We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Downturn points to cut in rates
Comments
-
Look stop going off topic.
4th time
Still have not answered the question!!!!!!!
If interest rates were 15% (during the last 5 years) and the money was still lent to people with no job at 130% do you think we would not be in the same mess?:rolleyes:
Two can play at that game. I demand you answer my hypothetical pointless question first:
If wood chuck could chuck wood, how many woods would a wood chuck chuck?--
Every pound less borrowed (to buy a house) is more than two pounds less to repay and more than three pounds less to earn, over the course of a typical mortgage.0 -
-
Two can play at that game. I demand you answer my hypothetical pointless question first:
If wood chuck could chuck wood, how many woods would a wood chuck chuck?
It is not pointless though is it you are arguing cheap, lose lending was the cause not just loose lending,
Compleatly relevent
5th time.
Still have not answered the question!!!!!!!
If interest rates were 15% (during the last 5 years) and the money was still lent to people with no job at 130% do you think we would not be in the same mess?:rolleyes:0 -
unforturtunately the common denominator is that all these things always seem to happen when !!!!!! is involved, self explanatory really...0
-
Cannon_Fodder wrote: »
I agree I have avoided !!!!!!'s goading today.0 -
BoE had no remit apparently for house prices, thanks to Gordy slicing all the powers up and shunting stuff over to the FSA, and seemingly each organisation unsure of its entire role to play or how to employ their powers.
Which makes the August 2005 rate cut even more of a mystery then
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bank-caused-inflation-rise-with-rate-cut-in-2005-says-think-tank-446854.html
Nothing to do with signs that the housing market was about to come off the boil at that time but subsequently went on one last 2-year bull run following the cut, I'm sure.
Mind you, since the chancellor has now told the BoE not to worry about targeting inflation, running at about 250% of target currently, it makes you wonder what they are supposed to do.--
Every pound less borrowed (to buy a house) is more than two pounds less to repay and more than three pounds less to earn, over the course of a typical mortgage.0 -
Sure it was - Lehman caused all the problems. Otherwise LIBOR and base rates would be back to tens of bps apart :rolleyes:
Tell you what, I know you you don't like it but lets introduce some facts.
Lehmans was allowed to collapse on the weekend between 12th and 15th Sept.
3mth LIBOR
8thSept 5.737
11thSept 5.704
15thSept 5.715
16thSept 5.791
17thSept 5.871
18thSept 5.978 and onwards
By the was the interest rate at this rime was 5%. indeed 10s of bps apart.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
realy/It is not pointless though is it you are arguing cheap, lose lending was the cause not just loose lending,
Compleatly relevent
5th time.
Still have not answered the question!!!!!!!
If interest rates were 15% (during the last 5 years) and the money was still lent to people with no job at 130% do you think we would not be in the same mess?:rolleyes:
Answer the Wood Chuck question dammit!
/realy
:rotfl:--
Every pound less borrowed (to buy a house) is more than two pounds less to repay and more than three pounds less to earn, over the course of a typical mortgage.0 -
Tell you what, I know you you don't like it but lets introduce some facts.
Lehmans was allowed to collapse on the weekend between 12th and 15th Sept.
3mth LIBOR
8thSept 5.737
11thSept 5.704
15thSept 5.715
16thSept 5.791
17thSept 5.871
18thSept 5.978 and onwards
By the was the interest rate at this rime was 5%. indeed 10s of bps apart.
Is that the overnight rate - what about the 3 and 12 month rates then?
My point was that LIBOR decoupled from base rates well over a year back.
http://www.bba.org.uk/content/1/c6/01/06/58/BBA_LIBOR_Graphs_070907.pdf
As is plain, the 3 and 12 month rates really started to pull away around August 2007.--
Every pound less borrowed (to buy a house) is more than two pounds less to repay and more than three pounds less to earn, over the course of a typical mortgage.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards