They'd be fully securitised lenders so regardless of your deposit and capacity to pay, LMIs aren't looking at anyone with < 12 months with the same employer.
That is subprime? I've heard some extravagent claims by both sides of the bull/bear divide, but this is up there with the best of them
That only covers the broader LMI borrowers, and the actual criteria can be waived if the client is changing within the same industry or has an otherwise stable employment history. Horses for courses.So that basically means anybody who loses their job in the next 12 months, or in fact has lost their job in the last 6 months has next to no chance of entering the housing market even if they find new work. Clearly this is not a good situation for the market as a whole. And with Government estimates we are heading towards 7% unemployment, this is possibly tens of thousands that are simply ineligible to enter the market.
Contributer in a broad sense, but the criteria for lending gets extremely tight above 90% LVR and above 95% it is almost non-existant now (was extremely tough in the first place).Not having an adequate savings history or adequate equity from the get-go was one of the very elements of subprime! While lending standards may not be as low or to the near unemployed as what occurred in the US, if we look to the UK where 100% loans were common, it's a very thin line between LVR100% and 96%! And we can see where the UK has headed, where lending standards were *not* as lax as the US, but low LVR's were a clear contributor.
Not necessarily. If you want to paint pictures, >95% LMI loans were pitched almost solely at uni grads who wouldn't have had the capacity to save much for a deposit. Kids walking out into $60-70k jobs as graduates.A small 5% or less cash deposit clearly shows the borrower cannot budget effectively to save over even a short period of time
As stated previously, at 6% you would struggle to buy a property after purchase costs.Having a bare 6% deposit (and only say 3% of that your own), clearly would put FHB into negative equity with only small falls in the market, the magnitude of which has already been felt in the market in the last 12 months... Give it some further economic conditions deteriorating, and such borrowers will be in negative equity. And what happens if they lose their job once in that position?
As said previously, we don't have ARMS in Australia. I think you seem to be confusing high LVR with capacity to pay, which are two seperate criteria. In addition, the recourse factor means borrowers in Australia are much less likely to hand in keys, as they will be pursued for costs & shortfall in the event of a negative equity sale (remembering LMI protects the lender: GE & PMI will still chase you even if you have satisfied the lender).Given that less senior employees are probably some of the most vulnerable in the workplace to layoffs, it's setting up for a tense situation for many in the coming year or two.
Never mind if/when interest rates go up several percent in future years... where there are similarities with such a scenario in the US situation, where ARM resets were one of the key triggers to setting off the whole crisis.
hello,
LOOK AT THIS BROTHERS:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25114294-643,00.html
hows that man, 16k of new jobs
not surprised it hasnt got a run with all the doomheads around
thankyou
robots
I LOLedlook out gloomheads
The RBA’s findings run strongly against the grain of what many would have us believe (refer to the chart below): that is, despite strong growth in real house prices over the last 25 years, the income younger home buyers have left over after paying off their mortgage was actually higher in 2007 than it has been at any other point in recorded history. Of course, affordability has only improved since then with significant reductions in the cash rate combined with no growth in house prices during 2008.
Yeah but Rudd doubled it and interest rates have gone through the floor, inflation will kick in and it will be all over when rates go up again.
hello,
but i thought we are like the US, UK, Japan et al with interest rates going under 2%?
dont we follow these places, gee so many awesome wide ranging thoughts and opinions,
thankyou
robots
Oh and Trev, Seaford units were up 15% for the Dec Q, I think that's what Robots was referring to.
I dont see why I would continue trying to save for a larger deposit Glen, when the minimum deposit is the same as renting in the area. Why rent and pay off someone elses mortgage, when I can pay off my own? Especially when I can pay it off in less than a decade
but i thought we are like the US, UK, Japan et al with interest rates going under 2%?
dont we follow these places, gee so many awesome wide ranging thoughts and opinions,
We do follow them just not at the exact same time.
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?