Lloyds: Fifth of mortgage holders in negative equity.

Graham_Devon

Julie, I don't really care about the comments about engaging brains. Your post following it made no sense anyway, so I actually found it somewhat amusing.

But the sexist remark was way off. If there are plenty of posts, you could provide at least one which shows sexism. Secondly. you could do me a favour and tell me how on earth that post relates to me, or "us bears" you collectively refer to, and why you felt the need to start on us for those "sexist" remarks.

There is no argument here to deal with. Whether it's a marginal change or not, it matters little. The point was 20% is surely a huge amount to have on the books in negative equity. Whether the change is marginal or not, no one has commented on it apart from yourself.

julieq

Oh for heaven's sake Graham, yes it did make sense. The net change in house prices over that period by the NW figures is negative, therefore there can be an increase in negative equity without contradiction even after a few rises. It is really very simple. And given the change is marginal it makes no effective difference anyway, the lender is not significantly at more risk (and is at far less risk than they thought they would be on the basis of a 15% fall in prices YOY).

20% of customers with negative equity is notnecessarily a problem, it depends on the level of negative equity they have. Around 25% of the people in negative equity on the basis of this report probably aren't after July's rises. These are people sitting on the cusp of having equity and small noise type fluctuations will take them into the negative region (or out again).

Graham_Devon

The change in house prices from December to June is not negative. Thats why it makes no sense. See for yourself. I don't know how you are seeing negative here:



All I said was house prices are rising using their own index and the NW index, yet more people have fallen into neg equity, which does not correlate.

I see you are now ducking out of the sexism stuff on being pressed for evidence. I'll ask you not to say such strong things in future which can be more offensive than insults and then use it as a reasoning for your out of the blue attack.

Hopefully we can now draw a line under the pettiness?

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The change in house prices from December to June is not negative. Thats why it makes no sense. See for yourself. I don't know how you are seeing negative here:



All I said was house prices are rising using their own index and the NW index, yet more people have fallen into neg equity, which does not correlate.

I see you are now ducking out of the sexism stuff on being pressed for evidence. I'll ask you not to say such strong things in future which can be more offensive than insults and then use it as a reasoning for your out of the blue attack.

Hopefully we can now draw a line under the pettiness?

It will depend where the houses are on which the loans were made. If advances were made on flats in Leeds City Centre rather than houses in Kensington. Then the outcome will reflect this.

Negative equity will also be created by mortgage arrears accumulating and compounding. Minimal deposits will soon evapourate.

Lastly there was undoubtably some over valuation of new build property which has been washed away.

julieq

Graham, that graph is showing year on year rate of decline, it's not showing prices.

The rate of decline year on year in December was greater than the rate of decline year on year at the end of June. That doesn't mean prices have increased since then.

If you accumulate the prices in the NW figures I gave (which was the first in tabular format I could find), there is a net 1.1% decline over the period of the survey. It's impossible to specific because they don't explain their methodology, but that explains the apparent contradiction.

The average price from the table at the end of November (i.e. the measure during December) was £158,442. At the end of June it was £156,442. That is a fall. It's now back to £158K.Other figures (from different measures) will have slightly different outcomes.

But as I say, even if they do, because the changes over that period are small, the negative equity is small - noise level for something approaching 25% of those affected. So it's not a big deal anyway. Better measures would be the volume of negative equity as a proportion of the entire amount loaned, that gives a measure of risk. But they don't give that.

It is about using numbers to tell a story for journalistic effect. As is unfortunately extremely common, and if you can't see through that you'll draw false conclusions.

prowla

Ah - the end to boom and bust...

System

Urgh, behave guys, julieq is always responding to patronising "loves" and abuse in a calm fashion. I too shall be waiting with baited breath to watch ad leap to her defence in the next couple of days when a member of the hpc ghetto starts reeling off the abuse again.

misskool

Hi all,

Can we remember to be nice to moneysavers, even if you don't agree with them there is no need for personal attacks?

Thanks

chucky

ad9898 wrote: »

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

she's spot on - she's got a lot of grief from quite a few people...

obviously the filters were being applied...:rolleyes:

chucky

julieq wrote: »

And then there's this

The lender also revised its predictions for house price falls today to 7% or less during 2009, from an initial 15% forecast.

Which curiously hasn't been quoted by the bears. Why would that be, I wonder?

this has also been filtered out - doesn't fit the viewpoint :rolleyes: