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

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

I very nearly added 'assuming the same mortgage rate throughout the term' but I'd already used one set of brackets and I didn't think you'd be that pedantic anyway.

This isn't about how mortgages work and it's now way beyond the Nationwide HPI too.

The key question is whether Renoman meant that 4% of outstanding capital is repaid after year one of a 25 year mortgage.

RENOMAN - WE DEMAND TO KNOW!

System

I'm going to sit here and press F5 until I find out.

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I'm going to sit here and press F5 until I find out.

You could be there a long time. Don't get RSI...people won't believe how you got it

shortchanged_2

wotsthat wrote: »

renoman - we demand to know!

Do you think we'll get a straight answer?

I very much doubt it.

Mr._Pricklepants

It's obvious to anyone that a financially astute person like Renoman didn't mean to say that 4% of the mortgage would have been paid off after year 1 of 25.
I honestly don't know why Devon and his sidekicks need to continue splitting hairs. Isn't there some Olympics coverage on the red button you can watch instead of cluttering up the forums with this neverending drivel?

RenovationMan

the_flying_pig wrote: »

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.

Exactly. I've said as much myself. You'll have to ask Devon and his gang why they are making such a big deal out of such a small throwaway comment I made. I'm replying to their multiple posts and I keep saying the same thing, they keep trying to change the parameters and complicate things with their "what if you sell up after 5 years, what if interest rates rise, what if this, what if that?"

The basic message I'm trying to get across (but clearly I'm being 'shouted down' by Graham's Gang) is that with such small annual drops, I don't think its worth waiting longer for those in a position to buy now. Simples.

RenovationMan

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.

Exactly. They are one and the same. You're 4% (or one year) through the mortgage chronologically and 4% through the mortgage financially.

I see that Graham is still trying to muddle the thread and pretend confusion where no confusion exists. Classic GD. :rotfl:

ess0two

RenovationMan wrote: »

Exactly. They are one and the same. You're 4% (or one year) through the mortgage chronologically and 4% through the mortgage financially.

I see that Graham is still trying to muddle the thread and pretend confusion where no confusion exists. Classic GD. :rotfl:

Once Dev starts dry humping your leg you'll never get him off.

bankhater_1965

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

LONDON (Reuters)- British house prices fell at their fastest annual pace in nearly three years last month, data from mortgage lender Nationwide showed on Wednesday, as the effects of nine months of recession spread further across the economy.
Nationwide reported a 0.7 percent decline in house prices in July, a much bigger drop than that forecast by any economist polled by Reuters. Prices are now 2.6 percent lower than a year ago - their biggest annual fall since August 2009.

isnt this very good news for first time buyers also good in the fact that more people have no equity to release, so they cannot get more into debt which clearly has been part of the problem today,

DervProf

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

isnt this very good news for first time buyers also good in the fact that more people have no equity to release, so they cannot get more into debt which clearly has been part of the problem today,

I read an article recently stating that personal insolvencies were at a low level. The end of "easy credit" is probably helping people to avoid getting into high levels of debt.