An end to property?

[PurpleGorilla]

Lovely, that dataset is from what source?

Incidentally prior to the monumental shakeup of the mortgage business caused by the whole "sub-prime" thing it was very easy to get upto and beyond 100% mortgages, quite a number of providers were offering 110%. It rather puts the 2005 35% bank of Mum and Dad number into context don't you think?

Had you ever wondered what "sub-prime" actually meant?

Or does that inconvenient truth rather get in the way of the agenda?

council of mortgage lenders

http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphi...ime_buyers.pdf

[SueEllen]

The market is totally overheated and has been for upwards of 20 if not nearer to 30 years, that's not down to the people you obsess about the "Baby Boomers" who you blame for all the ills of the world past and present, but due to a huge jump from mass renting and large scale social housing to extensive ownership by the masses.

Load of tosh.

The housing market wasn't overheated in London and the SE let alone in the rest of the country between 1993 and 2001.

In fact loads of people in London and SE got out of negativity equity in 2001-2002.

Up until 2001 if you had a decent job e.g where a teacher you could get a mortgage on a 2 bedroom flat in places in zones 2 and 3 in London without many issues. Now you need about 12 times your salary.

[TykeMerc]

Ok, so the source is reputable, but what about the drastic difference in lending practices in 2005 to 2010? The numbers aren't comparable, they're a classic statisticians fudge (or mathematical bollocks if you prefer).

[AtW]

Ok, so the source is reputable, but what about the drastic difference in lending practices in 2005 to 2010? The numbers aren't comparable, they're a classic bankers' fraud (or mathematical bollocks if you prefer).

FTFY

Margin on very safe mortgage lending is much higher now than it used to be - cost of money right now to banks is effectively 0%, but they lend it at 3-4% in real safe market where money can't be lost. They are totally addicted to this margin and will aim to keep it when rates go up.

[Zero Liability]

Lovely, that dataset is from what source?

Incidentally prior to the monumental shakeup of the mortgage business caused by the whole "sub-prime" thing it was very easy to get upto and beyond 100% mortgages, quite a number of providers were offering 110%. It rather puts the 2005 35% bank of Mum and Dad number into context don't you think?

Had you ever wondered what "sub-prime" actually meant?

Or does that inconvenient truth rather get in the way of the agenda?

Indeed, that is a valid criticism of those 2005 figures, in that they were predicated on an unsustainable situation to begin with.

[PurpleGorilla]

Sub prime = banking stupidity.

You think they've learnt their lesson?

http://www.ybs.co.uk/mortgages/95-percent/index.html

[AtW]

Sub prime = banking stupidity.

Why was it stupid?

Subprime chaps made a killing on bonuses and retired early. Banks got bailed out by taxpayer.

[PurpleGorilla]

An end to property?

Why was it stupid?

Subprime chaps made a killing on bonuses and retired early. Banks got bailed out by taxpayer.

Chuckle, yeah you're right there ;-)

[Zero Liability]

Why was it stupid?

Subprime chaps made a killing on bonuses and retired early. Banks got bailed out by taxpayer.

Plus, it's what the governments and central banks wanted them to do, so incentives were structured in that direction. The tune hasn't changed in that respect, so they're doing the same thing again.

[OwlHoot]

Plus, it's what the governments and central banks wanted them to do, so incentives were structured in that direction. The tune hasn't changed in that respect, so they're doing the same thing again.

Yup, plus when it became clear they had dug themselves into a hole that was about to collapse, they started digging down even more franticly knowing that the Government would then have to bail out most of them if bank failures were otherwise inevitable.