Mervyn King: UK House Prices Have Recovered 2/3 of Losses

DervProf

julieq wrote: »

Graham dear

If you are going to try and be patronising to someone, or "have a go" at them, why not try being a bit more clever or subtle ?

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Sub-conscience? Do you mean sub-conscious? Last time I looked the Americans weren't a race either.

No, I mean subconscience.

Sub concious would suggest Hamish has been laid out.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You obviously don't read posts.

How many times have the "bears" gone on about interest rates being at a 300 year low. £200bn QE. SMI. Reposession criteria being tightened?

We do explain it. It's just you don't like that prticular elephant in the room....but scream for more.

OK, so try and get a mortgage at low rates.

First off you'll need to get a 25% deposit to get any mortgage at all. Most people can't.

Then you'll find mortgage rates are sitting somewhere north of 3% which is not far south of where they were during the boom. Salary multiple rules are where they have been throughout.

Even with those two factors, effectively amounting to mortgage rationing, prices have recovered. There is NO lax lending any more, so what's happening?

"Bulls", far from treating low rates as the elephant in the room are pointing out that this is a time of extraordinary affordability, but unfortunately those who can afford to buy are excluded by deposit requirements.

Anyway, keep posting links that contradict your arguments. It makes you extraordinarily easy to pick off. :rotfl:

julieq

DervProf wrote: »

If you are going to try and be patronising to someone, or "have a go" at them, why not try being a bit more clever or subtle ?

Yep, I could be calling Hamish "McTittish". Nothing more subtle than that :rotfl:

DervProf

julieq wrote: »

Yep, I could be calling Hamish "McTittish". Nothing more subtle than that :rotfl:

I must admit, I find that mildy amusing.

I quite like the one I have used recently "Hamish McLavish".

Generali

julieq wrote: »

Sub-conscience? Do you mean sub-conscious? Last time I looked the Americans weren't a race either.

And if lax lending anywhere was a factor, how come we've recovered prices without lax lending? The bears never explain that.

Haliwide numbers strongly suggest that the UK housing market isn't out of the woods yet.

The previous Government did quite a lot to prevent people being repossessed, reducing forced sellers. That plus a collapse in volumes and very low interest rates has allowed prices to bounce back to a large extent.

Ultimately, house prices are 'expensive' in the UK. A 2 bed flat in Clapham can set you back the best part of £400,000! For some reason, British people seem to like it that way as do Australians I think. IMHO it's pretty dumb.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Alright Julie.

Your right. Everyone else, including economists, are wrong.

Graham dear, are you not always explaining how economists are always wrong?

Anyway, what about Mervyn, is he wrong or right today?

The fact is that the article you brought up to confirm your analysis is actually confirming the argument you're arguing against. That's quite amusing in a way.

DervProf

julieq wrote: »

As the article you quoted conveniently explained, the cause of the financial crisis was lax lending in the US. Not lax lending in the UK.

When the financial crisis hit, that caused a contraction in credit (as you've conveniently highlighted in your more recent post). That pulled the rug from under UK institutions such as Northern Rock who had overindulged.

Northern Rock didn't cause the crisis. They were caught in the fallout of the crisis. It's really very simple.

And prices now back to close to where they were, showing that lax lending here had virtually nothing to do with HPI.

Too early to tell.

You are jumping to conclusions far too early, sweetheart.

julieq

Gen, fortunately most of us don't live (or aspire to live) in Clapham. A three bedroom house is well within the reach of London commuters for something just north of half that amount, and you shouldn't use an extreme example in a distorted part of the market (London) to make general conclusions on affordability.

The fact is that a couple on dual incomes could afford easily to buy at present prices, but they're excluded by mortgage rationing. That will end when there's a sustained recovery, but it must be very frustrating. Buying even at quite inflated prices is still a bargain in comparison with renting.

julieq

DervProf wrote: »

Too early to tell.

You are jumping to conclusions far too early, sweetheart.

Then by definition, so are you because you're making an analysis based on the same facts I see. You've just jumped to different conclusions.