Nationwide - up 0.9% MoM

chucknorris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i think we can still all agree that the majority of hackney is a bit !!!!!!.

That's what I think every time we go there, I really wouldn't want to live there myself but it is obviously offering something to some people

Dithering_Dad

ruggedtoast wrote: »

For most "normal" people who want to buy a home to live in, that they have a chance of selling if they need to move in a couple of years, the smart money is still waiting.

Would most people be looking to buy a house and then sell in 2 years? It hardly seems worth the stress and hassle.

Entertainer

chucknorris wrote: »

Why on earth would I want to impress you? We don't even know each other and even if we did I am not that way inclined anyway.

Ooooh.:blushing:

I'm sure Sir Humphrey is happily married as well.

chewmylegoff

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

What end of the stick have you got? Anyway, I am here to try to have an intelligent conversation - hence me posting some data which seems to have rattled certain people. Well, if I am not going to get intelligent conversation here, I may as well go elsewhere.

well, everyone has their own definition of intelligent conversation; for instance, i would not categorise your rubbish outburst as intelligent, but others may disagree. i guess you need to have been to brookes to "get" your repartie?

Dan:_4

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Would most people be looking to buy a house and then sell in 2 years? It hardly seems worth the stress and hassle.

I've never understood why someone would buy a house for less then 5 years?

I know a couple who buy and sell (they have stopped now) a house every 18-24 months. Every time they buy a house they suddenly reckon they don't like it after a short while - errr why buy it then in the first place???? - totally madness.

I prefer to have stability. My current plan is to trade up in 2014 as I would have been living in my current house 10 years by then.

misskool

There were 2 threads on the Nationwide March figures, so they have been merged to keep the discussion together.

If you disagree with this, please send me a PM

zappahey

misskool wrote: »

There were 2 threads on the Nationwide March figures, so they have been merged to keep the discussion together.

If you disagree with this, please send me a PM

Phew! I thought I was going senile and had forgotten half of the posts by the time I'd refreshed the page.

lostinrates

misskool wrote: »

There were 2 threads on the Nationwide March figures, so they have been merged to keep the discussion together.

If you disagree with this, please send me a PM

I agree with it, so responded here, not in a PM

(I'm trying to be good and support good moderation )

Dan:_4

misskool wrote: »

There were 2 threads on the Nationwide March figures, so they have been merged to keep the discussion together.

If you disagree with this, please send me a PM

It seems some regulars don't want to post on this thread this month, and would prefer to have a whole seprate thread to dsicuss just one factor of the report.

Dithering_Dad

Cat695 wrote: »

A very good question DD and something I believe we just won't know.

though I just did a check with halifax and with my pay 36k they would lend me (STS etc) 159k and that also takes into account the loan I have to

so according to halifax more than 4 x.......but whether I would actually get the mortgage or not is another thing


Abbey 133k
Barclays 185k
First Dircet 130k

I put Wookster's figures into the halifax site...

Wookster wrote: »

Average house price is £149,709 and average wages are ~£27,000

This gives a multiple of 5.5X (more so if average wages have dropped since the article on the statistics website was published in November 2008).

The long term average is about 3.5X. This would imply that we still have some (considerable) way to fall to reach the long term average.

I set myself up as a FTB with a salary of £27k, my house price was £149,709 and I put down that I had a 10% deposit, so wanted to borrow £134738. The website came back and told me that they would only lend 134700, so I'd have to add a further £38 to my deposit, (which is neither here or there).

This represent a multiple of 4.988888 (i.e. a multiple of 5x salary). As you've already said, Cat, having an illustration on a website and getting the mortgage are two different things, but I would imagine that if the FTBer had a good credit record and little or no debts, that they would be able to get the mortgage.

If, in the middle of the credit crunch with banks being bailed out left and right, they're still prepared to lend upto 5x salary then surely when we start coming out of the credit crunch/recession they will become more relaxed with lending, not less, so these 3.5 x salary multiples will exist only in the posts on this website?