Mortgage approvals 'halved in January'

brit1234

zappahey wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. It's all about supply and demand and, unsurprisingly, the stimulus stimulated demand.

Its not about supply and demand its about affordability linked to lending condition and stimulas.

We have record level low interest rates, we had stimulas through stamp duty cuts and funding through securitsation then government funding.

I'd like to see people still argue supply and demand as rates go up, government funding to banks ends.

When people required bigger deposits it was those with parents with cash savings that could afford to buy. When the pound was low it was foriegn investors who could buy. When the builders offered a 25% deferement on property prices it allowed more people to buy. When the housing association offered part rent part buy more people could buy.

House prices are determind by fiance on the day not supply and demand. This supply and demand argument is a smokescreen.

The government is in huge debt, banks will have to rely on savers in 2011 onward, interest rates have to go up. As a result house prices will fall to the lending requirements.

Graham_Devon

zappahey wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. It's all about supply and demand and, unsurprisingly, the stimulus stimulated demand.

Fine.

So using snow and the end of the stamp duty holiday is wrong.

It can't be all one way and not the other.

I know what you are saying. And yes, it's true, everyhing is supply and demand. But that wasn't my point. My point was, a lot of people would not even talk about, let alone acknowledge the elephant in the room that they are now using to demonstrate why prices have fallen.

Stimulus, when talked about in helping prices up, was ignored. Hamish for instance danced around it like a cat on red hot coals for ages, stating that this wasn't artificial, was actually part of the economy, and it's all about suply and demand.

Now that that stimulus has been pulled from the economy however, it can be used as a reason.

Couldn't be used as a reason for prices going up though.

And you know the killer with the whole supply and demand argument? The crash. Supply and demand was NEVER used here. This was called artificial lending constrictions.

Generali

brit1234 wrote: »

Its not about supply and demand its about affordability linked to lending condition and stimulas.......

House prices are determind by fiance on the day not supply and demand. This supply and demand argument is a smokescreen.

Finance is what enables demand. Prices in any free-ish market will be determined by supply and demand as that's all there is.

treliac

If I wanted to buy, I'd definitely hang on for a fair while longer unless, of course, money was absolutely no object!

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Stimulus, in terms of changed practices regarding stamp duty to bolster up prices.

It's just a shame this was never acknowledged by some when prices were rising. The only thing you could get from a select few was "supply demand, supply demand".

Now they fall, we get an acknowledgment towards the fact that stimulus was helping keep prices and transactions up.



Why? The bunting has been out in a signature for a while now, with no regard paid to what the rest of us are now supposed to take into consideration.



I agree with what you say.

I just find it amusing that it's taken so long for an acknowledgment to these schemes helping the housing market.

I have been banging on about stimulus for ages. Others have too, such as AD. Just find it amusing that it's only now, when the more optimistic need something to blame for price and transaction falls, that the elephant in the room will now be looked at.

Now, I ask the optimistic among us....if paying £2000 extra for a house has had this type of effect on transaction levels, and partly caused prices to fall.....what on earth will an interest rate rise do!?

Overall though, good post

which stimulas was specifically for the housing market?

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Now, I ask the optimistic among us....if paying £2000 extra for a house has had this type of effect on transaction levels, and partly caused prices to fall.....what on earth will an interest rate rise do!?

So they pay £2000 more for a house and going on one months date fell by 1.5% or 1% in feb (what did they do in January)

So with a budget of £130K who spent the most.
£130K on a house before Christmas or £128.6K + 1% stamp duty after?

You are a one month wonder graham everything hinges on one month. ...................
Providing it is negative.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

You are a one month wonder graham everything hinges on one month. ...................
Providing it is negative.

Looks like I have upset you.

You couldn't come up with more rubbish if you tried. Even chucky stated that it was good I wasn't taking anything on one months data when it first came out.

Throwaway line for a frustrated poster

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Looks like I have upset you.

You couldn't come up with more rubbish if you tried. Even chucky stated that it was good I wasn't taking anything on one months data when it first came out.

Throwaway line for a frustrated poster

Can't answer or wont answer? Who paid the most on the same budget Graham?

You are such a goldfish you asked you question based on one month data.:rotfl:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Now, I ask the optimistic among us....if paying £2000 extra for a house has had this type of effect on transaction levels, and partly caused prices to fall.....what on earth will an interest rate rise do!?

Or were you talking abouto a different fall.

You plum.:)

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

Can't answer or wont answer? Who paid the most on the same budget Graham?

You are such a goldfish you asked you question based on one month.:rotfl:

he's avoided the stimulus question too - what a surprise:EasterBun

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Can't answer or wont answer? Who paid the most on the same budget Graham?

You are such a goldfish you asked you question based on one month.:rotfl:

Why should I answer? You have edited my quote of all the stuff you didn't want to respond too.

Just doing the same.

Your question proves literally nothing. I didn't answer it because it was such a pathetic stance to take.

Why?

Because you based it on one months data.

Right after, you go for a stupid internet warrior type line about me basing things on one months data.

You are so wrapped up in trying to score points on the internet that you didn't even realise your blunder. Even when I said about you talking so much rubbish, it still passes you by.

It's at this kinda point I have to ask myself !!!!!! I am doing here typing back and forth to someone who doesn't even realise what he's typing.