CITY AM--- Housing no longer overvalued

Graham_Devon

andykn wrote: »

Both the Nationwide and Halifax SVR are around 4%. You don't have to fix or track.

Oh!

Could you show me then which mortgage allows you to go straight onto SVR?

Existing home owner mortgages:
http://www.halifax.co.uk/mortgages/buyingahome.asp

FTB mortgages:
http://www.halifax.co.uk/mortgages/firsttimebuyers.asp

The average, across all lenders for mortgage interest rates went up againsin august, now stands at 4.72% across all lenders average, across all products.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The average, across all lenders for mortgage interest rates went up againsin august, now stands at 4.72% across all lenders average, across all products.

that's actually a cheap rate or would you prefer the 8% or even 15% of the early 90s?

abaxas

chucky wrote: »

that's actually a cheap rate or would you prefer the 8% or even 15% of the early 90s?

Not comparable, as the loan amounts were lower to earnings and wager inflation was eating away at real loan values.

I'd much perfer a 100k loan at 15% than a 200k one at 7.5%.

andykn

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You didn't get it right. I wouldn't have expected you to either. So you can still have a bonus point.

Ah, the comprehensive explanation we have come to expect.

On a forum about saving money, someone posts a professional opinion that may save someone money and you call it trolling. You don't even see the irony.

chucky

abaxas wrote: »

Not comparable, as the loan amounts were lower to earnings and wager inflation was eating away at real loan values.

I'd much perfer a 100k loan at 15% than a 200k one at 7.5%.

would you?? repayments are below

100k loan at 15% = £1,289.16
200k loan at 7.5% = £1,495.17

the difference between the two is only £200 a month which only needs 1% wage inflation over 15 years to be cheaper.

seeing that wage inflation was over 1% per year - i'd rather a mortgage now

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucky wrote: »

that's actually a cheap rate or would you prefer the 8% or even 15% of the early 90s?

tbf its only cheap (or otherwise) if taken in context w capital price imo (in hypothetical world I'd rather borrow at double the IR and half the capital price)

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucky wrote: »

would you?? repayments are below

100k loan at 15% = £1,289.16
200k loan at 7.5% = £1,495.17

the difference between the two is only £200 a month which only needs 1% wage inflation over 15 years to be cheaper.

seeing that wage inflation was over 1% per year - i'd rather a mortgage now

I would!

I'd be banking on rates coming down from 15 (and that this would have a positive effect on prices)

chucky

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

I would!

I'd be banking on rates coming down from 15 (and that this would have a positive effect on prices)

we're comparing the affordability in comparison.

you've taken that one too far - but you are right of course.
but it did take about 6 years to go under 8% which in turn pushed prices further up from 1996 onwards.
it's a catch 22

the_ash_and_the_oak

perhaps.

I'd just rather (at least hypothetically) borrow when rates are at their highest and have done their damage to prices (and then as they gradually come down let their lowering have a positive effect on the prices themselves)

Entertainer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Property is once again attractive to buy-to-let investors. The average rental yield on flats (5.1 per cent) is now well above the average 2-year fixed mortgage rate (75 per cent loan-to-value), which is 4.46 per cent. It is the highest gap since 2002-03.

More excellent news.

So a 0.64% yield gap before costs and void periods is "attractive". More premium investment advice courtesy of Hamish Mctavish Private Banking Group.:rotfl: