# No change to central Bank mortgage measures



## Brendan Burgess (4 Dec 2019)

Just announced by the central Bank 

They say that without the rules house prices would be 20% higher


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (4 Dec 2019)

....... presumably less houses built too.

LTI should have been increased to maybe 4x.

Interest rates are about 150bps lower since the rules were introduced five years ago. No sign of a structural increase in rates soon.


----------



## Saavy99 (5 Dec 2019)

End results, home buyers have to.endure up to 5 hours of travelling every day as they.move out of cities in search.of cheaper properties.


----------



## mtk (5 Dec 2019)

Surprised they stay unchanged must be a lot of political pressure


----------



## cremeegg (5 Dec 2019)

When the economy was doing well in 1998 to 2006, we borrowed and built. This caused problems with repayment when the recession started.

Now that the economy is doing well we are not borrowing and not building. This is causing problems now.

While a happy medium should be possible, in my opinion the problems caused by the present policies are worse than problems caused by the previous policies.

At least we still have the houses, roads, schools built in the previous boom. What will we have to show for this boom once the shine goes off the new cars.


----------



## Purple (11 Dec 2019)

It takes about 8-10 years to go from no construction to a fully functioning construction sector which is meeting demand. Nothing the government does will really change that. The only thing increasing the LTV limits will do in increase prices. The same people will buy the same houses, they will just pay more for them.


----------



## Firefly (11 Dec 2019)

Saavy99 said:


> End results, home buyers have to.endure up to 5 hours of travelling every day as they.move out of cities in search.of cheaper properties.



But on the positive side, those that don't bother to work can get houses provided for them in cities.


----------



## lledlledlled (11 Dec 2019)

Firefly said:


> But on the positive side, those that don't bother to work can get houses provided for them in cities.



Are you suggesting we have too much social housing and not enough homelessness?


----------



## Purple (12 Dec 2019)

lledlledlled said:


> Are you suggesting we have too much social housing and not enough homelessness?


He's suggesting that social housing should be given to working families on low incomes who live in those area. People who don't work should not be prioritised and should be offered social housing in a cheaper part of the country.


----------

