Mortgage lending 'picks up again' Up 19% MoM

Strings

Really2 wrote: »

Thats not correct, falling prices = less lending as banks protect themselves from losses.*

It also means less can buy as people get trapped in NE or cant raise the deposits required*

*figures available from 2007 to now.

yes but we have not really had falling prices have we, 1 or 2 % drop is hardly a fall for the bank to worry about, plus the lending is likely to be on those with good equity

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I am of course, taking the pee here. But seriously, it seems like a race to get the stories up and then shining the spotlight directly on one bit, while ignoring everything else, as if to say.

Normally these bits that don't prove a point are simply missed out of the article.

What are you on about, some good news has come out you could have posted it if you liked?

I just quoted the first few lines without reading them and even include a "caution". I never read the article all the way through just saw the headline and thought of this place and did a cut and paste.

I missed out a lot of positive stuff also, I even then posted the whole article.

What do you want? not to have the article posted?

No conspiracy GD, I just pasted the first few lines, If I wanted to hide anything why would I post the link?

Really2

Strings wrote: »

yes but we have not really had falling prices have we, 1 or 2 % drop is hardly a fall for the bank to worry about, plus the lending is likely to be on those with good equity

We had 20%+ in 2008, the biggest percentage fall ever.

Strings

Really2 wrote: »

We had 20%+ in 2008, the biggest percentage fall ever.

Yes but we are talking more recently, not about 2 years ago

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

What are you on about, some good news has come out you could have posted it if you liked?

I just quoted the first few lines without reading them and even include a "caution". I never read the article all the way through just saw the headline and thought of this place and did a cut and paste.

I missed out a lot of positive stuff also, I even then posted the whole article.

What do you want? not to have the article posted?

No conspiracy GD, I just pasted the first few lines, If I wanted to hide anything why would I post the link?

All I'm saying is, there seems to be a rush to post a bit of information from part of an article.

When the other stuff is picked up....well, look at the employment thread....name slinging, "you want people unemployed" blah blah, all because you have talked about a part of the article.

Then this thread....straight away you started with "let the frothing commence".

All I'm saying is, it's all getting a little bit desperate around here at the moment. I never suggested you were hiding anything....but I have suggested if posting an article, allow responses, instead of setting out with "its positivem, so all lies" then jumping down the throat of someone who picks something up thats not actually all that positive from the same article. Don't start this one, saying "let the frothing commence" and then get all uppity. You wanted to play the game, it's obvious from your comment.

Allow discussion, instead of instantly dismissing anyones comments, and starting threads with lines set only to start something.

Really2

Strings wrote: »

Yes but we are talking more recently, not about 2 years ago

Really2 wrote: »

Thats not correct, falling prices = less lending as banks protect themselves from losses.*

It also means less can buy as people get trapped in NE or cant raise the deposits required*

*figures available from 2007 to now.

So did more people buy since prices started to fall.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All I'm saying is, there seems to be a rush to post a bit of information from part of an article.

It was the start I just quote that, I never changed it or took bits deleted etc. It was the opening summary that still had a negative in it, if I was avoiding stuff why would I leave that in?

I then posted the whole article, nothing was deliberatly missed, but perhaps you are judging me on how you would do things.

Sorry if that is case.

When the other stuff is picked up....well, look at the employment thread....name slinging, "you want people unemployed" blah blah, all because you have talked about a part of the article.

It was the whole article at the time.

I think you need to have a break, you are getting a bit paranoid.

IveSeenTheLight

Really2 wrote: »

It was the start I just quote that, I never changed it or took bits deleted etc. It was the opening summary that still had a negative in it, if I was avoiding stuff why would I leave that in?

I then posted the whole article, nothing was deliberatly missed, but perhaps you are judging me on how you would do things.

Sorry if that is case.

It was the whole article at the time.

I think you need to have a break, you are getting a bit paranoid.

It'll be interesting to see when other posters deliberatly twist subject lines into something that is not true if Graham here upholds the posting format requirement

I seem to recall (but can't be @rsed to check) that Graham defended this in the past

chucky

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see when other posters deliberatly twist subject lines into something that is not true if Graham here upholds the posting format requirement

I seem to recall (but can't be @rsed to check) that Graham defended this in the past

guys, guys.... you're falling into the classic Mr Muddle trap... taking the thread completely off topic...

the facts are that the number of mortgage approvals is consistent and steady

Its figures showed that there were 52,000 new loans granted to home buyers, 19% more than in May and up 14% on the same month a year ago

and that also that more FTBs are getting mortgages which is a good thing

However, first-timers are managing to get back into the market.

They took 28% more mortgages in the first half of this year than they did in the first six months of 2009.

Really2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I seem to recall (but can't be @rsed to check) that Graham defended this in the past

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/33540383#Comment_33540383

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I saw the title, read it, and thought, well the title don't relate to the story.

But, still, posted it up anyway

He then cherry picked quotes, not posting the whole article. What a guy.