Mortgage fraud

1984ReturnsForReal_2

What I would call stupid is paying £35 for fake payslips on the web & writing an article about it when you can just pop in to your nearest Staples or WH Smith & get some for £9.00..

chucky

carolt wrote: »

I thin you're confusing your posters, chucky.

Prices went up by 20% or more in seceral years in many places - how do you think some places ended up wwith prices going up 400 or 500% in less than a decade in some places?

ahh there you go again trying to take a generalised comment and trying to apply it in carolt world. that's where the start of the confusion starts

20% in two years isn't a 40% increase... go figure... :rolleyes:

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

20% in two years isn't a 40% increase... go figure... :rolleyes:

It is on the price you pay. Thats pretty obvious.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It is on the price you pay. Thats pretty obvious.

it's not at all - statistics aren't your strongest point are they... :rolleyes:

£100 +20% year 1 = £120
£120 +20% year 2 = £144

2 years at 20% each year is 44% over 2 years

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

it's not at all - statistics aren't your strongest point are they... :rolleyes:

£100 +20% year 1 = £120
£120 +20% year 2 = £144

2 years at 20% each year is 44% over 2 years

You are taking the value each year and compounding it.

Thats not what was suggested.

If I buy a house at 40k, and sell it at 80k 10 years later, the house has gone up 100% on what I paid for it. So 100% in 10 years. Or, 10% a year average.

So you can go on all you like about me not understanding. It's you who has changed the point of what was said.

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If I buy a house at 40k, and sell it at 80k 10 years later, the house has gone up 100% on what I paid for it. So 100% in 10 years. Or, 10% a year average.

A house worth £40k needs to only go up by 4% a year to reach a value of £80K in ten years.

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

A house worth £40k needs to only go up by 4% a year to reach a value of £80K in ten years.

So, 4% a year average, not 10%.

Correct, if you are looking at it from a different angle, i.e, looking ahead.

But what was said was looking backwards. Not forwards.

I think we all know we are simply creating arguments here though by purposely looking at it from a different viewpoint to make a point.

So there really isn't much left to be said.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thats not what was suggested.

If I buy a house at 40k, and sell it at 80k 10 years later, the house has gone up 100% on what I paid for it. So 100% in 10 years. Or, 10% a year average.

So you can go on all you like about me not understanding. It's you who has changed the point of what was said.

it's always someone else changing things isn't it Graham :rolleyes:

here's what mewbie said

Mr.Brown wrote: »

Hopefully this is more of a yesterday problem, although with some chickens yet to come home to roost of course. When prices were going up 20% year after year, then borrowing the maximum possible made some sense in a gambling sort of way. Those days are surely over for a good while now.

that means exactly what i explained - you really do struggle with the basic things or are you just looking for an argument over nothing again :rolleyes:

you'll probably find something else to argue about now that you've been proved wrong (again) :T

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Correct, if you are looking at it from a different angle.

Is there another angle?

A house is worth £40k. It rises in value by 4% a year, and in ten years it's worth £80k.

Not sure where you get a 10% yearly figure from?

nearlynew

Chucky...........

Is every new member of this forum mewbie?

Am I mewbie?

Are you mewbie?




!!!!!!.

I can't tell any more.



Help.