2004...My Ar*e....Make Your Predictions...

Cat695

so because you don't like halifax predictions you've chosen nationwide

why not choose the LR figures I'm sure they will make you feel even better

And your master plan to persuade people forgets the fact that mortgage lending is down below 30000 a month for remortgaging.....infact it was under 20000 for "new" mortgages

Paul_N_4

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Out of interest, if house prices did fall that far... (not that they will, but humour me)

Where would you get the money from to buy 3 or 4 houses at £77k? (i.e. £77k x 4 = £308,000) ??

Its an argument always brought forward by these people who assume their circumstances, wages, disposable income, bills, loan rates, etc, etc will all remain as they do today, and so they assume they'd be able to by 10 houses if they drop that far. Its usually the young/naive.

mitchaa

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Out of interest, if house prices did fall that far... (not that they will, but humour me)

Where would you get the money from to buy 3 or 4 houses at £77k? (i.e. £77k x 4 = £308,000) ??

I do not get your point here DD, you do not know of my income, savings/investments info, so surely impossible to question

Banks of course would lend the majorities, the issue here would be if i could get 3-4BTL mortgages with deposits

Paul_N_4

A word on the trend line. For every month the price remains above the trend line, the steepness of the trend line increases (even if prices are actually falling). For every month the price remains below the trend line, the steepness decreases. Every month the trend line gets redrawn.

So at the moment, the trend line for 2008 shows prices at about £148,000. If price was to fall below the trend line for any prolonged period of time (lets say 1-2 years), the trend line gets redrawn, and it will decrease in steepness. This means that in 2 years time, the 2008 trend line price could actually be much less than £148,000 as it stands today.

So in short, the current trend line is not representative of what price should be at today. It merely represents what they have been averaging historically, but have obviously been heavily skewed by recent years growth.

stephen163

mitchaa wrote: »

Average house price of less than £77k, i'll have 3 or 4 then:p

Might buy them altogether, join them up and have a 15 bed mansion for under £300k:rotfl:

PLEASE use real house prices! If house prices fell back to 2000 Q1 levels, they would be £100k not £77k (see original link). This is because £77k back then is equivalent to £100k in today's money.

If not you need to specify that you are cheating by using nominal face values

With the trend line - would one more quarter or year on top of 33 (or 33 x 4) data points make that much of a difference? Looks like it is based on least squares. Isn't it better to just assume this as a constant?

mitchaa

Cat695 wrote: »

so because you don't like halifax predictions you've chosen nationwide

why not choose the LR figures I'm sure they will make you feel even better

And your master plan to persuade people forgets the fact that mortgage lending is down below 30000 a month for remortgaging.....infact it was under 20000 for "new" mortgages

If you want to be picky here, yes the LR figures are the figures to go by. Nationwide and Halifax equate to around 25% of the market.

Halifax are reporting drops of 20%, Nationwide so far 14.8%, LR around 12%

Have you actually had a look to see what is involved in order for the Halifax to drop back to 2003 levels? Not happening anytime soon.

Cat695

mitchaa wrote: »

If you want to be picky here, yes the LR figures are the figures to go by. Nationwide and Halifax equate to around 25% of the market.

Halifax are reporting drops of 20%, Nationwide so far 14.8%, LR around 12%

Have you actually had a look to see what is involved in order for the Halifax to drop back to 2003 levels? Not happening anytime soon.

erm but if the banks don't lend then house prices can continue to drop to whatever the banks want them to.....some people DO need to sell, so blame them as they will be the ones that will cause the house prices to continue to fall

and I think you'll find halifax reported a 16.2 % average drop not 20%

mitchaa

stephen163 wrote: »

PLEASE use real house prices! If house prices fell back to 2000 Q1 levels, they would be £100k not £77k (see original link). This is because £77k back then is equivalent to £100k in today's money.

If not you need to specify that you are cheating by using nominal face values

Great, let's put a different spin on the argument now, weak, very weak argument.

If i took a £50k mortgage out in the year 2000 on IO, it would still be worth £50k today:rolleyes:

mitchaa

Home time now gents, clocking off 9mins early.

Will arise in the morning to do yet more battles.

Enjoy

Look at the sig 1 last time below.....Thanks:beer:

neverdespairgirl

mitchaa wrote: »

I do not get your point here DD, you do not know of my income, savings/investments info, so surely impossible to question

Surely not knowing is exactly why he asked?

He'd waste his time asking if he already knew!