BBA: Mortgage Approvals up 5% in March

mbga9pgf

unless people cannot remortgage

There will be quite a few once rates go back up. Indeed, with SLS ending, I am starting to wonder if the remortgage deals will be any better?

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

There will be quite a few once rates go back up. Indeed, with SLS ending, I am starting to wonder if the remortgage deals will be any better?

how many....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Batchy wrote: »

it doesnt matter what the average is...

Probably the dumbest statement on here this year.

wait until rates go back to 4.5% ie 8% mortgage rate... see how much your repayment is then!!!

:rotfl:

I'd be quite comfortable with double digit rates..... I had them the first time round and budgeted for them when I bought again.

But I'd also be prepared to bet we won't see 5% base rates in the next 10 years.

A number of analysts, and even the BoE itself, have pointed out that 2.5% to 3% is the new neutrality point for base rates, versus 5% in the previous decade.

I doubt we'll see rates cross 2.5% in the next 5 years, as I don't think growth will be sufficiently high to warrant any significant levels of counter-inflationary demand destruction. Which is the only way they'll be raising rates....

Of course some economists don't think base rates will rise above 1% in the next 5 years......

A concept that has housing bears trembing with fear, but is entirely possible.;)

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

and much higher than both 1922 and 1956 combined - what's your point?

And much much higher than 1764, 1877, and 1901 combined.

Extremely valid point chucky.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And much much higher than 1764, 1877, and 1901 combined.

Extremely valid point chucky.

Interesting.
Where did you get the data on 1764, 1877 and 1901 mortgage approval data?

mbga9pgf

chucky wrote: »

how many....

How long is a piece of string?

Depends on how much prices fall. Still reckon a min 20% correction is still on the cards.... :j

Which means a fair few.

MAkes little difference when your remortgage deal is worse than your SVR.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And much much higher than 1764, 1877, and 1901 combined.

Extremely valid point chucky.

it's lovely to see you contribute to the debate in typical Graham Devon style when something doesn't suit your viewpoint or when your low IQ cannot grasp the basic facts. well done :T

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

How long is a piece of string?

Depends on how much prices fall. Still reckon a min 20% correction is still on the cards.... :j

Which means a fair few.

MAkes little difference when your remortgage deal is worse than your SVR.

so you're assuming and guessing all of this, instead of looking at how many people are in negative equity, what percentage of people are on variable/tracker rates etc... etc....

great analysis. do you use the same analysis to win the lottery each week?

it will be less than 50,000 people that can't remortgage btw and that number reduces with every month that the house price indexes increase...

mbga9pgf

chucky wrote: »

so you're assuming and guessing all of this, instead of looking at how many people are in negative equity, what percentage of people are on variable/tracker rates etc... etc....

great analysis. do you use the same analysis to win the lottery each week?

it will be less than 50,000 people that can't remortgage btw and that number reduces with every month that the house price indexes increase...

Indexes can increase all they like, and will continue to. Look at the BBAs gross lending figure this morning and divide it by approvals to see what the market is doing at the moment. If you are in a !!!!!! 2 bed townhouse or a flat, noone is buying at the moment and prices are stillfalling. The only homes shifting are Prime and the London market.

I am more"concerned" for the 200,000 that are on Mortgage interest Support that are going to fall off from next January onwards, seeing as unemployment hasnt peaked yet. The crash isnt over by a long stretch.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Another discredited bear meme....:cool:

If self cert was responsible for average LTI being less than 3.5 at peak, then average LTI should have risen dramatically when self cert ended 2 years ago.

But instead of rising when self cert ended, average LTI fell almost exactly in line with prices.

How would it rise, realistically?

Hardly any mortgages were being processed. The only ones that were around that time were about 40% deposit ones, on strict terms. Cream of the crop as they say. So of course LTV would fall.