From The Press Association:
"The majority of MPs think more should be done to help struggling first-time buyers in London and across the country get on to the property ladder, a survey has indicated. Around 83% of MPs said they thought their constituents should be given more support when buying their first home, rising to 100% among those with constituencies in London, according to insurer Genworth Financial...
Angel Mas, president of mortgage insurance for Genworth Financial in Europe, said: "The deposit remains the biggest barrier to home ownership in the UK, along with the prudent approach taken by lenders, who are allocating their scarce capital to other segments of the mortgage market.
The return of high loan-to-value lending is vital if we are to unlock the market for those with a sound credit profile, but who are unable to save for a deposit in the near term. Lenders can participate safely in the high LTV segment by transferring default risk to a specialist insurer."
H/t Gawain Towler.
Thursday, 10 March 2011
Special Pleading Of The Week
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The only thing that will incrase the number of buyers is allowing the building of more houses. Any politician suggesting other sortd of "help" is simply calling for more government employees to be hired to regulate us and/or special treatment for their own political allies (often also government employees).
Have to do something about those nasty, prudent lenders.
I don't personally have a problem with high LTV as long as you believe the payments will be made. If the payments are met and you don't need/want to move then negative equity is irrelevant.
NC, sort of agreed. Or have LVT and everybody 'right sizes'.
VFTS, the government is hell bent on it.
SW, agreed, LTV is far less important than income multiples i.e.
LTV 125%/income multiple 2 = safe
LTV 85%/income multiple 6 = risky
Is this the 'denial' phase at the of the dead cat bounce?
SL, we are past that, according to The Chart we are now moving from 'return to normal' to 'fear'.
if we are to unlock the market for those with a sound credit profile, but who are unable to save for a deposit in the near term ...
Translated:
We're missing out on a killing here.
JH, indeed, it's like when drug users realise that the only way to finance their habits is to become drug pushers, get another generation hooked on debt and shove the problem somewhere else.
I like the phrase:
"who are allocating their scarce capital "
Er.. what do they mean. They print the money out of nothing. There is no shortage of it. Also what gives them the power given it belongs to the people not them.
MW There are a million empty homes. Building more will mean even more empty homes. This is what happened before. It will keep happening. This is not rocket science
RS, LVT is the best way of doing anything, but Germany illustrates that even though their equivalent of Council Tax only raises about a quarter as much as in the UK (per capita), it is possible to keep house prices very stable over the long run (twenty years ago, they were outrageously expensive compared to UK - nowadays they seem like quite good value) by a combination of
1. Liberal planning laws/relative lack of Home-Owner-Ism,
2. A lot of new building even if that is combined with very high build standards,
3. Strict mortgage rationing and
4. What are effectively rent caps (mixed in with a lot of subsidies) so there's no particular hurry to 'get on the housing ladder'.
No please, MW, it's all too much. I need to breath and I can't because I'm laughing so much...
Post a Comment