House prices suffer biggest drop since 2009 - Nationwide -2.6%

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

They'd be 16% closer to paying off the mortgage.

They wouldn't be 16% closer to paying off the mortgage capital.

As far as I can see Renoman is saying tomatoes and you're saying tomatoes too.

That'll be your tintacles obscurring things again.

Reno has said above, and you have quoted, that they WOULD HAVE paid off 16% of the mortgage.

You'll be blind to this of course.

The point is very simple, yet reno keeps banging on and on digging the same hole. You DO NOT pay off 4% of the mortgage each year.

It's as simple as that. No tintacles, No spurious examples etc will cut it.

Sell after 5 years and you will NOT have paid off 20% of the loan you took. It really is that simple, and reno should just acknowledge it, instead of dancing around like a kipper on heat.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That'll be your tintacles obscurring things again.

Reno has said above, and you have quoted, that they WOULD HAVE paid off 16% of the mortgage.

You'll be blind to this of course.

The point is very simple, yet reno keeps banging on and on digging the same hole. You DO NOT pay off 4% of the mortgage each year.

It's as simple as that. No tintacles, No spurious examples etc will cut it.

Sell after 5 years and you will NOT have paid off 20% of the loan you took. It really is that simple, and reno should just acknowledge it, instead of dancing around like a kipper on heat.

LOL, I'm 'dancing around' only in your fevered imagination. My stance has been completely static in this whole discussion. I've proven time and again what I meant by my initial statement, even including TWO worked through examples, that quoted my original text and then proved that text.

The people who have been dancing are you and your mates, trying to drag in things I haven't said (Like the pathetic 'RM told me to get a fixed rate mortgage' post, and others where you 'bears' have some sort of giggly lovefest :rotfl:). All of your posts have not diverted me from my statement and from supporting that statement.

I stand still while you and your 'gang' dance around me.

As far as your new approach, you know quite well that I said my calculations were based on average interest rate figures over the lifetime of the mortgage of 8% and 18%, They are not static, as you try to mislead us, they are averages.

You are also changing the parameters of the discussion to suit your argument (as usual!) because we were talking about a mortgage term of 25 years and as we all know, if you sell a house after 5 years then that's not a 25 year term. Wally. :rotfl:

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sell after 5 years and you will NOT have paid off 20% of the loan you took. It really is that simple, and reno should just acknowledge it, instead of dancing around like a kipper on heat.

Isn't that exactly what I just said?

After 5 years someone would be 20% through a 25 year mortgage term but they wouldn't have paid off 20% of the outstanding debt.

Is Renoman saying that 20% of the outstanding amount owing will have been paid off after 5 years or 20% of the term completed?

If he means 20% of the outstanding amount owing then he's quite clearly a cad and a bounder and should be made to apologise to Martin Lewis and the forum members.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Is Renoman saying that 20% of the outstanding amount owing will have been paid off after 5 years or 20% of the term completed?

We don't know if that's what he is saying as he won't state that (neither will he state he's not), but with his worked examples, yes, it appears that is exactly what he is saying.

For reference, this is what he stated to start with, and hasn't yet decided to retract....

RenovationMan wrote: »

Good news for those wanting lower house prices, but I'm still not convinced that it's worth holding on with annual drops of only 2.6 percent. Especially given that someone who had bought a year ago on a repayment mortgage would have reduced their mortgage by 4% by now

So yes, one can only assume he's still going with that. What are the examples for otherwise? I know he's going to state the examples are just that, examples, but to me (and most others it would seem) they are showing he's still clinging on to the 4% thing.

Why put the goggles on and swim against the obvious tide wotsthat? Does "reduced their mortgage by 4%" really suggest to you that he actually meant something other than they had reduced the amount owed? Only it seems to mean something else to everyone else.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

LOL. Yes Graham, they would have paid 100% off the loan, NOT 20% if they sold after 5 years. I acknowledge this. What a wally you are. :rotfl::rotfl:

See, what's this crap if it's not dancing around?

You like the attention?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So yes, one can only assume he's still going with that. What are the examples for otherwise?

Well exactly what you quoted.....

Originally Posted by RenovationMan
Good news for those wanting lower house prices, but I'm still not convinced that it's worth holding on with annual drops of only 2.6 percent. Especially given that someone who had bought a year ago on a repayment mortgage would have reduced their mortgage by 4% by now

I'd read that as saying 4% of capital has been repaid which is of course nonsense unless it was 0% interest.

However Renoman is saying he means 4% of the term or 4% of the total liability (capital + interest).

You're right to demand further clarification or an apology. It's serious stuff.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

You're right to demand further clarification or an apology. It's serious stuff.

I love this forum and the irony at times. It's the forums appeal.

You spend time trying to back him up, and then turn around and try and make out you're higher up the maturity scale then the rest and it's all very pointless.

Would have been a good line if you hadn't had gone too far, and made things up, suggesting were asking for an apology. Where has anyone asked for him to say sorry?!

This certainly isn't a serious discussion. But it is somewhat entertaining to see the show and dramatics he displays about something so trivial where could have just said "oops".

wotsthat wrote: »

However Renoman is saying he means 4% of the term or 4% of the total liability (capital + interest).

So which is it?

For someone trying to fight his corner and back him up you seem just as baffled as the rest of us

the_flying_pig

RenovationMan wrote: »

LOL, I'm 'dancing around' only in your fevered imagination. My stance has been completely static in this whole discussion. I've proven time and again what I meant by my initial statement, even including TWO worked through examples, that quoted my original text and then proved that text.

The people who have been dancing are you and your mates, trying to drag in things I haven't said (Like the pathetic 'RM told me to get a fixed rate mortgage' post, and others where you 'bears' have some sort of giggly lovefest :rotfl:). All of your posts have not diverted me from my statement and from supporting that statement.

I stand still while you and your 'gang' dance around me.

As far as your new approach, you know quite well that I said my calculations were based on average interest rate figures over the lifetime of the mortgage of 8% and 18%, They are not static, as you try to mislead us, they are averages.

You are also changing the parameters of the discussion to suit your argument (as usual!) because we were talking about a mortgage term of 25 years and as we all know, if you sell a house after 5 years then that's not a 25 year term. Wally. :rotfl:

i've not carefully pored over your every post on this thread, more kind of skim-read, but if you were really trying to just show what % of a mortgage term someone would be through after X years then the spurious calculations [e.g. at post number 184] were obfuscatory at best. 100% divided by 25 is 4%, simples, but as a stat this is so obvious & uninteresting as not to be worth pointing out, never mind complicating so much.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So which is it?

It's both of course.

After 4% of the mortgage term 4% of the total liability (capital plus interest has been paid. The 'or' was meant to show that it's a different way of saying the same thing rather than an alternative.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You spend time trying to back him up, and then turn around and try and make out you're higher up the maturity scale then the rest and it's all very pointless.

Just having some fun - why bother otherwise?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

It's both of course.

After 4% of the mortgage term 4% of the total liability (capital plus interest has been paid. The 'or' was meant to show that it's a different way of saying the same thing rather than an alternative.

Well it's not.

After 1 year (4% of the mortgage term) we don't know how much of the total liability has been paid off. Not unless the interest rate is fixed for 25 years....pf which, i don't think such a product exists?

Not being pedantic. But what you are saying is just utterly wrong when it comes to the reality of how the mortgage works.

You are a year into the 25 year term (which is downright obvious and not sure why so much has to be made out of it).

You have paid off around 2% (dependant on interest rates) of the total amount outstanding on the mortgage and statements.

That is it. You can't take it any further than that without inventing scenarios and inventing products.