We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Mortgage lending up 2% in Sept.
Comments
-
not really any perspective there because 2009 mortgage lending is supporting 2009 house prices just like 2007 had a high level mortgage lending supported 2007 house prices.
Lending in 2007 didn't support prices it drove prices.
If house prices were lower now then possibly more money, could have been lent in 2009. As transaction levels would be higher.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Lending in 2007 didn't support prices it drove prices.
If house prices were lower now then possibly more money, could have been lent in 2009. As transaction levels would be higher.
and that is my point - lower transaction levels will mean a less amount of money is lent in volume which is displayed in your gross mortgage lending figures.
no point in just giving us gross mortgage lending figures if:
1. the volumes of loans is less and will have a lower amount of money lent.
2. gross mortgage lending includes remortgages. the remortgage mortgage is basically dead at the moment with people not being able to or not needing to remortgage onto a higher mortgage rate.
that's why your figures showed no perspective.0 -
-
and that is my point - lower transaction levels will mean a less amount of money is lent in volume which is displayed in your gross mortgage lending figures.
no point in just giving us gross mortgage lending figures if:
1. the volumes of loans is less and will have a lower amount of money lent.
2. gross mortgage lending includes remortgages. the remortgage mortgage is basically dead at the moment with people not being able to or not needing to remortgage onto a higher mortgage rate.
that's why your figures showed no perspective.
To add I skewed the 2008 figures buy purchasing and then re-mortgaging in the same year
0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Should I add 1999 - £115 billion to give it more perspective.
Why would it the lending figures give you no idea of what the market is doing.
If most lending is new mortgages and not re-mortgages how is any of that portrayed in any of the figures.
I would say in times of lower interest rates mortgage lending is usually lower.
who would re-mortgage so they pay 2% over SVR at the moment.
With no signs of any upward pressure on rates re-mortgaging will remain very low for some time.0 -
To add I skewed the 2008 figures buy purchasing and then re-mortgaging in the same year
Gross mortgage lending is a reflection of the available credit in the mortgage market.
As by remortgaging your new lender has the available funds to offer you a mortgage prior to your redemption of existing mortgage.
Whether people wish to remortgage is actually irrelevant. As the market can only support a certain number of remortgages.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Gross mortgage lending is a reflection of the available credit in the mortgage market.
As by remortgaging your new lender has the available funds to offer you a mortgage prior to your redemption of existing mortgage.
Whether people wish to remortgage is actually irrelevant. As the market can only support a certain number of remortgages.
you posted the gross lending figures going back to 2000 to try and add 'perspective' as the figures for 2009 are low compared to other years - namely 2007.
unless you accept the below your perspective has no value or even point:
1. remortgage market does not really exist due to the low SVR, tracker rates and people unable to remortgage
2. transaction volumes are low which in turn means that total mortgage lending amounts will also be lower to other years.
3. more importantly 2009 is not even finished yet and you have two more months of numbers to come out.
all of these add the real perspective to the picture that you tried to create.0 -
you posted the gross lending figures going back to 2000 to try and add 'perspective' as the figures for 2009 are low compared to other years - namely 2007.
unless you accept the below your perspective has no value or even point:
1. remortgage market does not really exist due to the low SVR, tracker rates and people unable to remortgage
2. transaction volumes are low which in turn means that total mortgage lending amounts will also be lower to other years.
3. more importantly 2009 is not even finished yet and you have two more months of numbers to come out.
all of these add the real perspective to the picture that you tried to create.
Facts are facts not pictures. I'm not trying to create anything. I'm not endlessly publishing comments on the return of available credit. How lenders are going to magically reappear. These figures demonstrate the contraction in the market. Read them how you like.
I added 1999, as Ready2 quoted 2001 and 2002. To show the growth in the credit markets in that time frame.
Whether the remortgage market exists from a borrowers view doesn't matter. If 200,000 people decided to transfer their mortgages to say HSBC to obtain a more attractive rate could the bank fund it? The answer is no. HSBC as a bank would not have the available "credit" to transact the business.0 -
Sums it up neatly.
In the years leading up to summer 2007, firms could readily access funding in the wholesale markets, and sought to maximise the benefits by relying on short-term funding, increasing the mis-match between their liability profile and the maturity of their assets. Following the onset of the financial turmoil, funding availability declined rapidly and spreads increased sharply – with consequent impacts on firms’ ability to lend to mortgage borrowers, as well as the cost of lending. If our new standards on liquidity had been in place, bank lending would not have increased as rapidly during the upswing, nor been cut so dramatically in the downswing.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Whether the remortgage market exists from a borrowers view doesn't matter. If 200,000 people decided to transfer their mortgages to say HSBC to obtain a more attractive rate could the bank fund it? The answer is no. HSBC as a bank would not have the available "credit" to transact the business.
that's really irrelevant. HSBC isn't the best example because they could probably go onto the money markets and borrow if they really needed to.
current gross mortgage figures are being held back due to the low level of remortgaging - it's pretty much fact.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards