Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.
Repo's up and some startling numbers
Comments
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »If you are thanking stuff such as "hes an an excuse of a man", seriously, you've lost the argument.
I didn't, I thanked this part of the postand then he wonders why people treat him the way they do.
I think it's quite clear who has won and who has lost this particular [STRIKE]argument[/STRIKE] debateGraham_Devon wrote: »You can't argue it's lack of lending causing FTB's to be priced out, but then argue to the point of outright abuse that houses are affordable based on multiples. But it's what you are doing.
Where?
I did pose a couple of hypothetical examples to try and illustrate to yourself exactly what the income multiple to loan meant.
I never stated it was affordable or not, I asked those questions (which you chose to ignore):wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »To answer your question above (and I have stated it earlier) there may be specific instances where the ratio has been higher than 3.3, however as an average it appears it has not.
the average mortgage advance for an FTB was £126,695 in 2010
the average household income for an FTB was £44,464 in 2010
the average mortgage multiple was 2.84 times household salary in 2010.
unfortunately real life facts aren't good on this forum because the likes of devon ignore what happens in the real world.0 -
The question simply isn't going to be answered, is it? Were on to page 4 now. I've been asking the question and pointing out the glaringly obvious "can't have the argument both ways" for 3 pages now, and it's been ignored every time.
Therefore, I think were at the point where we cannot go any further.
Hypotehetical examples don't mean anything really. I'm not asking for hypothetical stuff, I'm asking about arguments put forward on this thread. Real arguments, not hypothetical ones.
All I can do, is take it you do not wish to answer, as you don't have one.
Do the same with me if you wish. But all your questions have been on a hypothetical path. Mine are based on whats stated on this very thread.0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »I didn't, I thanked this part of the post
I think it's quite clear who has won and who has lost this particular [STRIKE]argument[/STRIKE] debate
Where?
I did pose a couple of hypothetical examples to try and illustrate to yourself exactly what the income multiple to loan meant.
I never stated it was affordable or not, I asked those questions (which you chose to ignore)
speaking of ignoring questions you appear to have missed gds question. again.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »My proposition is simply that you cannot state houses are affordable on FTB stats, and then argue that FTBs are priced out due to lack of lending.
Where did I state they were affordable or not?
where did I state FTBers were priced out due to lack of lending.
I simply showed statistics.
You quite glaringly are getting in a muddle.
Is it possible that you are arguing with the world and not the specific posts placed?Graham_Devon wrote: »You seem to, as you are arguing away while getting more and more frustrated, hence the abuse.
Forget the abuse a minute.
Where have I abused you?
I tried a couple of times to give some sound advise and to slow down, read and digest before running off on a tangent.Graham_Devon wrote: »Would you disagree with that?
Whch is it? Houses are affordable for FTB's, which is your argument.
Or lending is to blame for lack of FTB's, which is the argument you have thanked all the way through the thread.
Can you not see why I stated it's denial to claim both arguments?
Read my posts again. I have not stated they are affordable or not.
I've not said lending is restricted to FTBers or not.
Most of my posts was in reference to readily available stats.
Stats which you were asking for
Stat's it seems that you are not happy with so have gone down this tangent blaming me for everyone's posts..Graham_Devon wrote: »If house prices were at a level (see, context of house prices here, this is all I meant) that really allowed FTBs to only see multiples to be 3.13x income.....how on earth can we suggest FTBs are being discriminated against by lending practices!?
Again, have I stated so?:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Real life facts are fine.
But that again ignores the 50% of self certs. If those figures were really true, and the average FTB had a 50k deposit, then why are we now suggesting FTB's ae being locked out because of high deposits?
I can just fire awkward questions back on any of your facts. It's not that I don't like them. It's that they simply don't ring true.
trying to bring self certs is confusing the debate, which is obviously what you want. you querying my facts and saying are they really true, says it all really. i would put the link up but there's no point.0 -
how many self certs would there have been in 2010, hardly any.
trying to bring self certs is confusing the debate, which is obviously what you want. you querying my facts and saying are they really true, says it all really. i would put the link up but there's no point.
I deleted my post.
We are all talking about 2006/7. You have given facts for 2010.
Therefore I deleted my post as your facts are 3 years out. Thats confusing the debate0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »I think the difference is that owner occupiers are more likely to have been paying down the mortgage / have increased equity, meaning that when applying for a mortgage (not necessarily moving home) they are more likely to have a better LTV ratio than FTBers
That might be the case, but as a FTB recently, I can assure Hamish that we had access to all the same mortgage deals at our LTV as our second-time-buyer counterparts would have done....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Read my posts again. I have not stated they are affordable or not.
I've not said lending is restricted to FTBers or not.
Most of my posts was in reference to readily available stats.
?
You don't need to read your posts to see what you believe. You also don't need to say something to show support for what you believe. Your thanking others beliefs shows your own beliefs.
Unless you are now going to suggest you thank a person for taking the time to post. But only specific people saying specific things.
For reference, this is what you thanked:Mortgage famine ongoing, FTB-s continue to be discriminated against.
Nothing new there Graham, just the same old points we've been mentioning for some time.
There is an entire generation being forced to enrich their landlords because the banks won't lend more than a token amount of mortgages at reasonable (5% or 10%) deposit levels, particularly to young people.
Are you now squirmingand suggesting you don't actually believe that?0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »All I can do, is take it you do not wish to answer, as you don't have one.
I've answered your questions.
May I suggest you try reading the posts again.Graham_Devon wrote: »But all your questions have been on a hypothetical path. Mine are based on whats stated on this very thread.
No they haven't.
As an example, I asked you a question related to stats from the latest release referring to 15,800 FTBer loans and asked if they would have been available on self cert mortgages.
As shown, the average value is higher now than it was in 2007 release I posted, hence, your proposition that in 2007, they could afford only because of self cert does not compute.
Nevermind, time for you to go given you clearly have been shown to be incorrect.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 348.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.4K Spending & Discounts
- 240.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.7K Life & Family
- 254.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards