Three-quarters of homebuyers fear interest rate hike that could 'push them over the e

Loughton_Monkey

geneer wrote: »

Three-quarters of homebuyers fear interest rate hike that could 'push them over the e

You still taking 'e' ?

I knew there had to be an explanation.

TedButler

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed.

There's pretty much zero chance of rates rising significantly here before the USA, not in a low growth world, and when we're trying to keep our currency down to rebalance the economy towards exporting.

So the debt will be inflated away, and better yet the cost of servicing that debt in nominal terms will remain at record lows for many years to come. As rates are unlikely to move very far or very fast even when they do rise.

It rather does look as if the decade from 2007 - 2017 will prove to be the best time in history to have a mortgage. (provided you have the nerve to stay on a decent tracker)

Bohdy wrote: »

Interest rates will rise faster and higher than anyone expects.

For now, the Bank of England is not going to do much about rising inflation in the UK. Wages over here aren't rising especially rapidly, and that's what the Bank is really worried about.
However, as star hedge fund manager Crispin Odey noted recently, this means that when rate rises do arrive, they'll be much more aggressive than anyone expects.

And that'll force interest rates a lot higher, and far more rapidly than anyone expects. Odey mentions 7%, but doesn't see that as a ceiling. That would be bad news for most stocks, but worse for bonds and far worse for house prices.

Hamish will not like what Odey is saying, 7% and that is not a ceiling.

You need a lot of nerve to stay on a tracker for the next few years. Those who fix soon can sleep well at least for the term of their fixed rate.

pinkteapot

ButterflyBee wrote: »

My mortgage lender(owned by the goverment) will not put me on a fixed 4.8% rate but will keep me on the daily variable.When rates increase I will be totally stuffed and the chances then of paying off the debt is practically null and void.

This is perfectly normally. I'm guessing you have little equity in the property? You had a fixed rate or some deal to start with, then your mortgage reverts to the SVR.

"Putting you on a fixed" means you apply for a mortgage all over again in effect. And lending criteria have changed since you got your original mortgage so you now don't meet them. Don't blame the lender for this.

As long as your overpayments are reducing your capital owed then at some point you will have enough equity to apply for a new mortgage and get an introductory rate again, either with your current lender or a new one.

julieq

Note that a "home buyer" is not the same as a "home owner". So it's 9% of a small group, presumably someone who has bought recently who fear the consequences of a rate rise to the point where they may struggle. Not surprising really, given debt is being paid down.

I've said it before and I'll say it again probably: Bears don't ever read the data they post. The articles NEVER say what they assert they say, they are unable to rid themselves of conformation bias and look at the detail. Press releases in particular are always constructed to tell a particular story to a particular audience, and the selection of words and data tells you a great deal about the story they wish to tell.

And because bears never understand how to analyse data critically, they make enormous mistakes of judgement.

Which leads us back to Geneer I guess, who is still redefining what he thinks a crash is and desperately hoping increasingly unlikely rate rises are going to create a fire sale to justify his own decision not to buy in at a lower level and benefit from historical low rates when rents are rising. And even if that happened, he still wouldn't have the balls to actually buy something. He's in a trap of his own making.

geneer

julieq wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again probably: BULLS don't ever read the data they post. The articles NEVER say what they assert they say, they are unable to rid themselves of conformation bias and look at the detail. Press releases in particular are always constructed to tell a particular story to a particular audience, and the selection of words and data tells you a great deal about the story they wish to tell.

And because BULLS never understand how to analyse data critically, they make enormous mistakes of judgement.

Fixed that for you.

julieq wrote: »

Which leads us back to Geneer I guess, who is still redefining what he thinks a crash is and desperately hoping increasingly unlikely rate rises are going to create a fire sale to justify his own decision not to buy in at a lower level and benefit from historical low rates when rents are rising. And even if that happened, he still wouldn't have the balls to actually buy something. He's in a trap of his own making.

Yet in reality its clear the Bulls are the real culprits when it comes to constantly trying to redefine what the crash is.
Nominal falls are currently similar to what they were in the last crash. It was a crash then. It is a crash now.
End of story.


You don't really have a clue as to my personal position Julieq,
though like the rest of Geneers Gals, it does seem to be an enormous source of fascination for you. I'm flattered by the attention.


I've always felt that the bulls were a collection of magpies, happily picking up and regurgitating memes with little thought.

It really does tickle me when posters like Julieq and Hamish
are obviously (and perhaps even unconsiously) picking up the observations regularly directed at our bullish community and foolishly attempting to deflect it back.

heathcote123

Q. When is a crash not a crash?
A. When a house costs more than it does when you started waiting.

Yay geneer wins again. . You're just one of lifes great winners Geneer, whatever happens you seem to come up trumps! Even when it looks like you completely !!!!ed something up, you manage to re-arrange words & history to come up smelling of roses! - I wish I had luck like yours....

ukcarper

Should that headline read 75% of mortgage holders would not be able to live in the manner they have become accustomed to if rates rise. God forbid they would have to cancel SKY.

nearlynew

geneer wrote: »

75% of homebuyers eh.
Thats a rather significant number.

Does seem to make a mockery of the old "no on overstretched themselves its all supply and demand" argument advocated by the tin-foil hatters.

As a founder member of the MSE tin-foil hatters, I have to pull you up on this statement as it looks as if you're a little confused about our beliefs.

What you have said does not make sense in the context of tin foil hattism.

geneer

heathcote123 wrote: »

Q. When is a crash not a crash?
A. When a house costs more than it does when you started waiting.

:rotfl:Oh look Jules. A bullish poster attempting to redefine the meaning of a crash. Who would have thunk it.Something to do with "when you started waiting" apparently.


Heathcote123 would know of course. He, by his own firm admission, was a staunch housing bear as far back as 2003.

He then bought in 2007 and became somewhat bullish.

Though of course he only bought half a house.

heathcote123 wrote: »

Yay geneer wins again. . You're just one of lifes great winners Geneer, whatever happens you seem to come up trumps! Even when it looks like you completely !!!!ed something up, you manage to re-arrange words & history to come up smelling of roses! - I wish I had luck like yours....

Nominal falls now are similar to the last crash.
Easily verifiable.
End of story.;)

Rochdale_Pioneers

ukcarper wrote: »

Should that headline read 75% of mortgage holders would not be able to live in the manner they have become accustomed to if rates rise. God forbid they would have to cancel SKY.

But this is what 30 years of neo-liberalism has given us. Its not something you can choose to buy as a luxury. Its a basic necessity.