Nationwide November +0.4% MOM +1.6% YOY

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

I don't follow the logic. Why would the interest rate a buyer pays affect the willingness of a seller to sell? It's more likely that the sellers are waiting for a better offer. Unless you know about the seller and their financial status you can't draw a causal link.

And you can only infer anything at all about the 2 houses you offered on.

So case not proved really. I don't understand what you're getting at.

Again, I will help you. I'm in a charitable mood today Research is the key.

It's unlikely that the seller will get the same rate when they move. It's a new mortgage they will be taking on (if they require one). They may only be paying 2% above base rate at the moment. If they are lucky, their mortgage interest rate will merely double when they move. However, it could increase 150%. Maybe more.

Theres also the other side of the coin. If these people are now paying £400 a month, instead of £1000 a month to keep their empty house, they may feel they can hold out a lot longer. It's not difficult to envisage a situation whereby someone could maybe afford £400 a month, but may find it a noose around their neck paying £1000 a month.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As for your last paragraph regarding my 7.75% rate, I suggest you do some research on base rates. You haven't got a clue...have you?

2% above base rates when rates reached 5.75% wasn't the norm.
Many mortgages were available at much lower rates.
I recall at the time I had base + 0.26% tracker.

I can only presume, although you can clarify if you desire that you must have paid higher rates because of the risk involved i.e. high LTV or because the property is only partly owned

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

2% above base rates when rates reached 5.75% wasn't the norm.

Yes it was, if you were on SVR.

If I wasn't on SVR I wouldn't have followed rates down to a mortgage rate of 3.5%.

I came off a 5.25% (if I recall correctly) fix. I'm not a debt junky, so wasn't looking around to pay exit fees, new mortgage fee's etc to change mortgage products. I'm not on a high LTV. 90%. Though you could argue, quite correctly, that is rather high, however, wasn't at all high when the product was taken.

<rolls eyes>

Pimperne1

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thanks.

Missed you posting the comments from another site when prices fell on the LR yesterday!!

Okay, here we go:

Same here, this really does look like the second leg down in nominal prices.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are hard work Julie.

If you haven't noticed, wages are pretty much static, though you will argue they are rising, so yes, some people are getting small wage rises, but nowhere near matching the costs of living increases.

Do you REALLY believe yourself when you suggest that it would make no difference if mortgage rates were back to where they were in 2007/8?

If you believe that, I can't change your mind, but don't expect me to follow your personal thoughts. The cost of living, inflation etc seems to have passed you by. These costs are not small. I listened to a piece on the news the other day which had calculated that since 2006 (5 year research), the typical 2 point 4 children family is currently £180 worse off per month on living costs. Many however feel better off, as their mortgage could be typically £450 less per month thanks to interest rates.

As for your last paragraph regarding my 7.75% rate, I suggest you do some research on base rates. You haven't got a clue...have you?

You didn't answer the question Graham. Are you able to afford the same payments you had when your rate was 7.75%?

And, again, I didn't say that lower rates have *NO* effect. I said they were not a *major factor*. Which they aren't. They create a windfall for some people, but the evidence is that default rates were low before the crisis at higher rates, and there is no reason to believe that wouldn't be the case now. You can't wave a theoretical £180 less at the end of the month at me without also having to understand that many of the cost increases - petrol for example and derived costs including transport of food - have come precisely from the low rates and devaluation of the pound. You can't take one item in isolation.

7.75% is a spectacularly bad rate though. They really must have seen you coming. Historically, base rates haven't been anywhere near that high since the late 1990s, and it was easy enough to fix far lower most of the time. If you fancy a remortgage, you can get 1.99% fixes - they're advertised on HPC amusingly enough.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I came off a 5.25% (if I recall correctly) fix. I'm not a debt junky, so wasn't looking around to pay exit fees, new mortgage fee's etc to change mortgage products.

Crikey, I am a debt Junkie. I paid £2.5K to leave/take on a new product in 2008..

But thats allowed me to pay off over £34K in capital over the last 3 years.

Odd that you see increasing debt by £2.5K to make £31.5K overall repayment being a debt junkie.
I would say willingness to stay in debt is being a debt junkie, not willingness to repay quicker. But there you go.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

7.75% is a spectacularly bad rate though. They really must have seen you coming. Historically, base rates haven't been anywhere near that high since the late 1990s, and it was easy enough to fix far lower most of the time. If you fancy a remortgage, you can get 1.99% fixes - they're advertised on HPC amusingly enough.

7.75% was the norm for anyone on SVR. It would have been the norm for all those bulls on here who have been able to take advantage of low interest rates thanks to being on an SVR, which there are a few...though of course, most of you chose to go with a base rate tracker (and have great pleasure telling us all AFTER interest rates have fallen to all time lows, not before)....but tell others they are inept for not anticipating base rate increases and finding themselves paying over 7%.

It would have been the norm for all of those people, you, and your fellow blinded companions keep stating "people are on SVR, enjoying low mortgage rates".

It would have been the norm for loads of people and, like a good little boy, I had taken up to 10% into consideration when buying.

It's not a bad rate for an SVR which allows you freedom of overpayments and freedom of switching when the base rate is 5.75%. It's just 2% over, and you are trying far to hard to find something to have a go at now. See ISTL has joined in, and tried to suggest that because my mortgage rate was 2% above base rate (perfectly normal) I was obviously a loose canon and a risk.

Therefore, I can comfortably now sit back, knowing you've nothing left to argue, so are trying to make something out of nothing. You've been trying for a while. Even when I correct your massive base rate mistakes, you just turn the screw the other way and find something else to try and have a go at, something whereby you can call my financially inept.

As for your question. Yes, I could afford it. However, it would now be a squeeze. I've had a child and no wage rises for 2 years. Thats life. And it would, some months, be difficult.

Notice how far we have now moved from you answering my questions?! It's all about having a pop at me because I had the audacity to correct you.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Again, I will help you. I'm in a charitable mood today Research is the key.

It's unlikely that the seller will get the same rate when they move. It's a new mortgage they will be taking on (if they require one). They may only be paying 2% above base rate at the moment. If they are lucky, their mortgage interest rate will merely double when they move. However, it could increase 150%. Maybe more.

Theres also the other side of the coin. If these people are now paying £400 a month, instead of £1000 a month to keep their empty house, they may feel they can hold out a lot longer. It's not difficult to envisage a situation whereby someone could maybe afford £400 a month, but may find it a noose around their neck paying £1000 a month.

Pardon?

You don't even know the seller has a mortgage. For vacant possession it's unlikely, many if not most are estate sales. Where are the people who vacated this house living in your febrile and completely hypothetical set of circumstances?

You can invent circumstances where someone MIGHT be able to hold out for a better price because of low rates. But that is a not the same as it being commonplace. Actually the far more important effect will be rental yield, becuase there is an easy flip of a non sold house into a rented property, and that is entirely because of supply shortfall.

What amuses me - in a sort of watching the carcrash sort of way - is someone who was paying massively over the odds for half a house on some peculiar notion that not being a debt junkie meant not moving your mortgage to a cheaper supplier explaining that someone sitting in a mortgage free house in the Sussex countryside hasn't got a clue. I do honestly think Graham that your opinion of your own financial acumen is a little too high. But anyway.

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne

Really2 wrote: »

Crikey, I am a debt Junkie. I paid £2.5K to leave/take on a new product in 2008..

But thats allowed me to pay off over £34K in capital over the last 3 years.

Odd that you see increasing debt by £2.5K to make £31.5K overall repayment being a debt junkie.
I would say willingness to stay in debt is being a debt junkie, not willingness to repay quicker. But there you go.

Agreed.

I payed £1.8K to leave a product in 2008. Since then the house that I sold has fallen in value by £15k, judging by current asking prices, I suspect the truth is a bigger fall than that. Meanwhile I have made that loss back and then some with interest from my savings, as well as subsidising my rent and spending some of that interest on luxuries and experiences too. Unfortunately the rate of inflation combined with low interest rates is meaning that I can't spend some of that interest in the economy anymore. At least that inflation is eating into house prices on top of the undeniable house price falls that are taking place.

This is the second leg down.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

7.75% was the norm for anyone on SVR. It would have been the norm for all those bulls on here who have been able to take advantage of low interest rates thanks to being on an SVR, which there are a few...though of course, most of you chose to go with a base rate tracker (and have great pleasure telling us all AFTER interest rates have fallen to all time lows, not before)....but tell others they are inept for not anticipating base rate increases and finding themselves paying over 7%.

It would have been the norm for all of those people, you, and your fellow blinded companions keep stating "people are on SVR, enjoying low mortgage rates".

It would have been the norm for loads of people and, like a good little boy, I had taken up to 10% into consideration when buying.

It's not a bad rate for an SVR which allows you freedom of overpayments and freedom of switching when the base rate is 5.75%. It's just 2% over, and you are trying far to hard to find something to have a go at now. See ISTL has joined in, and tried to suggest that because my mortgage rate was 2% above base rate (perfectly normal) I was obviously a loose canon and a risk.

Therefore, I can comfortably now sit back, knowing you've nothing left to argue, so are trying to make something out of nothing. You've been trying for a while. Even when I correct your massive base rate mistakes, you just turn the screw the other way and find something else to try and have a go at, something whereby you can call my financially inept.

As for your question. Yes, I could afford it. However, it would now be a squeeze. I've had a child and no wage rises for 2 years. Thats life. And it would, some months, be difficult.

Honestly Graham, you owe it to yourself and family to get some financial advice. This is outside any taking the p1ss, there is absolutely no reason why anyone should have been paying those rates during the period you were, and you've been very badly advised, if you received advice at all.

However if you want sympathy, you might start by not being quite so sarcastic at people who manage finances better than you.

And even at 7.75%, you could still make payments. Which is my contention exactly. No twisting of arguments here, it's the same argument: your reduction has been a windfall, not a lifesaver.