Land Registry - 28 March 2011 - -0.8%/1.7%

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL. Well that one rocked the boat.

how about trying to come back with a coherent or even a plausible argument for once.

as i said before you're routine is quite predictable.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

how about trying to come back with a coherent or even a plausible argument for once.

as i said before you're routine is quite predictable.

I will, if I get one to respond to.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I will, if I get one to respond to.

so you didn't read posts 48, 49 and 50.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

so you didn't read posts 48, 49 and 50.

48 - Already answered.

49 - No need to answer...what's to answer? The post makes absolutely no reference to the point I was making about interest rates rising and the effect this may have on arrears. Just states some seriously dodgy high average wages, and states what we all knew anyway, and the reason arrears are lower than they might otherwise be. Makes no attempt to discuss the point of my post, being that 4x higher mortgage rates, arrears rates were not even double what they are now.

50 - Percentage of income used to service a mortgage makes no difference either, and I doubt you can explain to me how it does make a difference. The arrears stats already take into account percentage of income used, by default!!

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

48 - Already answered.

49 - No need to answer...what's to answer? The post makes absolutely no reference to the point I was making about interest rates rising and the effect this may have on arrears. Just states some seriously dodgy high average wages, and states what we all knew anyway, and the reason arrears are lower than they might otherwise be. Makes no attempt to discuss the point of my post, being at 4x higher mortgage rates, arrears rates were not even double what they are now.

50 - Percentage of income used to service a mortgage makes no difference either, and I doubt you can explain to me how it does make a difference. The arrears stats already take into account percentage of income used, by default!!

how predictable you missed the point completely.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

how predictable.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Thanks for the clarification that you are screwed on this argument and have nothing else to say, and don't wish to respond to your inaccuracies.

Job done, for me, I guess. See you next time you struggle to find something to disagree and argue about, while making stupid points even you yourself can't clarify or explain.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification that you are screwed on this argument and have nothing else to say, and don't wish to respond to your inaccuracies.

Job done, for me, I guess. See you next time you struggle to find something to disagree and argue about, while making stupid points even you yourself can't clarify or explain.

hahaha - try again Mr Muddle

you don't understand the relationship between inflation and interest rates at two points in time and you don't believe that a mortgage affordability index has nothing to do with mortgage affordability.

no wonder you get found out so much on this forum - keep it up :T

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

48 - Already answered.

49 - No need to answer...what's to answer? The post makes absolutely no reference to the point I was making about interest rates rising and the effect this may have on arrears. Just states some seriously dodgy high average wages, and states what we all knew anyway, and the reason arrears are lower than they might otherwise be. Makes no attempt to discuss the point of my post, being that 4x higher mortgage rates, arrears rates were not even double what they are now.

50 - Percentage of income used to service a mortgage makes no difference either, and I doubt you can explain to me how it does make a difference. The arrears stats already take into account percentage of income used, by default!!

The point is someone in 1990 with a 3x mortgage was paying a bigger percentage of their wages that someone now with a 5x mortgage.

In fact interest rate would have to double to 7% before they was spending the same percentage of their income on mortgage repayment as the person in 1990.

Do you really think that if you spend one thirds of your pay on your mortgage it is just same as spending two thirds.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

The point is someone in 1990 with a 3x mortgage was paying a bigger percentage of their wages that someone now with a 5x mortgage.

In fact interest rate would have to double to 7% before they was spending the same percentage of their income on mortgage repayment as the person in 1990.

Do you really think that if you spend one thirds of your pay on your mortgage it is just same as spending two thirds.

Stand by for further GD obfuscation.

chucky

ukcarper wrote: »

The point is someone in 1990 with a 3x mortgage was paying a bigger percentage of their wages that someone now with a 5x mortgage.

In fact interest rate would have to double to 7% before they was spending the same percentage of their income on mortgage repayment as the person in 1990.

Do you really think that if you spend one thirds of your pay on your mortgage it is just same as spending two thirds.

it's gone way over his head and he actually thinks he's right.

his type are best left alone, they cannot be helped...