Repo's up and some startling numbers

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It means you think it's a decent point.

Kind of proving my argument here?

nope, see my point about political speaches.

Anyway, if you want to discuss the facts and stats again, then that's fine.

there's no point in these diversionary tactics as it's of no benefit.

IveSeenTheLight

Cleaver wrote: »

It is quite startling that so little mortgages are given at 90% or higher LTV. Didn't think it would be quite so small numbers.



I was curious about this, so here's the repo numbers for Q1 2008 until now:



I guess you need the next three reports to see if this month becomes a trend. At the moment it's just a blip.

And here's the precentage of houses repossessed each quarter out of all owner-occupied properties:

Q1 2008 0.051%
Q2 2008 0.061%
Q3 2008 0.075%
Q4 2008 0.072%
Q1 2009 0.071%
Q2 2009 0.066%
Q3 2009 0.065%
Q4 2009 0.066%
Q1 2010 0.058%
Q2 2010 0.052%
Q3 2010 0.051%
Q4 2010 0.046%
Q1 2011 0.053%

It's weird really, as obviously if you look at simple numbers it can look startling. For example, repos were down 30% between Q4 2009 and Q4 2010, which sounds really significant. But when you look at it as a percentage of total numbers you wonder whether the difference between 0.066% and 0.046% of all owner-occupied houses being repossessed each quarter is really worth worrying about.

Good post on facts and stats to discuss

chucky

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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.

well that's where Devon needed the thread to be after his points were shot down in flames.

i'll try again though...

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.

chucky wrote: »

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

IveSeenTheLight

Really2 wrote: »

I think that is against average wage. Not of average income when buying.

Here it is in 2007, I think the data is done by the CML but this was the first link I found.
http://www.moneywell.co.uk/blog/general-financial/the-average-first-time-buyer-income-multiple-increases-2007

Good post on facts and stats to discuss

IveSeenTheLight

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You may find this article interesting from 2007

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/1065

Affordability pressures continued to squeeze first-time buyers in November as income multiples reached their highest ever level - 3.29 times the average first-time buyer household income - according to new data from the Council of Mortgage Lenders. This was up from 3.27 times in October, and 3.08 times in the same month last year

The new figures come on the back of last week's decision by the Bank of England to raise interest rates by 0.25% to 5.25% - the highest level since May 2001. In November, the average first-time buyer mortgage was £113,877 and the latest increase in interest rates will add an extra £17 to average monthly mortgage payments.

Today's data also reveals that the proportion of income used to pay mortgage interest payments hit record levels in November at 17.8% - up from 17.4% in October and 15.8% in November 2005

And the number of first-time buyers that paid stamp duty increased to 57% in November, up from 56% in October and 48% in the same month last year.

But, despite affordability constraints growing, the number of first-time buyers managing to get on the property ladder is actually increasing. In November the number of loans to first-time buyers grew by 5% to 37,000 loans. This is up from 35,300 loans in October.

Good post on facts and stats to discuss

IveSeenTheLight

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

That said, the latest release is showing: -
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/2938

Average FTB LTV = 80%
Average FTB income multiplier = 3.13
Proportion of FTB income spent on interest payments = 13.3%
Average loan value (£1,900 million / 15,800 loans) = £120,253

Good post linking facts and stats

IveSeenTheLight

Hopefully brings the facts and links back to the fore will negate the going off on a tangent posts.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

So where does so much of your argument come from then Hamish about current mortgage rationing etc?

This is probably pretty much what most of the banks are lending at the moment.

Mortgage rationing is where banks must limit the distribution of a limited pool of funding through using deposit requirements to reduce the pool of borrowers to match the pool of funding.

And it's happening every day in the UK, which is why such a tiny amount of mortgages are being issues at historically prudent deposit levels of 5% or 10%, with the average for FTB-s now up around 25%.

As a real world example, my youngest cousin is now in his late 20's and earns around £24K. He's been with his current employer for 3 years, and his credit score is OK..... No late payments, no defaults, registered to vote, etc, but also hasn't ever used much credit as he's generally quite a sensible prudent chap.

He's getting married this year and wants to buy a house.

He has slightly more than a 10% deposit plus enough for legal fees saved up, (around 15K) and wants to buy a house at 4 times income and take a mortgage for less than 4 times income.

Can he get a mortgage? Absolutely not. So far he's been rejected from all of our major high street banks, and is now scared to apply to any more in case his credit score gets worse from all the applications.

And this story is being repeated every day up and down the land.

Pretty much the only FTB-s getting loans are those with rich parents and huge deposits..... The average FTB deposit is now around 25% versus around 10% before the credit crunch.

I wonder if it is actually high house prices that is the problem then?

Well there's someone trying to get a mortgage for a house priced at less than 100K, and for less than your suggested 4 times single income.... Who can't.

So obviously it's not the house prices that are the problem.

wotsthat

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.

...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. I've been back through this enjoyable thread and thanked a couple of your posts. You sound very insecure so I hope this helps.

By the way if thanks are so very important to you or, as I suspect, a diversion from talking about real numbers, may I suggest that you develop a nice broccoli soup recipe and post it in the nice persons thread - they'll love it.

RenovationMan

shortchanged wrote: »

Good, good Hamish. Now we just need to keep to 4 times a single earning multiple and 3 times a joint earning multiple maximum and we're there.

I was given a 5x single earning muliple and it doesn't seem to have done me any harm.

Incidently, I am now at a 4.13 single earning muliple and I'm no more secure with my finances.