The time-bomb ticking under Britain's house prices

JonnyBravo

DervProf wrote: »

I agree with that statement (even though I didn't read it on this thread - maybe you could point it out to me), and try and brush up on the old maths.

Cool.
Now perhaps Hamish will clarify which interpretation he was alluding to and we can continue.
Incidentally, if it is how you read it, and yes I agree it is how it strictly reads, I'll side with you.
If it is how I read it and how I, obviously, interpreted it then that's grand too.

DervProf wrote: »

I'm almost pleased I made that mathematical error now, as it has exposed your inability to understand simple English.

Indeed. My consistently poor English on here is plain for all to see.
Your flaws, of course, do not stop at simple maths and it is perhaps more interesting to see re-affirmed your bias.



Over to you Hamish.

chucky

JonnyBravo wrote: »

I tell you what, I'll bet Hamish is right when he says most houses have been bought with less than 5x single or 3x joint mortgages.

I realise the fact that Hamish has said it provides a problem for you though.

it's true the average mortgage is around 3.5 times salary.
i've posted the link too many times, facts aren't really important for people on this forum.
their mums sisters cousin's uncle's friend's postman's milkman had a 5 times mortgage so everyone must have one.

DervProf

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Over to you Hamish.

Your mate is nowhere to be seen.

All I'll add is that if he meant "Most mortgages that people have aren't more than 5 times their single or 3 times their joint income....", then why did he not type it ? If he had done, I would have agreed with that statement.

I await Hamish's response.

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Most houses that people buy don't cost more than 5 times their single or 3 times their joint income....

I simply pointed out that I believe that this statement by Hamish is incorrect.

I got picked up about some of the maths I used to prove my point. I admitted the errors which were more like typing errors than lack of mathematical ability.

JonnyBravo

DervProf wrote: »

Your mate is nowhere to be seen.

All I'll add is that if he meant "Most mortgages that people have aren't more than 5 times their single or 3 times their joint income....", then why did he not type it ? If he had done, I would have agreed with that statement.

I await Hamish's response.

So we're waiting to see if we both agree or both disagree with him. Oooo the tension.

DervProf wrote: »

I got picked up about some of the maths I used to prove my point. I admitted the errors which were more like typing errors than lack of mathematical ability.

We've only got your word on that though.

DervProf

RenovationMan wrote: »

That statement is correct though, surely? Most houses arent bought with more than 5 times a single salary or 3 times joint income mortgage. I doubt you would be able to find lenders who go past those multiples.

I'll try the maths again.

FTBer. £130K house. £30K deposit. £25K income.

The cost of the house is £130K. The income is £25K. The house is 130K/25K = 5.2 times income.

Second home bought by couple "moving up". £260K. Joint income is £60K. 260K/60K = 4.3 (recurring) times joint income.

Now, if we are discussing borrowing multiples to buy property, that involves different calculations which will show that it is highly probable that most people are borrowing less than 3x joint income, or 5 x single income.

DervProf

JonnyBravo wrote: »

We've only got your word on that though.

True.

I think my maths skills are reasonably good. 95% of the time I get my sums right, I`m not sure what goes wrong with the other 10%.

DervProf

RenovationMan wrote: »

That statement is correct though, surely? Most houses arent bought with more than 5 times a single salary or 3 times joint income mortgage. I doubt you would be able to find lenders who go past those multiples.

My mortgage was 5x my salary and I still get odd looks from people when they find that out. I certainly could not have borrowed more than I did and due to the funny looks, it makes me think that 5 times is not the norm either.

I spelled it out, and still they can't see it. :wall:

I'd remove the "Thanks" from that post if I were you chaps.

JonnyBravo

DervProf wrote: »

I spelled it out, and still they can't see it. :wall:

I'd remove the "Thanks" from that post if I were you chaps.

Why? I'm more than happy with my thanks being there.
I can see it perfectly.

You were more than aware after my first post it was a difference of interpretation but you wanted to continue the "conversation" with your
"even though I didn't read it on this thread - maybe you could point it out to me"
and your
"I'm almost pleased I made that mathematical error now, as it has exposed your inability to understand simple English"

I know my admittance that Hamish's post does indeed literally read with your interpretation not mine has somehwat confounded you.... after all this is the internet and no-one should ever back down, but I'm more than happy to thank someone who interpreted it in the same way as me.

Of course you'll still get to have a rant if Hamish does clear it up my way by moaning about people not being clear in what they write and by ranting at me for not reading carefully enough if Hamish clears it up your way.

Either way you'll still be able to moan at Hamish so you should be safe.

DervProf

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Either way you'll still be able to moan at Hamish so you should be safe.

That's reassuring.