One in seven homeowners face negative equity

tonydee

Six in seven homeowners face positive equity.

RecoveringAlcoholic

Ignore the experts in their air-conditioned ivory towers.

Get out on the street.

Listen to conversations in supermarket queues.
Watch peoples faces at the petrol station.
Visit your local court.
Look at the queues outside your local CAB when they open in the morning.
Count the number of empty units in your local shopping centre.
Chat to your local car dealer.
Etc, etc.

neverdespairgirl

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Like mine are. My LTV's are approx 36% and 56%.
Maybe not efficient tax wise but extremely low risk wise.

As I understand the report, it is saying there is a big cluster of BTL places with about 80% mortgages. So that makes your places more unusual, I think?

Certainly, you don't seem to be at high risk, but others may be.

carolt

Re post no. 21:

Premier wrote: »

OMG, you are stalking me! :eek:

Btw, I don't disagree with the hypotheis. I disagree with the assumption by some that the hypothesis reflects reality. This is not even the implication of the report itself, but I knew some people would think this is what the report implies.

Any other reports you'd like to draw my attention to that suggest what house prices will be in 2013 (or beyond)?

Please read what you have written before telling me I'm talking nonsense when I've just quoted your own words!

LOL, you are funny! :rotfl:

Premier_2

carolt wrote: »

Re post no. 21:



Please read what you have written before telling me I'm talking nonsense when I've just quoted your own words!

LOL, you are funny! :rotfl:

Which words don't you understand?

I've re-read it and it makes perfect sense to me.

Any luck finding a different report about what house prices might be in the UK in 2013 or beyond yet? I'm led to believe there are many, many reports issued on a daily basis about such house prices, it shouldn't take you too long

tomstickland

Premier wrote: »

How do those graphs clearly indicate "that house prices, already 7 per cent below their peak, will fall a further 17 per cent, increasing the numbers in negative equity from just 70,000 households today to 1.7m, or 14 per cent of borrowers."


One shows the spread of LTV that exists and the second shows what I said the report is doing. i.e.

If prices fall by x%, then the amount of people in negative equity will be y.

Perhaps the report is not as clear as you first thought. Even carolt agrees its based on an hypothesis

You seem to be missing my point.

There are only two things:
1) The graphs clearly show how many people would be affected if there was a certain fall. That's factual information.

2) They have a estimate of possible falls. That's conjecture, I agree.

How do you know what I "first thought"? My opinion has not changed since I first read the article.

carolt

"I don't disagree with the hypotheis. I disagree with the assumption by some that the hypothesis reflects reality. This is not even the implication of the report itself, but I knew some people would think this is what the report implies." - Premier, post no. 19.

---

"Of course it can <reflect reality>, or are you disputing S+P report as well now.

It clearly uses the hypothesis that "if prices fall by x%, then the amount of people in negative equity will be y." and I have no reason to doubt their results either.

What I don't agree with is the assumption (by some) that prices will fall by that x%, butnothing wrong with the hypothesis itself." - Premier, post no. 21.

---

So do you agree with the hypothesis or not? You seem very confused, Premier. Maybe you need to stop posting and get some fresh air.

Premier_2

tomstickland wrote: »

You seem to be missing my point.

There are only two things:
1) The graphs clearly show how many people would be affected if there was a certain fall. That's factual information.

2) They have a estimate of possible falls. That's conjecture, I agree.

How do you know what I "first thought"? My opinion has not changed since I first read the article.

Because you earlier said:

tomstickland wrote:

It appears to me as a clear, fact based report.

Now you agree it's based on conjecture. Glad you finally came round to what I said as early as post#2

Premier_2

carolt wrote: »

"I don't disagree with the hypotheis. I disagree with the assumption by some that the hypothesis reflects reality. This is not even the implication of the report itself, but I knew some people would think this is what the report implies." - Premier, post no. 19.

---

"Of course it can <reflect reality>, or are you disputing S+P report as well now.

It clearly uses the hypothesis that "if prices fall by x%, then the amount of people in negative equity will be y." and I have no reason to doubt their results either.

What I don't agree with is the assumption (by some) that prices will fall by that x%, butnothing wrong with the hypothesis itself." - Premier, post no. 21.

---

So do you agree with the hypothesis or not? You seem very confused, Premier. Maybe you need to stop posting and get some fresh air.

My only confusion is by the nonsense you are now posting.

Which words do you not understand. I have no reason to doubt the results based on the hypthesis. The hypothesis is real. What is wrong is that some assume the hypothesis is what will actually happen to house prices in reality.

As already agreed by tomstickland, that is pure conjecture, or as I said finger in the air stuff.

brit1234

Prices are falling extremely fast as there is nothing substantial that supports them at that. All the bank results coming out are showing huge drops in profits for the last six months. Now if that trend continues which is likely as the economic data is worse and the property price crash has started then they are going to have big losses in the next 2 quarters. As rights issues have failed and CDOs are dead that means lots less money o lend so only the very best applicants will get mortgages.

Hence there will be more property supply, less buyes and price falls will excellerate. End result the number of people in negative equity will dramically increase month after month.