Crash crash crash part 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

julieq

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There'll be a high percentage of subprime, BTL, 100%, self certified borrowers in the I/o mortgagees.

These would have borrowed on the basis that prices were going to rise and rise.

At the very least. They'll act as a drag on the market. As they'll be stuck where they are and be unable to move for the foreseeable future.

Outside the waffle, where are YOUR facts?:rotfl:

percentage of the mortgage types you quote please.

evidence your second assertion is true please, and proportions of people believing that

closing assertion is a non-sequitur. It is now quite easy to rent out a house and use the income to rent elsewhere.

julieq

Actually, Liar Loans is an interesting and emotive term in itself.

As we've agreed hard facts are the way forward, what proportion of applicants actually lied?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

julieq wrote: »

Actually, Liar Loans is an interesting and emotive term in itself.

As we've agreed hard facts are the way forward, what proportion of applicants actually lied?

All of them!!!!

We all know that the average wage is only 12,000 a year or something in the real world, and nobody makes more than that really coz the gubbermint lies, so the only people that bought houses were on 20 times average salary and now they'll lose them and prices will drop.

Simples.

Harry_Powell

julieq wrote: »

It is now quite easy to rent out a house and use the income to rent elsewhere.

Especially if you own property in a high cost area and have moved to a lower cost area. I have some pals who lived close to me in London and moved to East Anglia to be closer to an elderly relative and to raise a family, they rent out their London property and it more than covers the rent for a family home in East Anglia.

It's a perfect scenario for them because they don't want to commit to a permanent move to 'the sticks' (as they call it) and so keeping on their London home gives them the flexibility to move back if necessary.

andykn

The trouble with this graph is it doesn't represent the UK housing market last time around so why would it this time?

I'm not saying it won't, it just didn't last time.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

andykn wrote: »

The trouble with this graph is it doesn't represent the UK housing market last time around so why would it this time?

I'm not saying it won't, it just didn't last time.

No Andy, obviously it does fit the exact model last time around.

It simply has to, because we bears believe it must.

Now off back to hpc you go for some more indoctrination.

Thrugelmir

julieq wrote: »

Outside the waffle, where are YOUR facts?:rotfl:

percentage of the mortgage types you quote please.

evidence your second assertion is true please, and proportions of people believing that

closing assertion is a non-sequitur. It is now quite easy to rent out a house and use the income to rent elsewhere.

The Treasury report on the lending by NR (rather securitisation of its loan book) through Granite made interesting reading. (I attached the full link on another thread a whileback). In the period 1999 -2007 - around 35% of the amount securitised (£127 billion), was the basis of interest only mortgages.

Even the FSA believes that has been widespread collusion between developers, agents, mortgage brokers that has influenced certain segments of the market. Principably overpricing of property.

Lehmans operated sub prime lending in the UK through its 2 subsidaries. GMAC was another sub prime lender.

The fact that 25% of mortgages granted between 2003 and 2007 were on an interest only basis, means a far number have no plan for capital repayment.

Why would you rent out your own house to rent somewhere else? More downsides than upsides.

Graham_Devon

It's not a graph it's a chart. And how come I've been quoted!?

Never fails to upset the bulls though does that doodle!

julieq wrote: »

Errrr, the graph goes back 36 years so we're not looking at this bubble, we're looking at house prices over a very long period. If you're looking for correlation with the famous graph, you have to take maybe the last 8 years maximum, otherwise you lose resolution on the Y axis.

This is wrong. We have had endless arguments on this board about this graph, and everytime, the people thanking your post say it can't be a graph because it has no timeline, therefore it's a chart.

BUT, to combat the same graph which is actually a chart, the very same people apply a timeline to it, to say it cannot be correct.

This "prooving the graph wrong" because it has no timeline, but also prooving it wrong by applying a timeline, is a little like having all the cake and eating it.

The chart just shows two bubbles, not one. Exactly the same as what the graph of house prices over 30+ years shows. Yet you are comparing it to one.

In the end, we will see. It's an interesting graph. But I don't think you can call it wrong because of a lack of timeline, but also call it wrong by imposing a timeline.

julieq

Graham, the chart shows one bubble. The big clue is in the title: "Main stages in a bubble". It's being superimposed onto 36 years of housing data including many ups and downs, which has had long term trend information removed, and which happens to be vaguely the same shape because it includes a long term exponential increase and a dip at the end.

It's not correlated. End of, really.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Graham, the chart shows one bubble. The big clue is in the title: "Main stages in a bubble". It's being superimposed onto 36 years of housing data including many ups and downs, which has had long term trend information removed, and which happens to be vaguely the same shape because it includes a long term exponential increase and a dip at the end.

It's not correlated. End of, really.

Does it define "bubble" then? Or are you using your own definition?

It's not really "end of" unless you can tell us how the chart defines a bubble. (and it is clear, as it's shown to us on the path of the chart).