Straw that broke the camels back?

tunnel

Anyone else seen this?

http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx

Thats the last straw that broke the camels back in my eyes, "because thats the way she was brought up"

So thats where all my freakin taxes go:mad:

Thrugelmir

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Because there what little demand as people don't have sufficient deposit to meet the criteria?

Now they can pay to open the door?

Why don't lenders want to advance 95% mortgages? Therein lies the answer. Not the demand for but the availability of funding.

Thrugelmir

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Why doesn't lending to business facilitate growth? I appreciate capital is also required.

The money borrowed has to be spent on something productive. Something that will in the longer term provide a return. At least sufficient to both service the debt and repay the capital.

Banks are lending to SME's. Ones that have viable business plans.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are being difficult for the crack of being difficult here.

Clearly I was describing falls to natural level. That's not what happened in 2007/8 and that's why we are why were here now.

The very fact you won't take on what I said about the 90s and America leads me to believe you haven't got an argument, so are simply going to play on words to make some kind of vague non-point.

Yes I am because you're talking nonsense and because you can't even answer simple questions about the theory you've put forward.

As prices fell, flat-lined and now look to be rising it would rather suggest that we've already moved beyond the natural falls (whatever they are) that your theory requires.

What's to take on about the 90's or the USA? Just because prices fell x, y or z in the '90's or the US doesn't mean that's the 'natural level' benchmark. Differing circumstances = different 'natural' falls. Easy.

My theory is that you've been saving up and hoping for further falls. Obviously £130bn of government guarantees looks to be inflationary for house prices so you might have to pay more for a house. Therefore you want a short sharp crash followed by easy access to government backed low rate 95% mortgage. Don't have an issue with any of this but starting with your desired 'conclusion', finding the 'evidence' to fit and then refusing to justify your position isn't very scientific.

Not sure why you're bothered really because your other theory is that lenders really want to lend but, despite really trying to force debt onto people, potential homeowners prefer to rent instead.

grizzly1911

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The money borrowed has to be spent on something productive. Something that will in the longer term provide a return. At least sufficient to both service the debt and repay the capital.

Banks are lending to SME's. Ones that have viable business plans.

I agree with you and I certainly don't propose giving the money away to lame ducks. I would prefer taking on a little more risk on the business side where it might actually be embryonic rather than just another pile of bricks. Fishes and fishing.

grizzly1911

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why don't lenders want to advance 95% mortgages? Therein lies the answer. Not the demand for but the availability of funding.

Punters can now give a bung, indirectly to the government, who wave a magic wand and everything is OK? The government then hope their contingent liability is never called?

angel1066

CLAPTON wrote: »

1000 per month means very little I'm afraid without knowing the size of the loan.

what APR are they offering you?

what sort of price range are you looking at?

what part of the country are you looking in

sorry for not getting back to you sooner clapton, but lost this thread lol

size of loan is 160k apr is fixed for 2-5 yrs at 4.99% price range l'm looking at is up to 180k max ang l l'm looking in east sussex in south east

hope that helps a little

Graham_Devon

My threads back!

Just in time to add the Office of Budgetry Responsibility to the list.

Apparently theres an Estate Agent with a blog that states it's a good thing.

the_flying_pig

Graham_Devon wrote: »

My threads back!

Just in time to add the Office of Budgetry Responsibility to the list.

Apparently theres an Estate Agent with a blog that states it's a good thing.

aye. from stuey hall of assetz URL]http://investors.assetz.co.uk/blog/archives.php[/URL:

An entirely logical approach overall and designed to get Britain building and spending again

And the purpose of a house price surge ? Increased house building, increased GDP, equity release surge to support spending, safer banks

it's guys like this who should be writing school economics textbooks for our children. inflation, that's all we need for infinite prosperity.

N1AK

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That ended 4 years ago.

We're nearly finished bumping along the bottom, and the recovery is next.

No it didn't. House prices adjusted for inflation have consistently fallen over the last 4 years. They are now over £10k lower in real terms than at the nominal low 4 years ago. There is no point in talking about prices between two points in time without accounting for inflation because it's like comparing a seed and an apple tree.

What is interesting is that these commentators are talking about the market needing further nominal terms falls; it would take 5+ years for prices to drop by 20% in real terms without a nominal fall and I don't think anyone wants to wait that long to resolve the underlying issues.

If it does happen then I'd likely be slightly worse off for buying 2 years ago but I'd still be better off than I am now because I could afford to 'step up' to a better house where the 20% fall would be bigger.