Repo's up and some startling numbers

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

the average mortgage advance in 2007 was £130,565
the average household income in 2007 was £41,901
the average property price in 2007 for an FTB was £159,494
the average household income in 2007 was 3.12 times income

the trend doesn't change - self certs have had little impact on FTB numbers.

what is increasing in 2010 is the household income required to buy. this is due to mortgage rationing which means that income multiple seems is decreasing but only because the household income is increasing against an average mortgage amount that has not really increased that much.

IveSeenTheLight

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

That might be the case, but as a FTB recently, I can assume Hamish that we had access to all the same mortgage deals at our LTV as our second-time-buyer counterparts would have done.

I would not argue against that and of course previous owner occupiers have benefited from HPI meaning that they have access to better ratio LTV's.

Going forward, with stagnation, there will be little difference between recent owner occupiers and FTBer's

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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.

I answered that. I stated I was asking the question whether they were included or not. Not inferring that they were. Page 2 or 3.

I answered here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=44690332&postcount=50

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.

And I;ve also answered that, stating that wasn't my proposition. You advised me to read. I'd suggest you do the same.

Same thread, here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=44690332&postcount=50

Nevermind, time for you to go given you clearly have been shown to be incorrect.

Indeed. Clearly. So wrong I can direct you to the very post I answered things you accuse me of not answering, you accuse me of inferring, etc etc.

And then you call me mr muddle.

You still haven't answered my point mind. Ho hum.

This is like one of those arguments you have with geener, where you simply state he hasn't answered over and over for pages and hes linking up to a million different forums with answers. For that reason, I'm out. As I look upon those arguments with despair.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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:


Are you now squirmingand suggesting you don't actually believe that?

You need to try and keep it simple Graham.

You cannot try and assume what someone believes because they hit the Thanks button.

In a political speach, because the bank banchers applaud one part of the speach, does that constitue that they agree with the whole speach?

If you try to keep to the point being discussed you may find it easier to debate.

I've told you time and time again, not to try and assume what I may be thinking or what I might say.
Leave that to me and discuss what I actually say

Nice diversionary tactic away from the facts though

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You cannot try and assume what someone believes because they hit the Thanks button.

Right okey dokey.

So you only thank certain posters, saying certain things, but thats not you thanking whats said as it aligns with your thoughts....its just you thanking certain posters, for taking the time to post, I asumme?

....Depending on what they say in the post.

Call me Mr Muddle! But thats seriously muddled up!

I will however say you have won the argument with that blinder, and state congratulations. I was wrong all along.

...And whos one of the posters who copies an pastes whos thanked who as evidence of what someone believes as a put down!??! Wouldn't be you and el chucko, would it, LOL.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You still haven't answered my point mind. Ho hum.

What point?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is like one of those arguments you have with geener, where you simply state he hasn't answered over and over for pages and hes linking up to a million different forums with answers. For that reason, I'm out. As I look upon those arguments with despair.

I don't argue with geneer, he's the one and only on my ignore list.

Indeed, you have a lot of similarities with geneer in that you ignore facts when presented to you.

Is this another diversionary tactic?

chucky

chucky wrote: »

the average mortgage advance in 2007 was £130,565
the average household income in 2007 was £41,901
the average property price in 2007 for an FTB was £159,494
the average household income in 2007 was 3.12 times income

the trend doesn't change - self certs have had little impact on FTB numbers.

what is increasing in 2010 is the household income required to buy. this is due to mortgage rationing which means that income multiple seems is decreasing but only because the household income is increasing against an average mortgage amount that has not really increased that much.

obviously the facts weren't required on this thread...

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right okey dokey.

So you only thank certain posters, saying certain things, but thats not you thanking whats said as it aligns with your thoughts....its just you thanking certain posters, for taking the time to post, I asumme?

....Depending on what they say in the post.

Call me Mr Muddle! But thats seriously muddled up!

I will however say you have won the argument with that blinder, and state congratulations. I was wrong all along.

I've thanked you on occasion when you have made a decent point.

What does that mean............

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

...And whos one of the posters who copies an pastes whos thanked who as evidence of what someone believes as a put down!??! Wouldn't be you and el chucko, would it, LOL.

Graham, you simply cannot proove that as it has never happened.

Again, good diversionary tactics.
It's seems you have done well, no longer are we discussing facts or stats.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I've thanked you on occasion when you have made a decent point.

What does that mean............

It means you think it's a decent point.

Kind of proving my argument here? Very kind of you, but you've just typed out a post suggesting thats not why you thank someone.

My point, as you asked....for about the 15th time...

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.

Would you disagree with that? You seem to, as you are arguing away while getting more and more frustrated, hence the abuse.

Whch is it? Houses are affordable for FTB's, which is your argument. (forget the loan part, they need to afford the house in the first place to get the loan).

Or lending is to blame for lack of FTB's, which is the argument you have thanked all the way through the thread.

It cannot possibly be both.

But were back to you don't believe that. You may have thanked it several times when Hamish said it, but thats not why you thank posts. You thank them if they are decent posts... Very confusing.