Halifax: + 6.7% QoQ + 5.7% YoY.....

Graham_Devon

Just read that the Halifax supported 40% of all New Buy transactions.

Could be another reason for the figures, as new homes have a higher price tag, and they are the biggest players in new buy.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just read that the Halifax supported 40% of all New Buy transactions.

Could be another reason for the figures, as new homes have a higher price tag, and they are the biggest players in new buy.

I'm sure we could pull out discussions showing that when individual house prices fall, it affects the valuation of locally similar properties.

Would you be surprised to consider the inverse happens?

Incidently, have you read the Halifax Methodology I suggested you did earlier in post 22?

You might want to consider these words "multivariate regression analysis"

In summary, prices are disaggregated into theirconstituent parts using a commonly used statistical technique calledmultivariate regression analysis. This allows values to be attributed tothe various qualitative characteristics (type of property, region, etc.) andquantitative characteristics (age of property, number of habitable rooms,garages, bathrooms, etc.) of a property


As a result,the technique allows us to track the value of a 'typical' house over time on alike-for-like basis (i.e. with the same characteristics). This preventsthe possibility of short-term changes in the set of properties sold from monthto month (for example, shifts in the regional complexion of the market or achange towards more large properties being sold) giving a misleading impressionof the change in the price of a 'typical' house

Looking forward to your thoughts on the methodology.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just read that the Halifax supported 40% of all New Buy transactions.

Could be another reason for the figures, as new homes have a higher price tag, and they are the biggest players in new buy.

You should answer ISTL's question.

As the Halifax methodology specifically states it adjusts for such things.

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well your answer is to ration mortgages so that a million people are forced to rent instead of buy.

Which of course makes no sense.

And of course, is not my answer.

Mortgages are always "rationed" to some degree. It's just that they are rationed a little more carefully than they were 7 years ago.

So tell me this, Hamish. What happens if banks do start to open the credit taps ? Prices will rise ? Yes ? Will builders start to build enough houses to meet demand, or will prices just keep going up until the taps need opening just a little more ?

Until there is some decent plan put in place to ensure that HPI won't become excessive, and banks won't start to play with fire again, then the "rationing" that we currently have might be preventing bigger problems in the future.

However, you seem to be rather keen on HPI. Blinded by self interest, I reckon.

gorgeyetsun

DervProf wrote: »

And of course, is not my answer.

Mortgages are always "rationed" to some degree. It's just that they are rationed a little more carefully than they were 7 years ago.

So tell me this, Hamish. What happens if banks do start to open the credit taps ? Prices will rise ? Yes ? Will builders start to build enough houses to meet demand, or will prices just keep going up until the taps need opening just a little more ?

Until there is some decent plan put in place to ensure that HPI won't become excessive, and banks won't start to play with fire again, then the "rationing" that we currently have might be preventing bigger problems in the future.

However, you seem to be rather keen on HPI. Blinded by self interest, I reckon.

Surely if there is an increase in credit, this credit will be available to contruction companies, enabling them to finance their housing developments?

Would it also not be the case that construction companies would be more inclined to finance new builds on credit if they were optimistic that their potential customers were also able to secure credit in order to buy the completed product?

DervProf

gorgeyetsun wrote: »

Surely if there is an increase in credit, this credit will be available to contruction companies, enabling them to finance their housing developments?

Would it also not be the case that construction companies would be more inclined to finance new builds on credit if they were optimistic that their potential customers were also able to secure credit in order to buy the completed product?

Yes, it would be the case.

Looking back to when the construction industry was very busy (2004 - 2007), and credit was very easy to obtain, all I remember was very strong HPI (and there were still not enough homes being built, according to some reports).

Conrad

Strong HPI accross the long term is just a fact of life. Most people I know are happy with this even though thier own children will need to live somewhere one day.

The thing is, week in week out I deal with FTB's as young as 21 and they instead of fretting and feeling resentfull are just getting on and buying.

Rights accross the S/E there is still masses of affordable property.

Some of these FTB's even then let a room out.

The glass halve full lot just don't seem to have this sanguine can - do approach.

DervProf

Conrad wrote: »

Strong HPI accross the long term is just a fact of life. Most people I know are happy with this even though thier own children will need to live somewhere one day.

And it's that "sweep it under the carpet" attitude that gets us into all sort of mess, like the one we are in now, for example. The very thing that Hamish & co complain about, "mortgage rationing", was largely brought on by a lot of "oh, it'll be ok".

No, I`'m not saying keep mortgage lending tight, but I'm not saying "lend more, lend more, lend more". Something needs to be done to address the deeper issue, rather than going down the path of least resitance.

BTW. Didn't you mean "glass half empty lot" ?

Conrad

DervProf wrote: »

And it's that "sweep it under the carpet" attitude that gets us into all sort of mess, like the one we are in now, for example. The very thing that Hamish & co complain about, "mortgage rationing", was largely brought on by a lot of "oh, it'll be ok".

No, I`'m not saying keep mortgage lending tight, but I'm not saying "lend more, lend more, lend more". Something needs to be done to address the deeper issue, rather than going down the path of least resitance.

BTW. Didn't you mean "glass half empty lot" ?

Your'e 'deeper issue' is others perfectly acceptable rules of engagment. Millions of us welcome hpi and accept it's hard to get on the ladder.

A little loosening of mortgage regs would address the unfairness in mortgage rationing.

Building more homes would attract more immigrants and really get us nowhere. Plus I find the roads and so on already heaving.

IMO the market is just a fact of life. Join it and one day benefit.

DervProf

Conrad wrote: »

IMO the market is just a fact of life. Join it and one day benefit.

I have joined it, and am benefiting from doing so at a time when a 25 year old on a modest income could afford to take on a mortgage. I have no desire to see the value of the roof over my head increase. It's my home, not a cash machine.