Lloyds: Fifth of mortgage holders in negative equity.

julieq

Errrm, we've seen a 0.8 3 month rise. From December to Feb at least there were quite sharp falls. We're not back to last year yet, so the negative equity has increased.

ad9898_3

julieq wrote: »

And given the level of patronising sarcasm I get from the bears

Well perhaps you ought to look at your attitude then, as most of the bears on here are relatively friendly with bulls and vice versa, even though they have a different view.

Starting your posts with 'eer engage brain' or some other sarcasm that wasn't deserved wouldn't endear you to anyone whether it be a bear or a bull.

digipeep

julieq wrote: »

Well he didn't work it out for himself, did he? And given the level of patronising sarcasm I get from the bears, it's amusing how quickly you leap to the defence of a mild dig at someone on your team. I'll look forward to you defending me so enthusiastically.

But here come the ad hominems, I guess, which will deflect attention from the fact that the news is overegged (as usual with these stories), contains a major back track on the bad news, and is describing a marginal change only.

Sorry julieq, reading your comment you made earlier to Graham about engaging the brain made you come across as a thoroughly unpleasant poster.

Really2

This is an interesting stat from the link.

Lloyds said 1.1% of those who owed more than their home was worth were more than three months in arrears.

So that makes only 0.22% of it loans are in arrears and worth less than the loan.

Perhaps that is why the shares shot up today.
Perhaps most of the rsiky ones have already popped.

julieq

Let's look at the figures.

They are up to June 30th and start in December.

NW figures are in the table below, over those dates they net out to -1.1%.

On that basis assuming a similar shape to the data being used for this, they'll be back where they were now.

But the point that is being missed is that these are marginal changes only. Someone was at parity and is now 1% or so in negative equity. It doesn't put the lender at any more risk.

edit:table doesn't format but at

http://www.charcol.co.uk/knowledge-resources/ray-boulgers-blog/article/view/16-july-rise-in-the-real-nationwide-house-price-index-takes-2009-increase-to-date-up-to-38/3627/

julieq

digipeep wrote: »

Sorry julieq, reading your comment you made earlier to Graham about engaging the brain made you come across as a thoroughly unpleasant poster.

Lol, have you seen some of the patronising and often blatantly sexist abuse I've taken from these people when their arguments run out of steam?

Each to his own though. Last time I looked it wasn't an insult to suggest people operate their brain either.

Graham_Devon

Julie, I'm really not sure what's up with you tonight, and haven't bothered reacting to you. However, playing the sexist card?! !!!!!! is that about? That's annoyed me more than your jibes above.

How are we, collectively, sexist?

Edit: I take it the lack of response means you don't know.

ad9898_3

julieq wrote: »

blatantly sexist abuse

That's a fairly strong statement, you wanna back that up ?

ad9898_3

julieq wrote: »

Each to his own though. Last time I looked it wasn't an insult to suggest people operate their brain either.

Maybe not but people aren't going to engage with you when you start with those sort of comments. Or perhaps you don't want to engage, perhaps you want to 'brow beat' those you see as intellectually inferior to you, either way the responses to you are likely to be negative, whether they support your views or not.

julieq

Ad there have been plenty of posts where what I've said has been dismissed "because I'm a girl". You may not have noticed them in your haste to get to the next bit of bad news, but they do happen. I don't usually mind that much, I can deal with a bit of banter in the heat of an argument, but obviously there are much more sensitive people here who take offence when asked to think about how something apparently contradictary can be true.

As far as what I said about Graham it was MILDLY sarcastic.

Earlier today when someone had a similar go at me, we got a suggestion that it was just a little dig and I should "lighten up". As should you two.

And maybe deal with the actual argument, which is that this is a marginal change (because by any measure the change in values between Dec and June 30th was small) and has probably been reversed in July anyway.

And obviously as mentioned that the year on year loss prediction has been halved so whatever the negative equity situation is it's far better than the bank was planning for.