Osborne says that he would allow Bank to do more easing

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No graham, they weren't.

In 2007, around 45% of people took trackers, and 55% fixes. But most fixes were just for 2 years, and most old style SVR's from high street lenders are very competitive even against the better trackers now available today.

And don't forget Aberdeen (and in fact Scotland) is now firmly into capital gains as well.

Really?

Care to show the evidence that people buying properties as FTB's were taking trackers instead of fixes?

Afterall, you are not comparing people who bought 2nd, 3rd, 4th homes with loads of equity already beneth their belts to renters...are you?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Really?

Care to show the evidence that people buying properties as FTB's were taking trackers instead of fixes?

Afterall, you are not comparing people who bought 2nd, 3rd, 4th homes with loads of equity already beneth their belts to renters...are you?

Mr Muddle strikes again.

Where did I say FTB's?

Oh that's right, I didn't.....

My post was in reference to 1984's comment about Aberdeen buyers, which was clearly aimed at me.

And I'd still love to see his worked reasoning for why I'd be better off renting since.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Mr Muddle strikes again.

Where did I say FTB's?

Oh that's right, I didn't.....

My post was in reference to 1984's comment about Aberdeen buyers, which was clearly aimed at me.

And I'd still love to see his worked reasoning for why I'd be better off renting since.

And theres the issue. Within a single post, the flaw to your argument is demonstrated.

Comparing apples to pears, and coming up with bananas. As usual.

Amusing though, that you have to resort to calling me Mr Muddle just for scratching the surface of your spun argument

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Most Aberdeen buyers who bought in 2007, probably are not on SVR. Most people were ficing for 5 years.

Why does Hamish have to provide sources but you don't?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And theres the issue. Within a single post, the flaw to your argument is demonstrated.

Comparing apples to pears, and coming up with bananas. As usual.

Amusing though, that you have to resort to calling me Mr Muddle just for scratching the surface of your spun argument

Graham, this is the second time in two days I've genuinely been worried about your sanity.

Are you on drugs this weekend?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Graham, this is the second time in two days I've genuinely been worried about your sanity.

Are you on drugs this weekend?

Nope.

You are trying to compare the whole mortgage market, which, I assume, includes remortgages, with a renter who started renting in 2007.

Hardly a fair comparison is it.

If you are going to compare, then you need to compare a FTB in 2007, with a renter in 2007 (as one would assume a large majority of those renting would buy if they could afford to do so, with a small percentage renting because they prefer it).

Nough said.

chucky

Osborne says that he would allow Bank to do more easing

didn't Osborne say that he wouldn't have backed the banks and let them fail...

that wasn't a predictle 180 degree u-turn was it...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Nope.

You are trying to compare the whole mortgage market, which, I assume, includes remortgages, with a renter who started renting in 2007.

You assume wrong.

New purchase only.

Cleaver

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

1% falls for even a few months would cause consumer spending to dry up and hurt the economy very badly indeed.

Derv got to ask the same question before me - why?

My income is based on the amount I get from work and my expenditure based on my necessary spending and lifestyle choices. Neither of these are impacted by the value of my house.

I understand that significant falls would start to put people in to negative equity and then people might start paying down debt rather than spending money on stuff, but surely only a large drop would have this effect? Not a few months of 1% drops?

des_cartes

Cleaver wrote: »

Derv got to ask the same question before me - why?

My income is based on the amount I get from work and my expenditure based on my necessary spending and lifestyle choices. Neither of these are impacted by the value of my house.

I understand that significant falls would start to put people in to negative equity and then people might start paying down debt rather than spending money on stuff, but surely only a large drop would have this effect? Not a few months of 1% drops?

NE will only affect those who bought from around 2003 with high ltv mortgages. he majority of houseowners would not be in negative equity from falls of 30% over 3 years. Many people are paying down the debts anyway and as the more financially astute are beginning to understand, lower house prices mean they spend less on trading up to a larger property and the prospects for their children affording to buy in the future are improved. Less money spent on overvalued houses means more money to spend on other things which must be good for the wider economy.