Quarter of Brits on interest only mortgages

wageslave

chucky wrote: »

so why the silly questions?

Chucky, you are quite sweet in a frightening kind of way.
And I am positive you are Pickles. You have the same, almost Victorian, aura of unstoppability about you.
(Mewbie, you are right, he DOES enjoy it.)

bluey890

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

If it is interest only, they are NOT paying off their mortgage.

GG

Inflation is.

Graham_Devon

bluey890 wrote: »

Inflation is.

Wow, were back to page 2!

Will be exciting to go over it all again!

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm feeling a little bad now, afterall, all my clutching at straws seems to have upset you.

However, may I ask what you are going on about rent for? Did I ever say it was more or less expensive than renting? I don't think I actually did.

So please don't accuse me of clutching at straws.

I admit I have chosen 2 pieces of data to make my point. Therefore, as I can see you are a little upset by this, I will agree that if we simply ignore those parts of data and only use the data which proves you correct in what you said, then you are indeed, funnily enough, correct.

But please don't accuse me of cherry picking data.

As for assumptions, are you guaranteeing me that we will not hit £100,000 at any time over say the next decade? Is that not you making assumptions?

So please don't accuse me of making assumptions when making your own.

OK, I'll give it one more go.

Graham, ask yourself what you are trying to prove. If it's something to do with the OP, then consider that of the 3.5M people with interest only mortgages, a tiny fraction will have taken them out between the dates you chose. So in the context of this thread your argument is questionable at best.

But there is close to zero possibility of negative HPI over a 25 year period under any reasonable set of assumptions. To get to a negative outcome under your assumptions you have to start from a very specific point in time and chain a number of hugely unlikely outcomes. This is a probability game and the probabilities combine to make the outcome the product of all the individual probabilities.

So on the one hand you have something that's at very long odds - the outcome you are suggesting, and on the other you have something at very short odds, which is the outcome where there is HPI. But the condition for being worse off is that you have negative HPI over chosen period, AND you have no repayment vehicle. Very few people would be in that position anyway. Because of wage inflation over that period the amount lost on even negative HPI would be proportionately reduced. The conditions that cause a poor outcome are hugely unlikely, and less likely when combined. The downside is very limited, and the upside is large.

Frankly your argument is similar to that of someone saying it's possible that a 500/1 horse CAN win, so it's worth putting all your money onto it . No-one who understands risk ever guarantees anything, but ultimately it's a numbers game. Anyone CAN suffer problems that makes them unable to pay for their accomodation, mortgaged or rented, but the likelihood of that happening is disproportionately small in comparison to the benefit.

You are clutching at straws. You are making ludicrous assumptions. You are cherry picking data, i.e to get to your outcome you have to carefully choose one set of dates from all the other possible set of dates. Posting in glib italics really doesn't change that, it's really just playing to the gallery.

chucky

wageslave wrote: »

Chucky, you are quite sweet in a frightening kind of way.
And I am positive you are Pickles. You have the same, almost Victorian, aura of unstoppability about you.
(Mewbie, you are right, he DOES enjoy it.)

i got that PM too :rotfl:

HPC.co.uk must be a bit quiet at the moment :rolleyes:

let's hope house prices go down again... for your sake not mine :rotfl:

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm always trying, so I'm a little offended you haven't noticed as I put a lot of work into it.

I tried around the time Julie had a fit. I hope shes ok.

Uncalled for Graham.

Petty insults don't add to your case and my posts were perfectly clearly argued and didn't imply anything about your own state of mind.

bluey890

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Wow, were back to page 2!

Will be exciting to go over it all again!

There's no mention of the word inflation on page 2.
Your chewbacca defense isn't going to work with me wookie.

wageslave

Trying to do the Time Warp in 4 inch stilettos is taking a risk. Dying your hair pink just before a job interview is taking a risk. Taking out an interest only mortgage, with nothing more than a belief that God and HPI is on your side, is lunacy.

bluey890

wageslave wrote: »

Trying to do the Time Warp in 4 inch stilettos is taking a risk. Dying your hair pink just before a job interview is taking a risk. Taking out an interest only mortgage, with nothing more than a belief that God and HPI is on your side, is lunacy.

You forgot inflation.

mbga9pgf

Dan: wrote: »

He won't be angry. If you do not have the balance then your out and the last 30 years would have been like renting (only better as you can as you please). Anyway, after 30 years the house is pretty much GUARNTTED to be worth more.

After 30 years, it is guaranteed to cost more. Whether it is WORTH more I doubt, especially if they purchased the house at the peak of the 2007 boom.