Why as a homeowner trading up are property rises good for me

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Which for most that bought in the last 8 years, is entirely likely.

lower LTVs do, other things being equal, mean lower rates, but you do of course realise that lower prices mean lower debt for trader-uppers, which means, other things being equal, lower LTVs, right? there are two effects to consider.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...Not nearly as far fetched as you thinking prices will fall by 20% from here.

Which sort of invalidates your entire argument....

Not to mention the vast majority of people aren't planning to move, so for those in the 5 million or so households with less than 50% LTV mortgages, falls are bad and rises are good. In general terms.

so does this mean you've backed off from your risible argument that price falls are good for trader-uppers & fallen back on staples such as: (a) price falls won't happen; and (b) most people aren't trader-uppers [given that 'FTBs should expect to initially move into very small places' is one of your absolute staple arguments it must follow either that people do trade up quite often or that there's something a bit funny going on]?

just checking.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Which for most that bought in the last 8 years, is entirely likely.

2.3% higher for moving into a slightly worse LTV ratio?!

Come on Hamish, give it up, you are just talking out of your rear now.

HSBC, 5 year fix, 90% LTV, 6.29%
HSBC, 5 year fix, 80% LTV, 5.19%
HSBC, 5 year fix, 60% LTV, 4.59%

Moving from 80% to 90% bracket will cost 1.10% more.

Even moving from a 60% to 90% LTV bracket would be 1.7% more.

Your whole theory is made up and unsubstatiated. The only people your theory may effect are those who took out 100%+ LTV mortgages who find themselves in serious negative equity, and always have been ever since theu bought.

I revert back to post 3. And this, is the evidence of my assertion.

the_flying_pig

Graham_Devon wrote: »

2.3% higher for moving into a slightly worse LTV ratio?!

Come on Hamish, give it up, you are just talking out of your rear now.

HSBC, 5 year fix, 90% LTV, 6.29%
HSBC, 5 year fix, 80% LTV, 5.19%
HSBC, 5 year fix, 60% LTV, 4.59%

Moving from 80% to 90% bracket will cost 1.10% more.

Even moving from a 60% to 90% LTV bracket would be 1.7% more.

Your whole theory is made up and unsubstatiated. The only people your theory may effect are those who took out 100%+ LTV mortgages who find themselves in serious negative equity, and always have been ever since theu bought.

to be clear, someone who starts off with, say, 60% LTV on a £100k pwoperdee & is moving up to a £150k pwoperdee will have 73% LTV if they simply take on another £50k of debt to buy at 150k... if prices fall by 20% [a fairly extreme assumption, which brings about huge savings on capital repayments], LTV, once the old £80k house has been traded up to £120k, will be 83%... i.e. a few measly basis pts more expensive in terms of rates...

Graham_Devon

the_flying_pig wrote: »

nah, you've got it wrong, m8. that's not how Hamish argues.

if there's one thing that supports your argument, focus on that, gloss over the rest. none of this unpicking lark.

Yes, it appears now the argument has boiled down to "well most people don't want to move anyway".

chucky

hold on, have i read this right?? you're hoping for 20% nominal price drops

here

Graham_Devon wrote: »

House prices fall 20% and Mary now has 80k equity in her home

and here

Graham_Devon wrote: »

However, prices have fallen 20%, so Mary now needs an 80k mortgage.

and then you say this

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Your whole theory is made up and unsubstatiated.

Hamish's theory may only suit certain people but expecting 20% nominal house price drops is all a bit very hopeful and not likely to happen at all.

the_flying_pig

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, it appears now the argument has boiled down to "well most people don't want to move anyway".

indeed. but everyone loses really because he'll spew out the exact same line of argument on here two or three weeks from now and no-one then will have the patience to really carefully explain why it's wrong...

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

hold on, have i read this right?? y

No, you haven't.

Pretty desperate there chuckles. Everyone can see it's an example based on Hamish's assertions.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

the_flying_pig wrote: »

so does this mean you've backed off from your risible argument that price falls are good for trader-uppers

I know you're a bit of a condescending pr1ck at the best of times, but y'know, it might be more productive for you to try arguing with what I actually say, rather than putting words in my mouth and arguing with them instead....

that people do trade up quite often or that there's something a bit funny going on]?
.

Well it used to be every 7-10 years on average.

The current rate is far lower.

I wouldn't count either as "quite often".

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, you haven't.

Pretty desperate there chuckles. Everyone can see it's an example based on Hamish's assertions.

desperate?? me?? i don't think so, but you keep on trying to convince yourself.

how about people who's flats have risen in value more than the 3 bed semi they plan to trade up - is rising house prices good for them if they trade up?

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I know you're a bit of a condescending pr1ck at the best of times, but y'know, it might be more productive for you to try arguing with what I actually say, rather than putting words in my mouth and arguing with them instead....

well i had to put words in your mouth because you were completely changing the subject.

these latest words of wisdom of yours will be of no help at all to the poor OP [who must be wondering what's going on] who wanted to know whether, "as a homeowner trading up are property rises good for me?"

that falling prices aren't good for HAMISH_MCTAVISH has been, I think, reasonably well established, but isn't really the debate here.