Lloyds: Fifth of mortgage holders in negative equity.

Cannon_Fodder

I didn't start this thread, or post the article...

To be fair to the OP, he can hardly check every line of every article to check it has no flaws. He started talking Negative Equity, if you have concerns on specifics, I'm sure he'd love to answer them.

You were the one highlighting the particular sentence, as being of importance. So it would seem reasonable to address my question about the validity of the -15% prediction, that almost no-one appears to have ever heard of before, to someone 'in the know' for confirmation.

martin8_2

julieq wrote: »

Well I will if you post an original source for the information in the newspaper article you linked to at the beginning of this article. But in the meantime, if it's OK for you to post newspaper articles, why shouldn't I?

The article you quoted says:

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

Which is clear enough.

Julieq, are you referring to the OP's article/quotes (that Graham posted) or specifically articles posted by Cannon Fodder?

Also, any chance you could enlighten me regarding my question I posted about earlier in this thread please?

julieq

Ah sorry, I thought it was Graham posting the request, my mistake. Red mist does funny things to your perception.

As to the question, Lloyds are being quoted as saying that. I did go and have a look at their press releases for this time last year and the turn of the year but saw nothing there. There's no reason to doubt the quote, which I guess was from an interview or press conference, it's been widely reported.

damanpunk

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, you aggrivate us because of this sort of "Im holier than thou" stance while trying to tell us you are a middle of the road poster, not a bull.

On the contrary all I ever see is julieq having to explain posts to you over and over as you don't understand them. The only thing holy about her is that she must have the patience of a saint!

Graham_Devon

damanpunk wrote: »

On the contrary all I ever see is julieq having to explain posts to you over and over as you don't understand them. The only thing holy about her is that she must have the patience of a saint!

Hows the car you tried to sell to me Damien?

Still got it?

If Julie has explained it so well, I'm sure you will have no problem explaining what she has said.

damanpunk

Yawn, who is Damien?

Graham_Devon

damanpunk wrote: »

Yawn, who is Damien?

LOL. Like the innocence.

So, explain what julies saying. How does a 3k rise in prices = a fall.

StevieJ

julieq wrote: »

Also I suspect my posts aggravate the bears more because I'm debunking a lot of their trusted information sources. It's much easier to pick on a throwaway sarcastic remark than to deal with a reasoned or numerical argument.

Would that be Moneyweek or the Schiffster (as Purch calls him) by ant chance

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL. Like the innocence.

So, explain what julies saying. How does a 3k rise in prices = a fall.

The NW figures don't show a £3K rise in prices, or at least it depends on how you interpret the figures. If the survey is between December and June 30th, you use the figure available in December for the start point, which is the November figure, i.e. £158,442. The end date is explicitly stated as June 30th, so you use the figure for that date, i.e. £156,442. So there is a £2K drop over that period according to the NW figures.

Other ways derivations of value will have different start and end points. As I said possibly this study applied an averaged drop across their mortgage book based on surveyors' valuations. So the figures will be different, but the shape of the numbers will be substantially the same, i.e. it is a dip and return over essentially the period from December to 30th June.

I don't really see that this is particularly difficult to understand. Graham, I think where you got confused was in trying to use the YOY rate of change graph you posted as a price graph.

And to repeat, marginal entry into negative equity is not a big problem for anyone. There is no difference in practical terms being £1 out of NE or £1 in. And because we know that the price delta over the measured period is close to zero with July having seen price gains, you can be sure that most of the NE has been reversed.

If the article wanted to be useful, it would give a number for the total amount of NE in proportion to the value of the secured properties. That would then give a measure of the risk level run by the lenders.

I don't know whether I've got the patience of a saint or I'm just mildly autistic. I do seem to spend most of my time now repeating the same things

Graham_Devon

Sorry? You use November for December, and June for June?

I see now where you are coming from. Not that I think using different months for the starting point meaning you are correct is the way things should be done.

Personally, I'd use Decembers figures for December.