The time-bomb ticking under Britain's house prices

JonnyBravo

RenovationMan wrote: »

*Just so we dont end up in a semantics argument... By saying "I should Charge You". I mean ask you to pay for my wasted time, not charge into you physically.

:mad:

I thought you'd be applying an electrical charge to him so as to illuminate him, as one would a lightbulb.
Curse the English language.

:mad:

DervProf

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm sure a few people would lie but I think the majority wouldn’t and with self-cert available people who would be inclined to lie would opt for them.

So the question is, how many of the mortgages issued between 2007-2010 were self-cert ? In fact, it would be interesting to see figures for the few years before 2007. I`ve always been uncomfortable about the possibility of having to "compete" to buy a property against someone who is using a self-cert mortgage to make an offer.

DervProf

JonnyBravo wrote: »

:mad:

I thought you'd be applying an electrical charge to him so as to illuminate him, as one would a lightbulb.
Curse the English language.

:mad:

My capacity to be illuminated is not great. The current theme of this thread seems to be about interpretation of what others are typing. I try to resist getting involved in petty arguments about who meant what. It's about time we shorted this out. Watt is the point of debating subjects when we keep going off topic ? I think we need to move forward in a positive manner.

System

RenovationMan wrote: »

Ah, it's a silly argument about symantics and the use of the English language rather than anything relevent to the discussion at hand?

In the absence of anything decent to argue about it'll have to do.

Heyman_2

mystic_trev wrote: »

http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/property/uk/time-bomb-ticking-under-britains-house-prices-11011

In the name of research, I spent much of the last week standing on cold street corners

:eek:
..........

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

errr no - you need to read the post again.

a fast track mortgage application and a self certified mortgage are two very different things.

please try again,

So shoot me....oh, you have, several times.

Non verified, self cert. Wow, such a massive mistake. Still, both are mortgages in which the bank didn't verify income, therefore, income could have been exaggerated.

I understand the need to jump all over the fact I made a boo boo in describing them as self cert, and making that little error into the error mountain, however, point does still stand, and as soon as that point still standing is shown to you, you simply decide to leave the discussion.

Most people would have just said "i think you mean none verified". You, however, make this massive thing out of it. Yay, got one over the Graham bloke. Your excitement shows just how much you love to show a minor error in a post. Reason for that is? Why do you feel you need to make a small error into such a huge thing and shout it from the rooftops? Chip on shoulder?

Whichever way you look at it, there was a market for websites such as payslips4u. That market wouldnt have existed should people not need to make up their incomes to suit.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So shoot me....oh, you have, several times.

Non verified, self cert. Wow, such a massive mistake. Still, both are mortgages in which the bank didn't verify income, therefore, income could have been exaggerated.

nope - for a change you got it completely wrong because you simply don't understand...

let me explain it you !!!!!! because you confusing yourself yet again...

a person that had a high/good credit score could exagerate their income. not by huge amounts but they could because the high credit score allowed them to avoid showing income. it prevented your shelf stacker at tesco being able to do it.

a person with an average or below average credit score wouldn't have been able to do it.

a person with a self certified mortgage could put down what they wanted and pay a higher interest rate to be able to do this.

i hope that's clear and you understand because you seem to make the same posts claiming the same stupidity each and every time.

Graham_Devon

As you agree then, people could exaggerate their income.

Therefore the income multiples graph could be flawed. Not to any major degree, but certainly it would make the income vs prices look more favourable than they actually are.

And when you look at the reaility of the situation, it really is difficult to compare the income vs prices graphs we see, being around 4x income, to reality.

Are you going to discuss the point, or are you going to just pretend to be needlessly and selflessly educating me?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As you agree then, people could exaggerate their income.

Therefore the income multiples graph could be flawed. Not to any major degree, but certainly it would make the income vs prices look more favourable than they actually are.

And when you look at the reaility of the situation, it really is difficult to compare the income vs prices graphs we see, being around 4x income, to reality.

Are you going to discuss the point, or are you going to just pretend to be needlessly and selflessly educating me?

i don't deal in urban myths or forumonics like many of the numpties on here. i don't believe in exceptions being the norm either.

if you can prove that the income vs prices graph is wrong go for it but looking for excuses why people can't afford or claiming that data is flawed is a bit lame.

property is and always will be expensive. fact

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

i don't deal in urban myths or forumonics like many of the numpties on here. i don't believe in exceptions being the norm either.

if you can prove that the income vs prices graph is wrong go for it but looking for excuses why people can't afford or claiming that data is flawed is a bit lame.

property is and always will be expensive. fact

Surprisingly, you have decided not to give your thoughts.

So what we have learnt is that you agree incomes could be exaggerated, but do not want to be seen as agreeing that therefore the data could be flawed.

As ever, chucky doesn't want to state anything. So I'll offer you a rusk now, and leave you to it.