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.

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.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Land Registry Prediction

189101214

Comments

  • geneer
    geneer Posts: 4,220 Forumite
    edited 2 August 2011 at 6:01PM
    robmatic wrote: »
    So, basically, do you actually know what you're talking about when it comes to mortgages?


    You seem to think SVR isn't a reasonable benchmark of assessing mortgages, though you are unwilling to offer an alternative.

    I suggest you're now just clutching at straws.

    Fixed rates, such as they are, typically last 2 years, which mean they reset. Meaning the SVR remains a good long term benchmark.
  • geneer
    geneer Posts: 4,220 Forumite
    robmatic wrote: »
    So let's project rates of 7.5% over the next, say, 5 years, because that lends itself to a realistic analysis?

    You appear to be confused.

    I believe we've confirmed 6.54% as a more accurate average for SVR.

    Which is only 11.2 years of rent rather than 12. :rotfl:
  • wotsthat
    wotsthat Posts: 11,325 Forumite
    geneer wrote: »
    Because it would be somewhat unrealistic to project what are indeed emergency rates across the next 20 to 25 years.

    ...and you think 7.5% might be a realistic rate to project for the next 20 - 25 years? Oh dear.

    ...and don't forget your 7.5% figure started as your guess at historical rates for the last 11 years. When this was shown to be way out you turned it into a projection.

    As for 2005 - why not pick any year and I'll do the calculations. The longer someone stays out of the market the worse it looks.

    What about 2002 - didn't JD STR then? Now they'd look like scary figures but if you delude yourself that you would have been paying 7.5% on a mortgage instead it might take some of the sting out.
  • robmatic
    robmatic Posts: 1,217 Forumite
    geneer wrote: »
    You seem to think SVR isn't a reasonable benchmark of assessing mortgages, though you are unwilling to offer an alternative.

    I suggest you're now just clutching at straws.

    Fixed rates, such as they are, typically last 2 years, which mean they reset. Meaning the SVR remains a good long term benchmark.

    Trackers, discount trackers and fixes have been the mortgage products that people have used in recent memory... not SVRs.

    How does a discount tracker compare to an SVR?

    How often have people taken out trackers at base rate + 2.0% or more? Is that a typical margin?
  • robmatic
    robmatic Posts: 1,217 Forumite
    geneer wrote: »
    You appear to be confused.

    I believe we've confirmed 6.54% as a more accurate average for SVR.

    Which is only 11.2 years of rent rather than 12. :rotfl:

    I've confirmed 6.54% as the average SVR in the 7 years leading up to the credit crunch.

    You have not confirmed this as a typical mortgage rate for that period.

    You have not determined that this is a sensible typical mortgage rate for the next 5 years (I should perhaps point out that BBR is currently 0.5%).
  • robmatic
    robmatic Posts: 1,217 Forumite
    robmatic wrote: »
    geneer wrote: »

    Sadly you have nothing to say about Hamishes selected 5% mortgage rates. Which, it transpires, is lower than the typical base rate for the last 11 years.
    Which doesn't do much for your credibility.

    Errm, what is the typical base rate for the last 11 years?

    Clue: you can determine it from that HPC table...

    Come on geneer, you can do this... you're good at maths!

    Clue number 2: it's a number less than 5...
  • geneer
    geneer Posts: 4,220 Forumite
    wotsthat wrote: »
    ...and you think 7.5% might be a realistic rate to project for the next 20 - 25 years? Oh dear.

    Did you "miss" the post directly above yours then?
    Oh dear.

    wotsthat wrote: »
    As for 2005 - why not pick any year and I'll do the calculations. The longer someone stays out of the market the worse it looks.

    What about 2002 - didn't JD STR then? Now they'd look like scary figures but if you delude yourself that you would have been paying 7.5% on a mortgage instead it might take some of the sting out.


    Who mentioned 2005. Who mentioned 2002? You're flailing wotsthat.

    In principle though, 11 years of rent would readily see the "average" buyer back to 2005.
    The "average" 2002 would probably break even.
  • geneer
    geneer Posts: 4,220 Forumite
    robmatic wrote: »
    I've confirmed 6.54% as the average SVR in the 7 years leading up to the credit crunch.

    Correct.
    The emergency rates have been excluded for the reasons previously stated.

    robmatic wrote: »
    You have not confirmed this as a typical mortgage rate for that period.

    You have not confirmed that it isn't.
    Though I have pointed out the Fixed rates etc do reset, so if thats your angle, you are incorrect.


    robmatic wrote: »
    You have not determined that this is a sensible typical mortgage rate for the next 5 years (I should perhaps point out that BBR is currently 0.5%).

    My calculation is for the duration of the mortgage. Approx 25 years. It is quite feasible that the typical mortgage rates will exceed 6.54% by a significant margin over that time.

    Clearly you're clutching at straws now.
  • geneer
    geneer Posts: 4,220 Forumite
    robmatic wrote: »
    Come on geneer, you can do this... you're good at maths!

    Clue number 2: it's a number less than 5...

    Naturally Rob, we would want to exclude the recent emergency rates in this case too.

    But why don't you enlighted us as to why 5% is a much more typical rate when your own calculations have already demonstrated something much higher?


    Though again, even at the nonsensical 5% value, your "average" buyer still gets 5 years rent to play with.
  • robmatic
    robmatic Posts: 1,217 Forumite
    geneer wrote: »
    Correct.
    The emergency rates have been excluded for the reasons previously stated.

    What are these reasons?
    geneer wrote: »
    You have not confirmed that it isn't.
    Though I have pointed out the Fixed rates etc do reset, so if thats your angle, you are incorrect.

    That's not my angle. My angle is that an SVR is not the rate that a mortgage holder will typically pay.

    geneer wrote: »

    My calculation is for the duration of the mortgage. Approx 25 years. It is quite feasible that the typical mortgage rates will exceed 6.54% by a significant margin over that time.

    Clearly you're clutching at straws now.

    It's similarly feasible that they will remain below that figure.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.