The comments are as received and have not been edited as they are your views.
-Absolute lunacy. Families like my own sacrifice several luxuries to ensure we pay our mortgage each month have no assistance whilst others who allow themselves to fall into this position get bailed out by the govt. Scandal.
-Is it the governments intention to bail out every financial failure, if so than I mighht as well throw caution to the wind, if I win, I may become a millionairre, if I lose then the government will give me money! Have I got that right?
-Whilst I do not want to appear negative about any ideas to move the market forward, are we not storing up further problems e.g what will happen if the borrower cannot afford to repay the loan after 5years?. What safety net is going to be available?.How will the lenders and the FSA view this loan in connection with affordability?
-I will tell you what is Pathetic, the comments above (story about Stamp Duty). You lot would kick a gift horse in the mouth, it may not be what we wanted but if you lot keep talking it down with negative spin then it will be useless. let''s smile for once! A broker in Leeds.
-Again a good idea but the main problem is finding a mortgage for clients. This is the main sticking block along with a reduction in house prices. People who want to move cannot, as they no longer have enough equity in their properties. i.e those who put 5% deposit or took 100% mortgages. They are in negative equity.
-This is desperate measure designed more to protect the government''s image than mortgage payers. Most sensible people accept that house prices had become over inflated and that a correction was inevitable. It makes much more sense for prices to return to a lower and more affordable level especially for first time buyers. Subsiding arrears with public money is a grotesque nonsense and if such measures prop up house prices, it has the efeect of locking out first time buyers. This is a very odd use of tax payers money and illustrates the total incompetence of this benighted administration.
-Alistair Darling''s comments about the economy last week and the confusion created by the premature announcement on stamp duty demonstrate a staggering level of naive incompetence. As a minimum it is time for a cabinet reshuffle. If not then a general election is essential as the economy is now clearly being mismanaged and this governement needs to take the consequences.
-How utterly pathetic! If the govt thinks that this will stimulate the market place then they are even further out of touch with reality than even I thought! Why on earth they didn''t listen to the RICS proposals which seemed to be a lot more encompassing I don''t know. At least those proposals seemed to cover all areas of the market place from the lender and the borrower. Karl Mitchell - Monetary Matters
-Homeowners have for years been dissadvantaged for being "decent" and not bleeding the benefits system dry. In order to protect their mortgage and in the event they loose their job, they have to pay mortgage protection insurance (which is not cheap). Compare this to their counterparts who rent, they receive housing benefit almost immidately and do not need to pay such insurance. Inevitably when money is tight, insurances are the first to go. Should this be the case and they actually survive the 9 months before the state steps in to help, they will only receive help with the first ?100,000 which is fine if you live in the north but in the south it is unlikely to cover the outstanding mortgage so there is still the potential for arrears to occur. Their counterparts however, are likely to receive the whole wack or at worst, be slightly short of the monthly rent. Homeowners are not flush with money. They worked and saved hard to get there and why potential first time buyers should be upset if their taxes are used to help them is beyond me because they should be saying "there by the grace of God go I". The alternative is to be repossessed and then be re-housed by the local authority and receive housing benefit. The economy needs homeowners and homebuyers. It is about time that their contribution to the economy is appreciated.
-Question I buy-with help of a residential,regulated mortgage-a property at £175k Thereby avoiding stamp duty. In 6 months time (normal qualifying period for most lenders!) I advise my lender I now intend to switch property to a BTL The lender adjusts my rate (normally anything up to 1%) and we all live happily ever after!!! ...............unless you know better??? Would stamp duty be retrospective in this event Look forward with interest to your reply yours sincerely Dr David Noble
This will have a massively detrimental effect on the housing market - it means that the few First Time Buyers that exist will now ALL by new properties so there will be no activity at the bottom of a housing chain. Taking away the bottom link of a chain means even more stagnation in the housing market.
I am a mortgage broker so understand the current situation better than most-what the government says is true in that it is more expensive to put defaulters into "guest houses" et seq,than paying off arrears.It should not be down to taxpayers subsidies,however,-any payments made should be repayable.How do you classify a "decent" family and what happens if the current market conditions continue and the money runs out(remember we may be looking at 2,000,000 unemployed in the near future)After N Rock, this is knee jerk government reaction at a timewhen they are hugely unpopular.ps,Stamp duty holiday up to £175000 categorically will not help the first time buyermarket either,but will assist BTL investors who are already picking over the bones of the property market.
as i understand it the free loans are for only new builds. why should first time buyers be forced to buy new homes which in my experience as an estate agent one of the chief offenders for high prices is new builds where because lenders do not do surveys on new properties, they assume the builders are pricing right, resulting in that when the borrower wants to sell thay often do not make money. Also in most areas there is an ample supply of properties avaialable at prices well below new builds which are more than suitable for first time buyers. If this scheme is for new builds only what will become of the older properties.
with regard to the free loans all that will happen is mortgage advisers will recommend that first time buyers get a mortgage for 70% of value to keep repayments as low as possible and take the maximum free loan. The question is how are they going to repay this in 5 years, this scheme is similar to the Northern Rock scheme which has already been given bad press. The end result will be a high level of repossessions in five years time. Are we not simply putting things off to a later date.
How odd, If a first time buyer purchases a house at £150,000. The 30% loan will amount to £45,000. With repayments spread over 5 years the monthly payment would be £750 - more than the cost of the £105,000 repayment mortgage (for the balance). Better to borrow 90% or 95% on conventional mortgage and the balance on a personal loan over 8 years. Who is this intended to benefit? Dave Foster.
