johnnygman
Registered User
- Messages
- 188
So then he can't afford it, as things currently stand. If he gets state support to buy something that he can't afford, then this is artificially keeping up the price of the other property. Without these supports, the prices of the other properties will have to drop.
amen . I'd be sickened if anything was done in fairness be it for negative equity or arrears. OK arrears well maybe some form of protection when the arrears are a result of unemployment etc. but arrears because someone couldn't be arsed is a different kettle of fish.
As for negative equity, well people over extended themselves, thats the risk you take when you buy something.
I think the only fairest option is to make what ever solution is implemented universal. so if they do something about the price or offer interest relief then it should apply to everyone regardless of if their property is in negative equity or not. I shouldnt be penalised by not being allowed to avail of relief just becauase i decided to buy an apartment that was in my means and didn't stretch myself.
NO reasonable argument? How about "allowing negative equity portability will increase the actual size of the mortgage considerably thus reducing its affordability (and therefore repayability) - particularly at a time when the couple are facing into significant extra costs if they are moving to start a family". Looking very coldly from the bank's point of view, they are much safer having a couple on 100K-120K and no childcare costs paying off a 300K mortgage than a couple on 100K-120K with childcare costs paying off a 400K mortgage. I'm not in any way saying this is right or socially acceptable/desirable but I don't know how you can think there are no reasonable arguments for not allowing NE portability...There is no reasonable argument for not allowing negative equity portability in the above circumstances.
NO reasonable argument? How about "allowing negative equity portability will increase the actual size of the mortgage considerably thus reducing its affordability (and therefore repayability) - particularly at a time when the couple are facing into significant extra costs if they are moving to start a family". Looking very coldly from the bank's point of view, they are much safer having a couple on 100K-120K and no childcare costs paying off a 300K mortgage than a couple on 100K-120K with childcare costs paying off a 400K mortgage. I'm not in any way saying this is right or socially acceptable/desirable but I don't know how you can think there are no reasonable arguments for not allowing NE portability...
I would have assumed, While you are not going to have a large family in an apartment with out going back 100yrs in living standards, you should be able to have one or two. Maybe I'm being naive.
Increasing interest rates are also going to have a impact on negative equity portability.
NO reasonable argument? How about "allowing negative equity portability will increase the actual size of the mortgage considerably thus reducing its affordability (and therefore repayability) - particularly at a time when the couple are facing into significant extra costs if they are moving to start a family". Looking very coldly from the bank's point of view, they are much safer having a couple on 100K-120K and no childcare costs paying off a 300K mortgage than a couple on 100K-120K with childcare costs paying off a 400K mortgage. I'm not in any way saying this is right or socially acceptable/desirable but I don't know how you can think there are no reasonable arguments for not allowing NE portability...
Yes, the banks would LOVE that. But how would the property be worth more than the mortgage if there's NE brought along and there's no deposit (or at least not enough to cover the NE)?Surely the bank would prefer to have a mortgage secured against a property worth more than the value of the mortgage?
What part of my argument above is not reasonable in the above circumstances?Again, I stand by my comment - There is no reasonable argument for not allowing negative equity portability in circumstances such as the above.
No. I have no problem with anyone doing anything they can afford. If the banks' stress tests (including the impact of childcare costs) are adequate, there's no reason why NE portability couldn't work in some circumstances.Your post seems to be arguing against people moving to larger homes in any circumstances (where affordability and "repayability" obviously reduce).
I'm not saying your being naive but, honestly where would I put a child in a 1-bed apartment? The child would have to live in the same bedroom as me & my husband for another 10years while we save up a deposit. There is also barely enough storage space for 2 adults (and we are fairly ruthless with not hoarding things). A friend visited recently and brought a buggy and some toys - the buggy barely fit in the door and there was nowhere to put it that didnt block a doorway. Children are not known for taking up only a little space!...
They just can't bridge the €50,000 - €80,000 to get them out of the negative equity problem. There is no reasonable argument for not allowing negative equity portability in the above circumstances. In fact, not allowing it is creating further problems.
I think you are missing the point. We have learnt from the recent bursting bubble that 100% mortgages on homes are not a good idea for either the bank or the borrower.
If you agree that the banks should not give 100% mortgages, then presumably you agree that they should not give 120% mortgages?
If people are earning big salaries, then they should save hard to pay down the negative equity and move when that is done.
The only negative equity mortgages which lenders should allow would be where borrowers are trading down, as this improves the situation for both lender and borrowers. Giving someone in negative equity more money is just not a good idea.
The overall mortgage will be lower so repayments will be lower and more affordable, borrowers are less likely to go into arrears, default etc.How does trading down with negative equity improve the situation for the lender and the borrower?
Why would the government (i.e. taxpayers) pay off some of peoples' mortgages? They entered into a contract freely.
Had i not been very lucky I would be stuck in a house I nearly bought for 320k and now it would be worth €170 if I could sell, which I would not be able to as the builder still has one for sale
Why would the government (i.e. taxpayers) pay off the bank's screwups? They entered into a contract freely.
If they only do it for one group, then everyone else will stop paying aswell.
I would have assumed, While you are not going to have a large family in an apartment with out going back 100yrs in living standards, you should be able to have one or two. Maybe I'm being naive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?