Idiotic New Labour

[DimPrawn]

Ministers consider scheme to guarantee mortgages | Business | The Guardian

Sunday 26 July 2009 17.09 BST

First time home buyers could be thrown a lifeline under plans being considered by the Treasury to underwrite 'risky' mortgages, allowing people with only small deposits to buy homes.

Since the credit crunch took hold, banks have demanded far tougher criteria for lending, asking buyers to provide between 25% and 30% of the price of a home as a deposit.


VS

Idiotic ConDems

Taxpayer to take on mortgage risks of first-time buyers - Telegraph

The mortgage guarantee, the first time such a scheme has been attempted in the UK, will result in lenders providing loans with significantly lower deposits than the 20 per cent or more that is typically demanded. The taxpayer, however, could be liable for losses in the event that a home is repossessed.

[CheeseSlice]

Why dont they go the whole way and even market them as 'Toxic Loans'

[TestMangler]

Why dont they go the whole way and even market them as 'Toxic Loans'

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it as 'Ocean Finance', does it ?

[russell]

Number10gov: #housingstrategy: any buyer of a new home - not just 1st time buyers - can apply to borrow up to 95% of the value. New strategy to deliver homes and strengthen the economy - Corporate - Department for Communities and Local Government
Original Tweet: Twitter / UK Prime Minister: #housingstrategy: any buye ...

BOOMED BTL Empire here I come.

[Sysman]

Taxpayer to take on mortgage risks of first-time buyers - Telegraph[/url]

The mortgage guarantee, the first time such a scheme has been attempted in the UK, will result in lenders providing loans with significantly lower deposits than the 20 per cent or more that is typically demanded. The taxpayer, however, could be liable for losses in the event that a home is repossessed.

What I heard on Radio 4 this morning was that the taxpayer will fund Mortgage Indemnity Guarantees (MIGs)

Hmm, someone told me a year or two ago those had been made illegal, I guess they were wrong.

From the Telegraph article:

They also propose subsidising the construction of 16,000 homes by giving £400 million of taxpayers’ money to property developers.

That'll be the usual suspects such as Barratt them.

Who incidentally used to use MIGs to cover the expected shortfall between their sales price and the market value.

They did make getting a mortgage easy though.

Tough if you bought one of their studio flats though. Those were nigh on impossible to sell, and I met quite a few folks who got stuck with them. Barratt even build what my parents would have known as back to backs, except they gave them a flashier sounding name.

Same principle though.

[Sysman]

Why dont they go the whole way and even market them as 'Toxic Loans'

Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae?

You couldn't make thus stuff up.

[The_Equalizer]

They also propose subsidising the construction of 16,000 homes by giving £400 million of taxpayers’ money to property developers.

Wouldn't it be better just to reduce immigration by 16,000 x 2 (people per house), or dare I say, more?