Bulls phone in

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Did it take you three weeks to come up with that epic post?
Well done.

No. About 10 seconds.

Sorry light. It must be devestating that I don't keep constant track of your every post in a robmatic vs geneer style.

AD9898_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

This is just desperation to try and paint a picture which quite clearly isn't reality.

Remind us again macaque, how far to go to meet your 70% prediction?

The reality is ironically is the last 4 years of economic doldrums that have brought us 0.5% IR's have saved the skin of many a landlord and careless 'homeowner' who borrowed way too much, many who frequent this very forum.

IveSeenTheLight

AD9898 wrote: »

The reality is ironically is the last 4 years of economic doldrums that have brought us 0.5% IR's have saved the skin of many a landlord and careless 'homeowner' who borrowed way too much, many who frequent this very forum.

I would not argue that low base rates have benefitted those on base rate trackers / svr's.

Not necessarily "saving the skin" (albeit possibly for a small fraction this may be the case), but certainly providing more disposable income for those in that position.

Of course, that's one thing the government wants to help kick start the economy, is more disposable income.

The reality is, were more than 4 years down then line and many "landlords" and "careless homeowners" as well as others have had the opportunity to increase their equity, reduce their outstanding debt.

Indeed 4 going on 5 years is a significant portion of a mortgage amortization timeline, to which you could conclude that homeowners / landlords have never had it so good.

It's quite possible that this decade of homeownership could be proven to be the best time to be an owner. IIRC mortgage interest as a proportion to income is at it's lowest rate.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I would not argue that low base rates have benefitted those on base rate trackers / svr's.

Not necessarily "saving the skin" (albeit possibly for a small fraction this may be the case), but certainly providing more disposable income for those in that position.

Most economists would say your talking out of your echo chamber.
Reposessions are lower than would be expected precisely because of emergency base rates.
And emergency base rates are neccesary because the scale of eye watering scale and seriousness of the global economic meltdown.

I'm afraid that trying to palm this of as an issue for a "small fraction" isn't one which can be taken very seriously.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Most economists would say your talking out of your echo chamber.
Reposessions are lower than would be expected precisely because of emergency base rates.
And emergency base rates are neccesary because the scale of eye watering scale and seriousness of the global economic meltdown.

I'm afraid that trying to palm this of as an issue for a "small fraction" isn't one which can be taken very seriously.

Hmmm, reposessions have lowered something like 30,000 from the peak days.

What is 30,000 as a percentage of all properties?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=f&oq=cml+reposession+statistics&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_enIT457IT457&q=cml+reposession+statistics&gs_upl=0l0l0l218410lllllllllll0

The Council of Mortgage Lenders today revealed that, at 36,300, the number of repossessions by first-charge mortgage lenders in 2010 accounted for just 0.3% of all mortgages

So roughly the reposession rate at peak would have been about 0.7% of all mortgages, let alon all properties

Even going back to the price peak, this also equated to a rise in the reposession numbers

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/1239

It equates to around 1 in 840 mortgages ending in possession in the first half of this year. (2007).

1/870 = 0.115%

I stand by my statement that reposessions and those "saved" by the reduction in interest rates represent a small fraction of the market

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Most economists would say your talking out of your echo chamber.

Incidently the CML have predicted that reposessions will rise in 2012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16197258

That said, they've had to downgrade their previous three years predictions

Their latest statement says: -
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/3073

The number of repossessions in the quarter equated to 0.08% of all mortgages

0.08% of all mortgages (lets not consider for your benefit those properties without mortgages) is not considered by you to be a "small fraction"

Bet's that's what you keep telling the good wife

JonnyBravo

geneer wrote: »

I'm afraid that trying to palm this of as an issue for a "small fraction" isn't one which can be taken very seriously.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

1/870 = 0.115%

I stand by my statement that reposessions and those "saved" by the reduction in interest rates represent a small fraction of the market

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

0.08% of all mortgages (lets not consider for your benefit those properties without mortgages) is not considered by you to be a "small fraction"

Now what is you say geneer?

geneer wrote: »

Damn. Context and analysis.
:rotfl:Its a killer.

Oh yeah.... so it is :rotfl: