this is the issue with forums, you get into debates with people thinking it's peer-topeer. When the reality is, they are proper thick and just google stuff to act intelligent! So he thinks you can get one for 4.4%... the minimum the banks would feel they could charge for the equivalent new taxpayer-insured mortgage would be 4.4% ...no wait 4.75% Which means that the interest cost on one of these Help to Buy mortgages will be in the range of 4.75% to 5.25%. C'mon Ewerk nail you're flag to this mast! :lol: Right now, it is almost impossible to get a mortgage from a bank if you don't have a deposit equivalent to about 25% or 30% of the value of a house. Edited October 7, 2013 by Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30368 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I'll address the rest of that in the morning but right now answer me the question I posed earlier, who does this plan benefit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I'll address the rest of that in the morning but right now answer me the question I posed earlier, who does this plan benefit? I look forward to that reply, dont forget my favourite bit where he says you cant get a mortgage without a 25-30% deposit The plan is very clever and is unlikely to cost the government anything. So I dont see many losers. The main benefactor will obviously be people with 5% deposit will be able to access 20% rates. However, I think its actually a business policy aimed at making the banks to be more competitive on their rates. The base rate is 0.5% and look set to stay there for another year or so. I think this will give all the banks a bit of a kick to go out and win new business. It's certainly provided enough marketing material for them to start competing! fwiw, I think 0.9% will be about right. As £900 for a 15k a insurance policy seems sensible, if tad high. But high is a good place to start, they can always review the fees and lower them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I might not agree with Renton, Padlock and Sweetleftpeg, but at least I respect them. ewerk in tears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21846 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 The Tory head of the Treasury Select Committee critical of help to buy scheme. The House of Commons Treasury select committee on Tuesday said the programme, which could underwrite up to £130bn of mortgages, was likely to “raise house prices rather than stimulate new supply”.Andrew Tyrie, the Tory chair of the Treasury committee, highlighted the “chequered history” of government interventions in residential property, saying that “mistakes could distort the housing market or carry threats to financial stability”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30368 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I look forward to that reply, dont forget my favourite bit where he says you cant get a mortgage without a 25-30% deposit The plan is very clever and is unlikely to cost the government anything. So I dont see many losers. The main benefactor will obviously be people with 5% deposit will be able to access 20% rates. However, I think its actually a business policy aimed at making the banks to be more competitive on their rates. The base rate is 0.5% and look set to stay there for another year or so. I think this will give all the banks a bit of a kick to go out and win new business. It's certainly provided enough marketing material for them to start competing! fwiw, I think 0.9% will be about right. As £900 for a 15k a insurance policy seems sensible, if tad high. But high is a good place to start, they can always review the fees and lower them. Are affordable mortgages the problem facing the housing market? We've already got interest rates at record lows, interest rates on mortgages are also low so who really gives a fuck about whether someone with just a 5% deposit can get their mortgage for 50 quid a month less? And again, those under the scheme will not be able to access the same rates as those with cash deposits. This is a policy that could have done something to benefit the construction industry but instead it seems to be a pointless effort to raise house prices with no quantifiable benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21846 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 it's blatant electioneering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15429 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 In principle we should welcome a situation where lenders are asking people to save up a 20-25% deposit before buying - it was good enough for previous generations when we didn't have crippling house price growth, and part of the reason house prices are already so grossly and unrealistically inflated is because we allowed ourselves to get to a point where "buying" a house is something people can (and do) commit to casually and without a great deal of thought, rather than the biggest financial commitment most of us will ever make in our lives. Obviously the problem is that house prices already are so stupidly high that a 20-25% deposit is a big ask in most parts of the country, whereas it really shouldn't be. At some point along the line someone has to lose out, whether it's some members of the current generation of homeowners being punished financially for not realising (or wanting to realise) they were buying way beyond their means, the next wave of buyers being unable to get a mortgage as easily and casually as they might want to, or whatever. And since no party wants to piss off current potential voters, it's easy to understand the political rationale behind schemes aimed at stimulating demand and driving house price growth based on the current housing stock - it's just pushing the inevitable consequences further down the line, and and eventually someone's going to be in the firing line when the shit really hits the fan, but as long as that doesn't make you unelectable in the shorter term... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30368 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 (edited) The main benefactor will obviously be people with 5% deposit will be able to access 20% rates. Halifax's current rate for those with a 20% deposit is 4.0% with no arrangement fee. Halifax's rate under the new scheme for an applicant with a 5% deposit has been announced as 5.19% with a £995 arrangement fee. Your point is invalid. Edited October 8, 2013 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4709 Posted October 8, 2013 Author Share Posted October 8, 2013 Not sure why you two are so bogged down in rates. The purpose of the scheme is not people getting lower rates, but people being able to get a mortgage they otherwise couldn't because of the vast deposits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30368 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I was simply countering the view that the availability of lower interest rates was the main aim/benefit of this policy, it obviously wasn't. It would be a good policy if it had've been restricted to new build homes as it would have provided a much needed boost to the construction industry while increasing the country's housing stock. And as Meenzer points out above, maybe the prudence of requiring home buyers to save for sizable deposits isn't the worst thing in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21846 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 "This policy is a handout to the reasonably rich." "As a cautious FTB, I'm still trying to understand how I've been helped by having prices pushed suddenly away from me." FT readers in fine commenting form on latest help to buy story Comments Sorted by newest first | Sort by oldest first ReportIs it that easy? | October 8 11:21am | Permalink Post crisis, there was much talk by Central Bankers and politicians of Counter-cyclical macro-prudential policy and reflections of how it had all gone wrong.... Now we have it the outcome of their reflections: The government is deliberately lifting the demand into a London/SE England housing price boom by subsidising the mortgages and now even paying for the deposits. Please BoE - where is your countercyclical macro-prudential policy? Big names for stuff but in the end just grossly corrupt and incompetent. ReportBob, Freelancer 57 | October 8 11:21am | Permalink "@EU99999 Grant Shapps appeared on question time the other day and said, roughly, "It's not going to be a bubble because the Bank of England will ensure it's not a bubble." Can you imagine the complete loss of credibility to the BoE if next September they fail to stop it? " Can you also imagine the screams of those who use this scheme to buy at the top if the BOE threaten to withdraw it - and Osborne will be able to sit asdide and ignore the consequences. Reportnotasocialist | October 8 11:16am | Permalink @esja your analysis is correct remember cameron and osborne are the new blairites maybe not wile e coyote they remain mesmerised by the man and the fact he was able to get re-elected 3 times they wanted to repeat in syria the same disastrous policies he pushed forward on iraq but were fortunately held back by parliament this housing policy is classic blair jam today forget about tomorrow - someone else will pick up the bill - adopted by cameron and osborne in homage to their political guru ReportEU99999 | October 8 11:08am | Permalink First the Lib-Dems raise the cost of tuition and then they raise the cost of housing. Young people should abandon them in droves. ReportEU99999 | October 8 11:07am | Permalink Grant Shapps appeared on question time the other day and said, roughly, "It's not going to be a bubble because the Bank of England will ensure it's not a bubble." Can you imagine the complete loss of credibility to the BoE if next September they fail to stop it? Reportesja | October 8 11:03am | Permalink Osborne increasingly resembles Wile E. Coyote. This elaborate scheme will ultimately blow up in his face, and will be seen as an epic long-term political disaster for the Conservatives. Until recently Labour owned the housing disaster, having tripled the cost of housing, causing the bust and all the bailouts and emergency measures since. Now however, Osborne & Cameron own it! They had every opportunity to pause and reflect, and quietly abandon this lunacy, but instead they have shown 100% commitment to this in the face of stunningly broad public criticism. They can no longer escape the blame for the consequences of the bubble bursting (the most likely scenario especially in London), or the economy showing increasing imbalances & damage due to their reflation policies. Their "economic credibility" versus Labour will no longer be a differentiator. When the bubble bursts they will lose the under-40s who took up this scheme. Before that even happens they will lose the under-40s who didn't take up the scheme, as they will be priced out, and unable to save due to 300-year-low interest rates and the increasing cost of essentials. I wonder if Osborne has heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect. ReportGood European | October 8 10:54am | Permalink Utter bilge from the fork tonged Mr Alexander. Phase 1 was only released a few months ago. Phase 2 is only just being released. Of course there isn't ant evidence of the consequences yet. Except actually there is in London and the South East, where the bubble has already begun to inflate faster than you can say popcorn. This kind of vote buying will always been seen for exactly what it is and rewarded appropriately at the next election. I hope Alexander personally loses his seat for his disingenuous participation in this morally reprehensible scheme. ReportEU99999 | October 8 10:34am | Permalink So why not exclude central London? Reportnotasocialist | October 8 10:18am | Permalink so will mr alexander and all the other politicians supporting or rejecting criticism of this scheme, agree to resign and leave political life for good when the critics are proven right or will they simply ignore the fact they got it wrong or perhaps worse tried to mislead the public if this scheme is about anything its about pushing house prices up when they should be falling. Question: why would the government do that? Answer: to get reelected though the wealth effect that increasing property prices bring about about 65% of UK families either own or are buying their own home - interestingly this compares to 42% in germany which arguably has a more successful economy - among uk under 35s this % drops to about 35%. so what is the political impact - older voters see their wealth go up as house prices are supported or increased by help to buy - in the short term a number of 'renting' under 35s will be grateful to be subsidised to buy - longer term younger 'buyers' will find it even more difficult to buy net net the wealth effect combined with an increased in the number of under 35s on the housing ladder should help the government politically ReportBernard Nitram | October 8 10:13am | Permalink Danny Alexander says there is no evidence of a boom outside of London and the South East - the implication being that it is OK for those areas to have a boom. Given that we have just been through a boom and bust, that seems a rather laid back view to take. Furthermore, we know from experience, once the evidence of a boom is present, it is too late, the damage has been done. At least we know what the policy process is: go ahead, see what happens, let someone else clear up the mess. ReportJonathan Story | October 8 10:02am | Permalink The article cites the opinions of politicians, economists and estate agents, but not of builders who know intimately the intricacies of the planning system. Reportcb25 | October 8 9:58am | Permalink We have Milliband/Cameron saying that rising prices (e.g. energy) are a bad thing, yet the coalition then delivers a policy that's almost certain to raise house prices as though that's a good thing for purchasers. It isn't. ReportAC4757756 | October 8 9:54am | Permalink How clueless is Alexander. What London/ South East/ South West ? Even in Highlands the housing market is not functioning. House on prices above 200K have been on the market for 2-3 years with no reductions in prices and no buyes.. It is plainly obvious that in the whole of UK, the house prices must drop in order to be linked to average wages but the government does not get it!! ReportRDRAVID | October 8 9:45am | Permalink Britain should enjoy its mini boom because in the long run its economy has no future, rather than addressing serious problems like poor educational outcomes of the bottom third and the knock on problems of inequality and welfare dependency both the major parties are now bribing the electorate. Labour was always fiscally irresponsible and bribing its core vote with Welfare feebies. Now with Help to Buy and election the Conservatives have lost all fiscal credibility are throwing away taxpayers money on a nonsensical scheme when they claim the country has insufficient funds to invest in its creaking infrastructure. Reportesja | October 8 9:45am | Permalink In my part of London I've already seen plenty of revisions of asking prices to reflect this scheme. I've been told by agents verbatim that this is the specific reason for the change. In other words, the scheme has already had the "unintended" consequences Osborne intended, i.e. more expensive housing, and paper "wealth" gains for his baby-boomer supporters. So all advertised "positive" effects will be cancelled out more or less immediately. Anything around 500-525k is moving to 570k+. And why not? This scheme adds a large number of new buyers into the pool, who can suddenly "afford" such prices. Last week I saw a place which was listed for 450k a year ago and hadn't sold. No fundamental change in the area, no renovation, yet suddenly it's back on the market at 595k. These examples are very easy to find in London. A sane observer would see this and note the parallels with the last stages of every other financial bubble in history. When a double-income professional family cannot afford a decent house in the worst parts of this city, we have a big problem. The solution is not to lure them into a lifetime of crushing debt in order to pay the crazy prices they can't afford. The solution is to remove whatever is causing those crazy prices, i.e. do some proper housing market reform, e.g. restrict or tax foreign or absentee owners, and stop subsidising demand through QE, 300-year-low interest rates, FLS, HTB, etc. etc. ad nauseam. I doubt Osborne even knows what adverse selection means. ReportBorromini | October 8 9:37am | Permalink I think the juvenile response to your headline is dohhh..or something like that.Cheap money now provides instant demand from all quarters (and who is policing that?) while supply,even if land was available and developers did not feel like landbanking while prices edged higher would lag by 2y or more.Aside of the brazen populism inherent in this scheme and what that might bring in young votes,has anyone thought about the market impact of this? ReportGoladaman | October 8 9:32am | Permalink I fail to see the deal for young people here....you have a previous generation of 'homeowners' with BOE tracker interest only mortgages sitting on homes that have doubled who basically rent from the bank for very little and then you have 95% mortgages with a 5% interest rate for new entrants! So as an example the Zone 2 flat some joker bought in 2003 on IO for £250k now costs you £500k and instead of them paying say 2% on a £200k mortgage interest = £333 month you can pay £500k x 95% =£475k at 5% amortising 25yr which means £2,808 month. Some deal. Makes me think we young folks should just start doing what travellers do and building wherever we want; en masse. ReportSouthbank | October 8 9:24am | Permalink As a cautious FTB, I'm still trying to understand how I've been helped by having prices pushed suddenly away from me. Reportliybpg | October 8 9:18am | Permalink There is an interesting video on FT with analysis suggesting that market below £1m is still quite depressed and has been for a while, so it doesn't seem like there is anything close to a bubble at the moment, at worst, possibly in the top range where cash purchases are made (i.e. no impact on banks). This does not mean to say that the bubble will never appear, I think it is critical to have good oversight and an ability to pull the plug when necessary, which might be impaired by elections and other political influences. Also let's not forget that supply does not only mean new houses, existing houses which are being put on the market are also part of the supply. It is quite feasible that supply of existing homes will increase as market recovers and sellers feel like it is more realistic to achieve the price they want. This effect may mean that eventhough the number of deals grows, the prices won't climb dramatically. ReportStrategic Management Bureau | October 8 9:17am | Permalink The policy is pure madness in rational terms. But then again electioneering is rarely rational! Reportkilroy | October 8 9:15am | Permalink Peristyle, I would love to buy some of that government cat bond (but only if it comes with a free "I am short your house" t-shirt). Now, where's that roll eyes emoticon thingy.....? ReportGilesAnd2013 | October 8 9:02am | Permalink Breakfast in America has summed it up. There is no supply at the moment as no one wants to sell or needs to sell with interest rates so low and when they can let their existing property at a higher yield than debt servicing costs and buy another leveraging their existing equity. The outcome? Read Blockheads post. I only wish Osbourne and his cronies would be held to account when all this unravels down the line. ReportBritannicus | October 8 8:50am | Permalink English subprimes, another 2009 crisis ahead, it will be much deeper and it will be again "the fault of the bad banks" ReportTreepower | October 8 8:45am | Permalink Government interventions in the housing market do not have a chequered history, they have a uniform track record of causing mayhem. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac / FHA: Bubble. Canadian State bank insurance: Bubble. Australian buyer assistance programme: Bubble. Low rates may be the primary cause, but government meddling amplifies housing bubbles wherever they occur. @ Jim Furlong - the point of Mr. Carney's presence is to use his skill in making bubbles big while talking them down. He has been specifically hired to maintain the monetary conditions required for a housing and stock market bubble until they are well advanced. He and Osborne have jointly concocted a colossal gamble that state-subsidised indebtedness and trickle-down economics will achieve some Keynesian flywheel momentum. You be the judge of whether that's a good call, but don't expect anything from the BoE except more printing. ReportXenon | October 8 8:42am | Permalink Why on earth would help-to-buy boost supply? There is already excess demand (in London at least). The only useful action the government can take is to encourage supply. H-T-B is a dangerous electoral gimmick. Reportblockhead | October 8 8:39am | Permalink Great news for the kids who already have houses (well done Mum and Dad) but pretty awful for everyone else under 40. In a country with too many people for the housing stock, and harsh but possibly necessary planning controls, increasing the availability of finance can only result in price rises. This policy is a handout to the reasonably rich. Later, when the market stalls (as it will) the rich will shrug. But recent buyers will experience the scary existence of life with a chunky debt due for an imminent upwards rate revision. The government would be smarter to provide this stimulant (if it must) only where the mortgages are fixed for 20 years, as they mostly are in Europe, instead of the 2 they are here. That, at least, would save us having another class of willing victims screaming for a bailout from Quantitative Easing version 15. Then again maybe the die was cast five years ago. Once government can't accept that there's enough money out there, all roads eventually lead to hyper-inflation. ReportAnonymous888 | October 8 8:23am | Permalink There is a need to think more carefully about the link between household balance sheets and overall financial stability. It is worth reading a few of Mark Carney’s comments made in a speech while he was the Governor of the Bank of Canada. They focus on the local stress testing system, and the relationship between household balance sheets and financial sector stability. The full transcript appears on the BIS web site:www.bis.org/review/r091223b.pdf. I've posted them previously, but they deserve wider dissemination. “…the combination of sustained growth of household debt relative to income and a rising interest rate environment could increase the vulnerability of households to an adverse shock.” “While asset prices can rise and fall, debt endures.” “Responsibility starts with the individual… It is the responsibility of households now to ensure that in the future, when the recovery takes hold and extraordinary measures are unwound, they can still service their debts.” “Similarly, lenders have responsibilities. Financial institutions should actively monitor risk stemming from households and not take false comfort derived from mortgage insurance and past performance of household credit.” “Policy-makers and regulators, including the [Central Bank and Finance Department/Treasury], have responsibilities, as well… The Bank’s ongoing research and analysis of the financial system…is an important element of our commitment to helping ensure [the country] has a resilient, secure financial system that enhances the economic and financial welfare of all…” ReportRawlplug | October 8 8:04am | Permalink I am with Peristyle on this. If HtoB pushes prices a little higher then the government's risk is lower. I think an active housing market will naturally encourage housebuilders to ramp up production. I understand they have plenty of land - it is just favourable market conditions that they need. ReportThe Invisible Finger | October 8 7:52am | Permalink Why is an insurance premium charged by the Treasury being spun by the F.T. as a 'windfall gain?' Whether the treasury comes out ahead or not, those fees are top be balanced versus the risk taken in guaranteeing mortgages and are in no sense a riskless profit. Reportjim furlong | October 8 7:36am | Permalink Agree with Tim Young.It is quite amazing that the BoE are doing NOTHING about this crazy policy.What is the point of having Mr Carney if he doesnt believe current house prices are in a BUBBLE.His London housing allowance must surely provide some clue! ReportGordon Brown's Glass Eye | October 8 7:36am | Permalink Just because people cannot afford a 40% deposit does not mean they are subprime. We're not talking trailer trash here. ReportTim Young | October 8 7:04am | Permalink So, a parliamentary committee comprising about half members of the governing parties is to tell us that Help to Buy poses a risk to financial stability, while the Financial Stability Policy of the BoE says little, and meekly accepts an invitation to review the scheme after an interval in which it will be deeply entrenched. What is the point of the FPC, or the Bank of England as an independent institution for that matter? Also, note that, if the fee is paid up front, with any losses to be sustained later (but with an actuarial value which may be determined now), this scheme also effectively represents another form of stealth borrowing by the government. ReportReg Barratt | October 8 6:59am | Permalink and lets be clear. These are SUB-PRIME MORTGAGES. If they were prime mortgages the banks would accept them without taxpayer support. There would be no need for the taxpayer to underwrite them ReportBreakfast in America | October 8 6:57am | Permalink The idea that this scheme will do anything other than push prices even further out of the reach of most first time buyers is nonsensical. Presently, almost everyone 'moving up' the property ladder are looking to hold on to their existing property as a buy to let because rental yields are much higher than interest rates. This means that even if the market starts moving again, there is no supply at the bottom end. This was a poor piece of policy to begin with, and extending it beyond new build properties is inexcusable. ReportReg Barratt | October 8 6:54am | Permalink 'Help to Buy' should be in inverted commas. How can you trust a politician who devises a scheme to inflate house prices, and then calls it 'Help to Buy' ? Help to Bubble would be more accurate I can't believe a word Osborne says. Reportjim furlong | October 8 6:35am | Permalink Why do taxpayers have to pay for yet another attempt to make house prices even higher? Surely the BoE have done enough damage with their massive bouts of repeated QE! Are we living in a sane country? ReportPeristyle | October 8 5:29am | Permalink I rather welcome the Help to Buy scheme. Forward credit insurance is a new area for the government, but the terms do not seem obviously uncommercial and the involvement of the Bank of England is encouraging. I hope to see quite a few hats being eaten if this scheme eventually brings the private sector back into this market and/or the Treasury is able to issue a massive catastrophe bond to cover fully the risks now to be assumed. Report/B | October 8 2:21am | Permalink Reads like a puff piece for banks. Write an article that takes as fact prices *will* rise. Are they? "Prices rose across every region of the UK except for the North East" Asking prices or selling prices? Land registry is the truer reflection, and even then at low volumes "average" price is a flawed concept. Unbelievable of Labour using the "pocket" line after what Gordon Brown did. Total lack of shame. Here's the Land Registry figures: Change: Monthly 0.1% Annual 1.3% Whoopee do. Less than the false inflation figures. Careful you don't "miss the boat" kids! That 400K house will cost 4K more this time next year. Better yet stay out and wait for them to tank. Then leave the country anyway. ReportXochipilli | October 8 1:43am | Permalink It's easy to lay an I said so statement, but it's not easy to have the conviction to do something about it. My derision towards all of them remains intact unless they take some personal risks just like the country is doing with this lunatic government intervention. That said, not sure what Virgin's angle is. Maybe they get the benefit of the doubt for not playing a weak government for profit like the rest. Think about it; if you were ethical and you were a bank what would you do? You certainly wouldn't refuse to sign up as it helps the unethical manipulate ministers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15429 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 When a double-income professional family cannot afford a decent house in the worst parts of this city, we have a big problem. The solution is not to lure them into a lifetime of crushing debt in order to pay the crazy prices they can't afford. The solution is to remove whatever is causing those crazy prices, i.e. do some proper housing market reform, e.g. restrict or tax foreign or absentee owners, and stop subsidising demand through QE, 300-year-low interest rates, FLS, HTB, etc. etc. ad nauseam. I'm in love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Not sure why you two are so bogged down in rates. The purpose of the scheme is not people getting lower rates, but people being able to get a mortgage they otherwise couldn't because of the vast deposits. 95% mortgages have been out for a while http://www.knowyourmoney.co.uk/95-percent-mortgages/?gclid=CLGu04ach7oCFW3KtAodRGsAYg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Halifax's current rate for those with a 20% deposit is 4.0% with no arrangement fee. Halifax's rate under the new scheme for an applicant with a 5% deposit has been announced as 5.19% with a £995 arrangement fee. Your point is invalid. You've not defended the weak as piss link you posted, and now you're claiming the rates released three months before the scheme comes online - are the scheme. This is too stupid for words! The initail rates will not be a true reflection of the rate in March - April. It's a stimulation scheme, which means it'll take time for the bank to naturally compete over the next few months in the lead up to the spring (when most people start looking to move). Oh, and Halfix offer 3.44% on a 15% deposit. But you didn't link - again! http://www.halifax.co.uk/mortgages/first-time-buyers/fixed/ You're either a WUM or stupid. I suspect both. Either way not I'm wasting any more of my time on a troll. You've shown no interest in discussing the topic - just nit picking to give your sad troll life a purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30368 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Jesus Christ, you really are a tiresome little man. I posted the link to that blog as support for my assertion that the rates would be higher for those under the scheme than those with cash deposits, it has been confirmed today that this is the case, therefore you are wrong. I fail to see why the interest rates would be any less next Spring, that simply isn't how things work and if you had any idea of how they set these rates then you would know that. I'm not quite sure why you've posted a link to a 15% mortgage as we were discussing 80% LTV, the fact that you're quoting the initial rate rather than the APR confirms that you really don't know what you're talking about. It's best that you leave it now as the whole argument is entirely boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4709 Posted October 8, 2013 Author Share Posted October 8, 2013 95% mortgages have been out for a while http://www.knowyourmoney.co.uk/95-percent-mortgages/?gclid=CLGu04ach7oCFW3KtAodRGsAYg There nearly all direct new but scheme??? Most lenders will either not do 95% or you have to have a triple Aaa rating to get one. This is allowing most normal credit worthy folk to also get one. (As has been the way for the last 30 or 40 years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4709 Posted October 8, 2013 Author Share Posted October 8, 2013 Lols all round The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has upgraded its forecast for UK economic growth by more than any other major economy, in a boost to the Chancellor’s fortunes. It comes only six months after the Fund downgraded its expectations for the British economy and warned that George Osborne’s policies were the economic equivalent of “playing with fire." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Jesus Christ, you really are a tiresome little man. I posted the link to that blog as support for my assertion that the rates would be higher for those under the scheme than those with cash deposits, it has been confirmed today that this is the case, therefore you are wrong. I fail to see why the interest rates would be any less next Spring, that simply isn't how things work and if you had any idea of how they set these rates then you would know that. I'm not quite sure why you've posted a link to a 15% mortgage as we were discussing 80% LTV, the fact that you're quoting the initial rate rather than the APR confirms that you really don't know what you're talking about. It's best that you leave it now as the whole argument is entirely boring. You don't understand why I posted a link to the Halifax website where they offer a better rate for 15%, than the one you claim for 20%. Well that because you're a fucking divvy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30368 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 APR. FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.403f4a475ac3bb53997c2626c09ef800.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now