Average Deposit now 66K !

Le_Chuck

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A 10% fall in prices turns a 10% deposit into an 11.1% deposit.

Meaningless when you need a 25% deposit for FTB-s to get a decent rate.

....whereas a 60% drop on the other hand


As I mentioned before, I bought in 2002 my depost was about 27%. If I had bought today, that deposit would have been less than 10% & my mortgage payments 4 x as much

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

When even the worst loans from the most aggressive of UK lenders like Northern Rock make nearly a third of a billion pounds profit in just a year, how much more freaking evidence do you need to understand this? :rotfl:

None, I do understand it.

The banks will make huge profits, no matter what mortgage deals they offer.

If they get "creative" with their lending, then we end up with them getting into trouble, and taxpayers having to intervene. We also end up with high HPI and a vicious circle where banks have to lend more and more to support rising prices.

If they tighten up their lending there is less chance of them stepping close to the brink.

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Just one mortgage in 263 will be repossessed this year, and that's with all the 125% mortgages, self cert, etc that went on for nearly a decade.

Blimey, that's a very precise prediction Hamish.

Any chance you can tell me the 6 lotto numbers for tonight's draw ?

Anyway, you seem to be implying that despite "dodgy" lending, everything is OK, so "dodgy" lending wasn't really a problem. I'd say that the base rate of 0.5% and inflation ~5% is a product of dodgy lending in recent years. I'd also say that the reason that repo's are so low is due to low base rates and the lenders being a tad lenient on borrowers. They know that a high number of repo's will cause prices to fall and make their loan books look rather precarious.

DervProf

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You do realise you are using Northern Rock, as evidence that high ratio mortgages work and make profit...don't you?

Thats Northern Rock...

The bank that was nationalised...

That bank...

That's what happens when you are hypnotised by HPI, you loose the ability to relate cause and effect.

The fact that NR had to be bailed out is just a minor point. Maybe we should allow the banks and J. Public to go on a "bender" again, as the fallout has been minimal.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

it's due to property prices..

Once again, from the article.....

"Much has been made of rising house prices, but the average deposit needed in the first place has actually risen more than twice as fast as house prices and almost four times as fast as income," he said.

"This is why we are seeing first time buyers getting older, with more and more people struggling to get on the property ladder."

Not the prices Graham, the absurd deposit requirements.

Jimmy_31

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Once again, from the article.....

"Much has been made of rising house prices, but the average deposit needed in the first place has actually risen more than twice as fast as house prices and almost four times as fast as income," he said.

"This is why we are seeing first time buyers getting older, with more and more people struggling to get on the property ladder."

Not the prices Graham, the absurd deposit requirements.

I know plenty of first time buyers who have got 20 to 30k deposits for a house.

They can have a mortgage if they want one.

They cant earn enough money to pay a mortgage plus actually live in the house.

If house prices were to crash then they would buy instantly.

So there you have it hamish, plenty of people have already saved the absurd deposit but still cant buy because a house costs too much.

Pretty simple really.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not the prices Graham, the absurd deposit requirements.

Whatever. Your ignorance is the only thing absurd.

The fact that you can argue it's not prices, it's deposits, when deposits are percentages of the prices, proves your arguments are based on nothing but pure ignorance and blinkers.

geneer

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Whatever. Your ignorance is the only thing absurd.

The fact that you can argue it's not prices, it's deposits, when deposits are percentages of the prices, proves your arguments are based on nothing but pure ignorance and blinkers.

Don't you know GD that the bulls studied a strange variaton of rule of supply and demand which states the PRICES CAN NEVER FALL.

Their faith in this ubsurd creation is so compelling that even when the falls are there in the statistics, in black and white, they can't even bring themselves to admit that they exist.

JonnyBravo

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Whatever. Your ignorance is the only thing absurd.

The fact that you can argue it's not prices, it's deposits, when deposits are percentages of the prices, proves your arguments are based on nothing but pure ignorance and blinkers.

And your lack of recognition that if the average deposit were to go from 20% to 10% it would also halve the deposit needed is blinkered on a grand scale too.
You're both so busy arguing for back or white that neither is prepared to admit any shade of grey.
But of course, it's always the other bloke who's wrong.

JonnyBravo

geneer wrote: »

Don't you know GD that the bulls studied a strange variaton of rule of supply and demand which states the PRICES CAN NEVER FALL.

Their faith in this ubsurd creation is so compelling that even when the falls are their in the statistics, in black and white, they can't even bring themselves to admit that they exist.

And here's another arguing black or white

But on a serious point, you too, busily tie yourself up in knots, just like Hamish, desperate to keep to the "party line" of your side.
No data is EVER allowed to be both accurate and not of your VI.