More average salary stats to argue over.....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No !!!!!! sherlock. Someone who could afford a house found the house affordable.

Sometimes your genius really does knock me back a step or two.

Always wondered how someone I know bought a ferrari. You cleared it up for me now! He could afford it! :idea:

Ah, I see. You have no answer.

At least the hpc bears could fashion a coherent case on occasion.

We need a better class of bears around here, these ones are too easy.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Ah, I see. You have no answer.

At least the hpc bears could fashion a coherent case on occasion.

We need a better class of bears around here, these ones are too easy.

LOL.

No answer, and an answer you don't like are two seperate issues

Bloo_Loo

i wonder how the CML calculate their loan to earnings averages.

i mean a few millionaires in a crowd would skew the figures greatly.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Bloo_Loo wrote: »

i wonder how the CML calculate their loan to earnings averages.

i mean a few millionaires in a crowd would skew the figures greatly.

LOL

You have a hard time accepting facts don't you.

Why not just address the real issues.

1. House ownership is at or close to an all time high.

2. Average mortgages even at peak never crossed 3.5 times income for FTB's.

Your problem is that you want house ownership to be affordable for a far bigger percentage of people than it is now, and ever has been.

That is not an affordability issue, that is a social engineering issue. And whether it is right or sustainable is debatable.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

LOL

You have a hard time accepting facts don't you.

Why not just address the real issues.

1. House ownership is at or close to an all time high.

2. Average mortgages even at peak never crossed 3.5 times income for FTB's.

Your problem is that you want house ownership to be affordable for a far bigger percentage of people than it is now, and ever has been.

That is not an affordability issue, that is a social engineering issue. And whether it is right or sustainable is debatable.

Bloody hell, thats a new one.

Love to hear you explain that corker.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Bloody hell, thats a new one.

Love to hear you explain that corker.

You want more of the poorest 30% of people to buy houses..... The wealthiest 70% or so mostly already own.

And you wish to see artificial constraints put on lending to manipulate house prices so that can be achieved.

That's social engineering, pure and simple.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You want more of the poorest 30% of people to buy houses..... The wealthiest 70% or so mostly already own.

And you wish to see artificial constraints put on lending to manipulate house prices so that can be achieved.

That's social engineering, pure and simple.

Oh, the same as you want banks to lend at higher levels and want to see QE continue to aid this? That's not manipulation?

How are the banks, who are lending at the moment at lower risk levels, manipulating things?

Bloo_Loo

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

LOL

You have a hard time accepting facts don't you.

Why not just address the real issues.

1. House ownership is at or close to an all time high.

2. Average mortgages even at peak never crossed 3.5 times income for FTB's.

Your problem is that you want house ownership to be affordable for a far bigger percentage of people than it is now, and ever has been.

That is not an affordability issue, that is a social engineering issue. And whether it is right or sustainable is debatable.

You laugh and say I have difficulty accepting facts, yet fail to clarify the fact I a querying, like i was an idiot.

How about an answer?

btw you yourself say poor people cant afford the mortgages.

andykn

Bloo_Loo wrote: »

i wonder how the CML calculate their loan to earnings averages.

i mean a few millionaires in a crowd would skew the figures greatly.

But surely even a millionaire would "skew" both halves of the equation?

Multi million pound property and a multi million pound mortgage. But I'd guess that the CML figures are an average of multiples, so one multi millioniare borrowing, what is for him or her, peanuts would still only be one multiple of, say '1' that will not skew the millions on a multiple of '3'.

Rather than trying to add up the sum of all loans then divide that by the sum of all declared incomes.

I doubt actuallly many multi million pound properties are on a mortgage that appears on CML figures - certainly not enough to skew them significantly at peak.

Bloo_Loo

andykn wrote: »

But surely even a millionaire would "skew" both halves of the equation?

Multi million pound property and a multi million pound mortgage. But I'd guess that the CML figures are an average of multiples, so one multi millioniare borrowing, what is for him or her, peanuts would still only be one multiple of, say '1' that will not skew the millions on a multiple of '3'.

Rather than trying to add up the sum of all loans then divide that by the sum of all declared incomes.

I doubt actuallly many multi million pound properties are on a mortgage that appears on CML figures - certainly not enough to skew them significantly at peak.

you are assuming a person on a high salary has a equally large mortgage.

as many post here, a rich person needs only a small mortgage to buy what they want. they may splash out, they may not, either way, the figures could be well skewed.

I am looking for some facts.