Mortgage Lending for new purchase up 19%.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

You did say



So you agree with this then.


It does not say the bits you disagreed with now.
If not explain 2009 to now for me please and any time when prices rise.

:::sigh:::

2009 was a year that included QE, lowest interest rates in history, amd multiple schemes designed to help homeowners.

We all know this. 2009 was hardly a "normal" year to be using, when trying to refute someone talking about stability. So I won't get dragged down that route.

If you want to discuss what I'm saying, stop replying with "so you are saying, so you agree, so...so...so" as each time you do that, you are just putting words in my mouth, and we get further and further away from the original point.

Really2

Generali wrote: »

I think you're getting the cart before the horse there old chap. I think lending contraction => falling prices.

Less lending => less demand => lower prices

From there, lower prices can lead to further reduced lending as falling house prices increase risk to banks from mortgage lending so you get in a bit of a cycle as happened in the 1990s to some extent.

I was talking about the bold bit TBH (GD was saying falling prices lead to stable lending), indeed the 2007 was started off by lending contraction.

doire_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Bad day at the office ?

Your attempt at spinning the conversation isn't up to your normal standards. Tut tut.

Watch out! He will start calling you names next

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

:::sigh:::

2009 was a year that included QE, lowest interest rates in history, amd multiple schemes designed to help homeowners.

We all know this. 2009 was hardly a "normal" year to be using, when trying to refute someone talking about stability. So I won't get dragged down that route.

If you want to discuss what I'm saying, stop replying with "so you are saying, so you agree, so...so...so" as each time you do that, you are just putting words in my mouth, and we get further and further away from the original point.

]The bold bit is laughable, as non were specifically for homeowners. (other than mortgage rescue package but that can't make houses go up in price)

The underlined bit means you disagree with what you wrote earlier

Graham_Devon wrote: »

When they reach an affordable level, they will stop falling. Without excessive lending, it will become a stable market.

Must try harder GD. I should be the one sighing.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

I was talking about the bold bit TBH (GD was saying falling prices lead to stable lending), indeed the 2007 was started off by lending contraction.

Yet again, no I wasn't.

Yet again, I said:

But still, everyone else wins. A stable mortgage market, affordable homes, less outgoings on mortgage repayments, means more spending in the general economy. Lovely.

In relation to people having higher deposits, and less mortgage outgoings.

The market will be more stable, as people have more disposable income (not so much going on the mortgage payment each month, which means interest rate rises can be soaked up easier) and people will have bigger deposits as it's easier to acheive in the first place (which means negative equity is not so much an issue if prices fall 10%).

All those things, lead to a more stable market.

I never once said "falling prices mean a stable mortgage market". Yet again, you are twisting to extremes.

What's the point in all this? Why do I have to keep correcting you and chucky?

stueyhants

Really2 wrote: »

]The bold bit is laughable, as non were specifically for homeowners. (other than mortgage rescue package but that can't make houses go up in price)

But would you agree that the mortgage rescue scheme helps support prices from falling ?

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yet again, no I wasn't.

Yet again, I said:

In relation to people having higher deposits, and less mortgage outgoings.

The market will be more stable, as people have more disposable income (not so much going on the mortgage payment each month, which means interest rate rises can be soaked up easier) and people will have bigger deposits as it's easier to acheive in the first place (which means negative equity is not so much an issue if prices fall 10%).

All those things, lead to a more stable market.

I never once said "falling prices mean a stable mortgage market". Yet again, you are twisting to extremes.

What's the point in all this? Why do I have to keep correcting you and chucky?

BS whole quote GD. You have a go for me missing important bits off.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So the more prices fall, the less people have to save, for a higher deposit, enabling them to get a house with less debt.

Win win all round.

Well, apart from you I guess, with investments falling. But still, everyone else wins. A stable mortgage market, affordable homes,

How can you argue differently?

Another point is it tends to be a recession when prices fall, so a fair few can save 0 deposit when unemployed or on reduced hours.

When does this stable market kick in GD if I got what you said wrong?

It is not correcting you GD it is debating the point you raise, but now you disown it.

Really2

stueyhants wrote: »

But would you agree that the mortgage rescue scheme helps support prices from falling ?

Possibly I am not a time traveler who can change the past.:)

It possibly stopped some houses being repossesed, for the sake of stats it would have 0% impact as repos are not in sold data for many indices.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

BS whole quote GD. You have a go for me missing important bits off.




How can you argue differently?

Another point is it tends to be a recession when prices fall, so a fair few can save 0 deposit when unemployed or on reduced hours.

When does this stable market kick in GD if I got what you said wrong?

It is not correcting you GD it is debating the point you raise, but now you disown it.

You are impossible. I give up.

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

not me old chap - someone break one of your toy soldiers. never mind...

No damages. business has never been better. Some markets are niche enough to be relatively unscathed even in a recession.