Mortgage Lending for new purchase up 19%.

stueyhants

Really2 wrote: »

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.

But surely the more repos that are sold results in fewer buyers available for the 'normal' sales thus contributing to lower prices. I'm not saying it has a huge impact but it would contribute.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are impossible.

Not Really, I exist so must be entirely possible

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I give up.

It's a debating forum, so be my guest, If I had wrote it I would have give up long before it got to this point.:)

Really2

stueyhants wrote: »

But surely the more repos that are sold results in fewer buyers available for the 'normal' sales thus contributing to lower prices. I'm not saying it has a huge impact but it would contribute.

Repos are usually cash (especially in this market) not many go to "normal buyers" (EG 10-25% deposit, rest on mortgage)

So I still think it would still have limited effect (low IR save more I would say and that is a byproduct of recession).
Think we may agree to disagree and partly agree on this one.:)

DervProf

chucky wrote: »

more people will probably be able to afford it but they won't be getting any mortgages so less people will be in a position to buy.

Wait long enough, and the banks will say "ooh look, property is no longer too much of a risk for us to lend on. Instead of dishing out £100K to one borrower for one property, we can now lend £50K each to two borrowers for two different properties. That seems like less of a risk. Let`s do it !".

Makes sense ?

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Note to self, really must check dates on articles.......:D

And stop getting so excited about mortgage lending figures.

We know you want unlimited lending at 0.1% Hamish, but you`re just going to have to wait a while longer.

And, it`s a bit early for :beer:.
Why not stick to :coffee:?

Henry_P_Chester

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10937034

:beer:

It's quite obvious your not very clever Hamish but that is silly even for you!

:rotfl:

Henry_P_Chester

Have none of the bulls seen the BOE mortgage lending figures for today and indeed the last few months?

No? thought not. It doesn't say what you want to hear so best to just ignore it and hope it goes away....

chucky

doire wrote: »

Watch out! He will start calling you names next

thanks for the sound bite post but i will only do so when people get personal with me.

chucky

stueyhants wrote: »

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

that's the whole point.

house prices falling mean that less people will buy property.

house prices falling mean that less people will be able to buy property.

the tired argument of house prices falling and the deposit amount being smaller may be correct but it falls over right at the begining because if house prices were that low you wouldn't be able to get a mortgage or the banks would already be bust.

Graham_Devon

Henry_P_Chester wrote: »

Have none of the bulls seen the BOE mortgage lending figures for today and indeed the last few months?

No? thought not. It doesn't say what you want to hear so best to just ignore it and hope it goes away....

This one?

New mortgage approvals to households in July also fell in the month to 47,000 loans, down from 48,000 in June and the lowest monthly number since May 2009 when house prices began rising from their trough.

Theres probably some reason as to why this does not count.