Mortgage Approvals Up 2% in April.....

Emy1501

chucky wrote: »

you fail to understand... 49,871 approvals actually means HPI....

Nationwide for April plus 1.0%
Land Registry for April plus 0.2%
Halifax for April minus 0.1%

it means that it only needs 49,871 approvals ion April for house prices to increase for yet another month.

i'm sure i'll be labelled a bull for correcting and stating the facts... :eek:

Isn't LR based on completed sales so I assume you can only compare Haliwide. One was up and one was down so who knows whether 50K approvals mean price rises.

martinbuckley

You can make figures say whatever you want to.

Take Lloyds Bank. If they make a profit of £1 this year and £2 next year, will the headline scream "Greedy bankers double their profits", or will they compare it to the £1 billion profits of a couple of years ago and headline "Lloyds Bank still screwed financially".

A 2% rise in morgage approvals to the 2nd lowest April since records began its still a long long way from the 120,000+ that was the norm a few years ago.

chucky

Emy1501 wrote: »

Isn't LR based on completed sales so I assume you can only compare Haliwide. One was up and one was down so who knows whether 50K approvals mean price rises.

or maybe you could show some logic and calculate the average between the two by market share... you'll find it would be positive HPI...

Henry_P_Chester

Emy1501 wrote: »

Isn't LR based on completed sales so I assume you can only compare Haliwide. One was up and one was down so who knows whether 50K approvals mean price rises.

Land registry is completed sales, the other too are at approval stage. Land registry figures would have been at approval stage a month of two previous. So land registry and Halifax/nationwide are not comparable for the same month.

heffsta

chucky wrote: »

you fail to understand... 49,871 approvals actually means HPI....

Nationwide for April plus 1.0%
Land Registry for April plus 0.2%
Halifax for April minus 0.1%

it means that it only needs 49,871 approvals ion April for house prices to increase for yet another month.

i'm sure i'll be labelled a bull for correcting and stating the facts... :eek:

I never said anything about House Price Drops. How I see it is because of the low volumes actually being sold I see house prices going up and down month to month by very small amounts (1 to 2%) for a long time. I was just showing how low the volumes actually are in a time when they should be high.
Just take a look at the House selling forum to see how many people cant sell their homes at prices they want very quickly. Only desirable homes in good locations are being snapped up.

doire_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Really?

I'm sure all the bears were proclaiming the market had seized up prior to the election, "as the reality of the coming austerity" kicked in, or some such twaddle.

Even I was expecting approvals to fall slightly, given all the pre-election jitters.

So a 2% rise seems pretty good to me.:D

Hamish a 0.0000000001% rise would seem good to you

Pre-election jitters? Poor excuse banded about by the media. Next it will be "world cup affects housing as prices stagnate"

IveSeenTheLight

martinbuckley wrote: »

A 2% rise in morgage approvals to the 2nd lowest April since records began its still a long long way from the 120,000+ that was the norm a few years ago.

Are you advocating that the markets should return to that "norm" or would you agree that a new "norm" is being set by the different fundamentals?

martinbuckley

No way would I like a return to 120,000+ approvals.

However, as volumes of both approvals and sales are way down, then any variations in % terms will clearly be larger, based on smaller figures.

Therefore a 1 or 2% rise or fall is hardly worth cheering, as it is based on much smaller figures.

IveSeenTheLight

martinbuckley wrote: »

No way would I like a return to 120,000+ approvals.

However, as volumes of both approvals and sales are way down, then any variations in % terms will clearly be larger, based on smaller figures.

Therefore a 1 or 2% rise or fall is hardly worth cheering, as it is based on much smaller figures.

A 1 or 2% rise or fall is far too much in reality.
It compounds to double digit yearly rises / falls

In terms of transaction volume, we are still seeing a substantial number, roughly 70,000 last time I checked, which would accurately reflect an average accross the range.
Were not talking tens or hundreds, it's thousands

You don;t want 120k transactions, yet you say 70k transactions is not enough.

What therefore becomes the acceptable transaction level for the current market?

One could argue that the transaction levels we are seeing vould be the norm for years and therefore we need to adjust our perspective to that new norm

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

In terms of transaction volume, we are still seeing a substantial number, roughly 70,000 last time I checked,

Indeed.

We currently have transaction levels of somewhere around 1,000,000 a year.

The total owner occupied housing stock is around 18,000,000.

So in theory current transaction levels would mean each house changing hands every 18 years. (And as I recall, the long term average is around 15 years or so)

But it's not that simple......

Around one third of that stock tends to stay in very long term ownership, 40 years or more.

Another third tends to transact at right around the average, every 15 to 20 years.

And the final third, the FTB/2TB third, tends to change hands much, much more frequently.

And it's the final third that the credit crunch has stalled sales volumes of in a disproportionately big way.

I don't actually have a precise theory on what this all means for the housing market, as the possible permutations are too vast.

Other than it is clear that FTB's have been hit the worst by the crunch and crash......