MSE News: Halifax: house prices up for third successive month

StevieJ

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

should we maybe find out if these loans existed first before deciding who they were probably for? (I'm assuming young professionals still exist in 2009?)

How are you going to find out if these loans existed? apart from Devon and other HPC hearsay

Lotus-eater

Really2 wrote: »

Personally.Fall possible back to Feb 09.
Relative stagnation for good few years due to debt, regulation, credit, tax etc. etc.
Lending to be relatively cheap for a long time (below 6% for 75% LTV mortgages).

If the government manage stagnation for a few years, I will be surprised. I don't think any of them have it in them.
If they manage interest rates well, that will be a big help........well, in a few years we'll know, won't we

Really2

Lotus-eater wrote: »

If the government manage stagnation for a few years, I will be surprised.

It wont be the government, it will be the burden and credit availability.;)

Lotus-eater

Really2 wrote: »

It wont be the government, it will be the burden and credit availability.;)

You mean "The Burden", the one the government has got to sort out/repay/pay interest on/change our whole lives over?
That won't be the government then?

And all the new rules that are being talked about to restrict lending (if it happens, which I doubt), that won't be the government either?

the_ash_and_the_oak

StevieJ wrote: »

How are you going to find out if these loans existed? apart from Devon and other HPC hearsay

Appreciate where you're coming from w this but pretty sure I've never used Devon or HPC hearsay before tbf. Had no real plans to use them this time either imo

Thought others might provide a few links. Used archive.org to find out London rents of 2002 but not so easy for this as banks mortgage calculators won't work on archive.org obv

Really2

Lotus-eater wrote: »

You mean "The Burden", the one the government has got to sort out/repay/pay interest on/change our whole lives over?
That won't be the government then?

And all the new rules that are being talked about to restrict lending (if it happens, which I doubt), that won't be the government either?

Really2 wrote: »

Relative stagnation for good few years due to debt, regulation, credit, tax etc. etc.

The bold above are not government controlled. (credit and debt being big two)

The FSA will set the regulation to be approved so I will give them the benefit of doubt.:)

Lotus-eater

Really2 wrote: »

The bold above are not government controlled. (credit and debt being big two)

I remember way back when I was a lad, Gordon Browne telling everyone that he wasn't going to let house prices get out of control. He then allowed debt to get out of control and with it house prices.
I thought he was in government then, it must have been my imagination.

He also let UK PLC borrow when the times were good, giving the example to many, who went ahead and borrowed and borrowed.

Now, maybe it's me, but I feel that the government has more than a little influence on credit and debt.

Really2

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Now, maybe it's me, but I feel that the government has more than a little influence on credit and debt.

They may have but the personal debt still needs to be paid back and it will have a slowing effect on growth.
The government can not force the availability of credit either (QE ended up on balance sheets)

I am not political on these kind of things.

Cannon_Fodder

Just thought I'd throw in a thought on the 6x multiple debate;

Does it matter what the norm or average is, particularly?

Aren't most markets driven by the extremes - "pushing the envelope", so if 5% to 10% higher demand/financing is created, than used to exist in the market, it would probably be enough to create HPI..?

Throw in the other expansionist elements, buy-with-a-friend, 100% LTV, have-a-guarantor, 110% LTV, buy-with-two-mates, 125% LTV, buy with strangers, etc etc...and that adds up to reckless lending which fuelled HPI.

the_ash_and_the_oak

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Just thought I'd throw in a thought on the 6x multiple debate;

Does it matter what the norm or average is, particularly?

Aren't most markets driven by the extremes - "pushing the envelope", so if 5% to 10% higher demand/financing is created, than used to exist in the market, it would probably be enough to create HPI..?

Throw in the other expansionist elements, buy-with-a-friend, 100% LTV, have-a-guarantor, 110% LTV, buy-with-two-mates, 125% LTV, buy with strangers, etc etc...and that adds up to reckless lending which fuelled HPI.

Yes. I think the average matters but so do extremes (at least, if you agree the now disappeared extremes were contributory factors)