John Doe Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Ray Boulger, senior technical adviser with mortgage broker John Charcol, says she has little option but to stay with Northern Rock. But her rate should drop to 4.79 per cent when she switches to the banks standard variable rate. Er yes, so actually her monthly payments will be going DOWN quite significantly (From 6.9% to 4.8%). So she can use the extra she will now be saving, to make overpayments, bringing her out of NE rapidly. (it's only 7K FFS). I see she also got rid of a 12k debt too, so she obviously wasnt struggling to pay the mortgage at 6.9%. Hardly the actions of a SHEEPLE, I mean, where is the 4x4? No doubt, in a house in that price range, it would probably be costing her far more to rent too. So what's the problem exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 To make matters worse, it estimates a typical young person would have to spend £208,675 to buy a home on the ‘second’ rung of the ladder. And this is not the end of the financial torture of home buying in this country. The cost of moving is £27,410 – more than the average annual salary. This bill includes a 10 per cent deposit, legal and estate agency fees, removals and a survey. Pete Dockar, head of mortgages at HSBC, said: ‘First-time buyers can no longer rely on rising house prices to provide them with the deposit needed for their second purchase'. This really is utter nonsense. For a start, first time buyers (who now also need a 10% deposit for their 1st property) will not have to fork out ever increasing amounts to buy their second home, as they used to have to before, as the price of that second home isn't shooting up all the time. This is a good thing. The 10% deposit for the 2nd home will come from the FTB's paying down their mortgage on the 1st property, as it should be. Again, this is a good thing. (Financial torture , who writes this c**p?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 This really is utter nonsense. For a start, first time buyers (who now also need a 10% deposit for their 1st property) will not have to fork out ever increasing amounts to buy their second home, as they used to have to before, as the price of that second home isn't shooting up all the time. This is a good thing. The 10% deposit for the 2nd home will come from the FTB's paying down their mortgage on the 1st property, as it should be. Again, this is a good thing. (Financial torture , who writes this c**p?) "A good thing" - Would be to keep them OUT of homes that they cannot afford at sustainable rates, Not today's ultra-low rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 "A good thing" - Would be to keep them OUT of homes that they cannot afford at sustainable rates, Not today's ultra-low rates. 5% is about the long term average. Rates are going to be ultra low for some time yet. Plenty of time to save a deposit, or build up the equity, and then fix for the long term. Oh and I see BDEV is 94p now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Mortgage regulations can affect house prices European Union (EU) plans to regulate Britain’s booming buy-to-let sector could restrict mortgage availability, force landlords to sell and cause house prices to fall. The EU draft directive on Credit Agreements Relating to Residential Property (CARRP) says BTL should be regulated in the same way as residential mortgages for owner occupation. That could prevent lenders and borrowers – including existing BTL landlords seeking to remortgage at the end of fixed deals – from taking anticipated rental income into account when assessing how much mortgage is affordable. Instead, EU proposals would bring Britain into line with Continental practice and force lenders to assess BTL in the same way as mortgage applications by owner occupiers on their prime residence; that is, the main criterion would be the borrower’s earnings. More I really hope this directive is enacted forthwith to finish the "miracle" of BTL resilience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Mortgage regulations can affect house prices I really hope this directive is enacted forthwith to finish the "miracle" of BTL resilience. I agree with most of this. But does it really make sense to IGNORE rental income? I think actual rental income (PROVEN by tax revenues) is better than optimistically estimate future income. Banks should discount those optimistic estimates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tallim Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Er yes, so actually her monthly payments will be going DOWN quite significantly (From 6.9% to 4.8%). So she can use the extra she will now be saving, to make overpayments, bringing her out of NE rapidly. (it's only 7K FFS). I see she also got rid of a 12k debt too, so she obviously wasn’t struggling to pay the mortgage at 6.9%. Hardly the actions of a SHEEPLE, I mean, where is the 4x4? No doubt, in a house in that price range, it would probably be costing her far more to rent too. So what's the problem exactly? It is a bit of nonsense article isn't it, confusing cash flow with cost. The article was close to being decent, but they've regurgitated press releases without understanding them and making a coherent story. I certainly wouldn't consider a 10% deposit to be a cost, it's a cash requirement, but not a cost. I think most accounting standards would agree with that too. That is what has changed in the market; no cash, no house. On this particular example: The £12.5k of debt was got rid of by putting most of it into the Northern Rock together mortgage, borrowing £8k more than the total purchase price. Monthly interest on £100.5k at 6.9% is £578, I think 'Together' mortgages had to be repayment though, so that's £704 [1], I'd expect a 27 year old nurse to be around pay band 4 or 5, so maybe £21k annual salary this year [2], which is take home of ~£1350 per month [3]. Certainly tight, especially in previous years, but today at 4.8% and 4 years into the mortgage with the outstanding balance at £93.5k (assuming no overpayments) and a remaining term of 21 years it's dropping to £590. Assuming she would like to move to a £150k place she's going to need £15k cash as a deposit, plus maybe £3k for agent, legal and product fees, making a total of £18k. Assuming her current net housing worth is -£8k (mortgage of £93.5k on a place that would sell for £85.5k), she needs to build £26k from today, or a mortgage balance of £67.5k. Assuming static selling prices and mortgage rates then monthly overpayments to reach that balance in this example would be: 3 years normal repayment mortgage capital built = £8.5k, overpayment per month to get to mortgage balance of £67.5k = ~£455 5 years normal repayment mortgage capital built = £14.5k, overpayment per month to get to mortgage balance of £67.5k = ~£170 Certainly feasible in 5 years, likely to be feasible in 3 if you knuckle down, get basic pay rises and do some overtime. Absolutely feasible if you get a partner to help pay for things! Absolutely unfeasible if you lose your job! [1] http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/mortgage-overpayment-calculator [2] http://www.rcn.org.uk/support/pay_and_conditions/pay_rates_20112012 [3] http://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 It is a bit of nonsense article isn't it, confusing cash flow with cost. The article was close to being decent, but they've regurgitated press releases without understanding them and making a coherent story. I certainly wouldn't consider a 10% deposit to be a cost, it's a cash requirement, but not a cost. I think most accounting standards would agree with that too. That is what has changed in the market; no cash, no house. On this particular example: The £12.5k of debt was got rid of by putting most of it into the Northern Rock together mortgage, borrowing £8k more than the total purchase price. Monthly interest on £100.5k at 6.9% is £578, I think 'Together' mortgages had to be repayment though, so that's £704 [1], I'd expect a 27 year old nurse to be around pay band 4 or 5, so maybe £21k annual salary this year [2], which is take home of ~£1350 per month [3]. Certainly tight, especially in previous years, but today at 4.8% and 4 years into the mortgage with the outstanding balance at £93.5k (assuming no overpayments) and a remaining term of 21 years it's dropping to £590. Assuming she would like to move to a £150k place she's going to need £15k cash as a deposit, plus maybe £3k for agent, legal and product fees, making a total of £18k. Assuming her current net housing worth is -£8k (mortgage of £93.5k on a place that would sell for £85.5k), she needs to build £26k from today, or a mortgage balance of £67.5k. Assuming static selling prices and mortgage rates then monthly overpayments to reach that balance in this example would be: 3 years normal repayment mortgage capital built = £8.5k, overpayment per month to get to mortgage balance of £67.5k = ~£455 5 years normal repayment mortgage capital built = £14.5k, overpayment per month to get to mortgage balance of £67.5k = ~£170 Certainly feasible in 5 years, likely to be feasible in 3 if you knuckle down, get basic pay rises and do some overtime. Absolutely feasible if you get a partner to help pay for things! Absolutely unfeasible if you lose your job! [1] http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/mortgage-overpayment-calculator [2] http://www.rcn.org.uk/support/pay_and_conditions/pay_rates_20112012 [3] http://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php Quiet day at work Tallim? Nice analysis, just forgot about one other possible factor. House prices rising over the next 5 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tallim Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Quiet day at work Tallim? How can you tell? I'm winding down for some winter sun next week in that city of housing boom and bust, Dubai. Nice analysis, just forgot about one other possible factor. House prices rising over the next 5 years The worst thing is that rising prices would likely be celebrated by the lady in this example; every 1% would give £855 equity on the £85.5k flat while only adding £150 to the 10% deposit cash requirement on my assumed £150k house. Hooray for wider steps on the housing ladder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 How can you tell? I'm winding down for some winter sun next week in that city of housing boom and bust, Dubai. The worst thing is that rising prices would likely be celebrated by the lady in this example; every 1% would give £855 equity on the £85.5k flat while only adding £150 to the 10% deposit cash requirement on my assumed £150k house. Hooray for wider steps on the housing ladder! Exactly, it never fails to amaze me that people do not grasp this simple reality, nor realise that higher house prices just mean bigger mortgages for them, and bigger profits for banks, estate agencies and anything else that is based on a % of a house price (surveys, solicitors etc etc). Have a nice trip! (Lucky sod, and don’t forget, don’t kiss in public ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chartered Surveyor Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 May I suggest this title is changed to No HPC, this time its different, unless you measure the crash was and still is in gold and silver. The nominal low in London was March 2009, since then without notice the market has crept back to peak and above. Outside London values range greatly but it can be said there is a range between house values returning back to peak (2007) or some 5-20% below 2007 peak. Added to this we have a minimum of 15% real values falls due to inflation. Like a tide London leads the way and I am firmly of the opinion that we have are now entered the start of a crack up boom that is moving at a great pace now. The domestic cash rich buyers in London has slowed dramatically from 2 years ago. I am now of the opinion that for the last 2 years this demographic group were the main driver behind buyers returning to the London market in an attempt to get rid of fiat money ie pound sterling. What I am seeing today is a secondary rush of buyers although this group can only command loan to a value range between 70 -90%. In view of this I am now interested in the opinions of the readers of this site as to the effects of a crack up boom on debt, housing in the UK, is housing a good buy and the speed that a crack up boom gathers pace. As a side note I am great buyer of antiques trading pieces from time to time. The prices being achieved on furniture, silver, paintings has gripped the auction rooms I attend. Prices are up and people in my view are looking for tangible objects versus holding fiat money. NB. Housing investment or BTL is too mainstream as an investment for me. To many people in the game. Future prediction. Rent controls to be enforced due to political implications and heavy taxation. 5-10 years to take effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoldAsBrass Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Am I imagining that I heard on the box last night that there will be some sort of statement today from the government saying they will be guaranteeing mortgages in some way - to get the banks lending again? Think they said something along the lines of the government guaranteeing the value of the 'missing' deposit now that lenders are asking for 20% deposits. So, the government will be giving the green light to 100% mortgages again. Hmmm - the weird thing is young people should revolt against this - as those not in the market yet will be shackled with enormous debts to put a roof over their head - but, in fact, they'll sign up in droves. Very strange how little people understand the world around them. How long before the house price indexes are going up again. Madhouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Am I imagining that I heard on the box last night that there will be some sort of statement today from the government saying they will be guaranteeing mortgages in some way - to get the banks lending again? Think they said something along the lines of the government guaranteeing the value of the 'missing' deposit now that lenders are asking for 20% deposits. So, the government will be giving the green light to 100% mortgages again. Hmmm - the weird thing is young people should revolt against this - as those not in the market yet will be shackled with enormous debts to put a roof over their head - but, in fact, they'll sign up in droves. Very strange how little people understand the world around them. How long before the house price indexes are going up again. Madhouse. No, it's true. Osborne will announce it in the pre budget speech on the 29th Nov. They will underwrite the deposit part. Grab them house quick! Only kidding. As always, the devil will be in the detail. They will probably only help about 10 people per year or something like that. Besides, what's wrong with the idea of helping people who are capable of easily paying more rent than an equivalent mortgage would cost, just because they don't have a massive deposit? (As long as there are safeguards built in and they don't just give it to anyone). As we keep trying to explain to Dr B, it really is different here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geisaver Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Am I imagining that I heard on the box last night that there will be some sort of statement today from the government saying they will be guaranteeing mortgages in some way - to get the banks lending again? Think they said something along the lines of the government guaranteeing the value of the 'missing' deposit now that lenders are asking for 20% deposits. So, the government will be giving the green light to 100% mortgages again. Hmmm - the weird thing is young people should revolt against this - as those not in the market yet will be shackled with enormous debts to put a roof over their head - but, in fact, they'll sign up in droves. Very strange how little people understand the world around them. How long before the house price indexes are going up again. Madhouse. Mortgages are already topped by councils http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/mar/16/local-councils-first-time-buyer-mortgage-support I'm just waiting for the day when they pass a law when if you have over £x amount in the bank and don't own a house, you are given a prison sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoldAsBrass Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Besides, what's wrong with the idea of helping people who are capable of easily paying more rent than an equivalent mortgage would cost, just because they don't have a massive deposit? (As long as there are safeguards built in and they don't just give it to anyone). What's wrong is that house prices went up by a factor of 3 to 6 (depending on region) between 1997 and 2007 and wages didn't. Young people will now take on suicidal mortgages because interest rates are currently low. If part of the deal is fixed, low interest rates for 25 years then - fair enough. But that won't be part of the deal. And we still have the capital to repay. Someone buying a 3 bed semi in the area I live in will pay about 300k - whereas just a few years ago they would have paid 150k. 'What's wrong with the idea' is what's always been 'wrong with the idea' - it means house prices are a function of the cost and availability of credit and, therefore, in a market whose supply is regulated by law, prices will be driven even further up. By guaranteeing the deposit you are, effectively, turning the credit taps on again. Haven't we learnt where that leads? And also what's wrong is that too much of someone's pay is spent servicing debt and not enough is available to create demand. It is, in fact, a recipe for the current situation to carry on ad nauseam. An opportunity to take stock, to have a period of house price stagnation or falls, to allow debt to be paid down and the economy rebalanced is about to be thrown away. And, again, the young are being sacrificed to provide the equity the baby boomer generation (which includes me) needs to retire on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 What's wrong is that house prices went up by a factor of 3 to 6 (depending on region) between 1997 and 2007 and wages didn't. Young people will now take on suicidal mortgages because interest rates are currently low. If part of the deal is fixed, low interest rates for 25 years then - fair enough. But that won't be part of the deal. And we still have the capital to repay. Someone buying a 3 bed semi in the area I live in will pay about 300k - whereas just a few years ago they would have paid 150k. 'What's wrong with the idea' is what's always been 'wrong with the idea' - it means house prices are a function of the cost and availability of credit and, therefore, in a market whose supply is regulated by law, prices will be driven even further up. What's wrong is that too much of someone's pay is spent servicing debt and not enough is available to create demand. It is, in fact, a recipe for the current situation to carry on ad nauseam. Woah BaB, no argument with those points, but we are where we are. So what is the difference between a young couple paying (more) rent to a BTL landlord, (which itself keeps floors under prices) and the same young couple paying a long term fixed mortgage, (as I have always advocated)? A big fall in prices would screw the country more than it already is. Everyone knows this. Rather, a gentle flat line, small drops even, for several years while wages catch up would be the best possible outcome for all concerned. With unemployment rising and growth likely to be flat for 2 years, it seems sensible to try and avoid a full collapse. Like it or not, that would be in no-ones interest. I'm just waiting for the day when they pass a law when if you have over £x amount in the bank and don't own a house, you are given a prison sentence. Careful MS, they might just take you up on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoldAsBrass Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Woah BaB, no argument with those points, but we are where we are. So what is the difference between a young couple paying (more) rent to a BTL landlord, (which itself keeps floors under prices) and the same young couple paying a long term fixed mortgage, (as I have always advocated)? A big fall in prices would screw the country more than it already is. Everyone knows this. Rather, a gentle flat line, small drops even, for several years while wages catch up would be the best possible outcome for all concerned. With unemployment rising and growth likely to be flat for 2 years, it seems sensible to try and avoid a full collapse. Like it or not, that would be in no-ones interest. Careful MS, they might just take you up on that. So, we're in so much debt, the only way out is more debt? Surely people need to take responsibility for their buying decisions. A 3 bed semi in the same road as a mate of mine, in a moderately okay area of West London - well out in the suburbs not far from Heathrow, recently changed hands for £460k I think the person who owns that needs to learn he paid probably twice as much as he should have. The person that bought it probably earns 60k or more - maybe quite a bit more. Trying to put a floor under house prices is like saying 'let's be as uncompetitive as possible in the global market' As for rent ... slowly but surely the rental market will dry up. My eldest son's friends - almost to a man - are still living with Mum and Dad. With 1 in 4 16-25 years olds out of work and a lot of the others poorly educated and earning low wages - the rental market will slowly go into decline. Rents will come down sooner or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunlee Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 I'm just waiting for the day when they pass a law when if you have over £x amount in the bank and don't own a house, you are given a prison sentence. It's funny cos it's true. Rents will come down sooner or later. The problem is that housing benefit is increasing every year (is it connected to RPI?) and sets a floor price for the market. After all why would one take a risk with a tenant who might not pay when you get a guaranteed high rent from the taxpayer teet? Now of course that is not only a gross abuse of public funds but also destructive for the wider economy, but can anyone see this government even managing to stop the increase in housing benefit for a single year? One picture in the Daily Mirror of a young child with a teddy bear with a menacing headline about the family being thrown out onto the streets and they would capitulate. Have to say I agree with the Chartered Surveyor. I was looking in a, for North London, reasonably affordable but still riot free area in early 2009 before giving up on Britain and having a quick look at rightmove now, asking prices are 25 or 30 percent higher now than they were then. That the only time I actually went into an estate agent, about ten minutes later someone came in saying they were looking to buy a house for cash was somewhat depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 May I suggest this title is changed to No HPC, this time its different... . . . Like a tide London leads the way and I am firmly of the opinion that we have are now entered the start of a crack up boom that is moving at a great pace now. . . . In view of this I am now interested in the opinions of the readers of this site as to the effects of a crack up boom on debt, housing in the UK... Artificially low rates have delayed the crash, but they cannot prevent it. So far, the government has show no ability to boost incomes in a meaningful way, so when the rate rises come, the crash will come too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 So, we're in so much debt, the only way out is more debt? Surely people need to take responsibility for their buying decisions. A 3 bed semi in the same road as a mate of mine, in a moderately okay area of West London - well out in the suburbs not far from Heathrow, recently changed hands for £460kI think the person who owns that needs to learn he paid probably twice as much as he should have. The person that bought it probably earns 60k or more - maybe quite a bit more. Trying to put a floor under house prices is like saying 'let's be as uncompetitive as possible in the global market' But BaB, while I agree with your sentiment, that's an extreme example (more than 3x the average), after all, the average UK house price is ~ 160k and there aren't a huge %age over that (much like the average wage is ~ 25k, but only ~13% actually earn more than this). As for rent ... slowly but surely the rental market will dry up. My eldest son's friends - almost to a man - are still living with Mum and Dad. With 1 in 4 16-25 years olds out of work and a lot of the others poorly educated and earning low wages - the rental market will slowly go into decline. Rents will come down sooner or later. Can’t see it myself, population growing, immigration, less homes being built. These are all facts, no matter how much we don't like it. Sure, one or two will move home, but heh, the number of people actually in work in the UK has been rising for ages (albeit with the odd month where it hasn't). Also, the number of young unemployed has been rising since 2004. They were never the strong buyers (average age of buyers has been well above 26 for a decade has it not). So, several years of flat or slightly falling prices to bring things back into line with wages is surely a good thing, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 So what is the difference between a young couple paying (more) rent to a BTL landlord, (which itself keeps floors under prices) and the same young couple paying a long term fixed mortgage, (as I have always advocated)? A big fall in prices would screw the country more than it already is. Everyone knows this. What can I say? Here's what I think (but should not say): "The stupid bozos who buy will deserve the shit-storm they are headed into. The sad think is they will try to shift their mistake onto the prudent folk around them, who will be too stupid to protest enough. What a system !" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G0ldfinger Posted November 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 DOUBLE POST. I believe this chart is correct, especially since the 1980 top of over $800 lasted only a couple of days or so, while we have been north of $1,600 for a long time now, so the average annual price of gold in 1979-80 was much lower (than $800). Do I think it's time to get out? No, not really yet. I've always said that the former lows are places to watch out for, but as well that this financial crisis is so much larger and that we need to look at other indicators as well. I see no reason why the average U.S. house built in the middle of nowhere in the hope for cheap oil/energy, good employment, a stable dollar, and lots of cheap debt for property speculation should not lose much more value compared to gold. Watch out for sub-50-oz prices. US housing to gold ratio now same as 1979 low http://danielamerman.com/articles/2011/GHRatioC.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 21, 2011 Report Share Posted November 21, 2011 Here we go. As predicted. David Cameron vows to 'get Britain building' Buyers of new homes will be able to borrow up to 95% of their value as part of plans David Cameron says will help get "Britain building again". The mortgage indemnity scheme, in which the government will underwrite part of the risk to lenders, could help up to 100,000 people in England. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15810966 Could have been worse, could have been 100% And Rightmove saying asking prices crashing down, get them sold before xmas people! http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Property-asking-prices-cut-tele-3996305210.html?x=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Doe Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Wow, so much for the slowdown in net migration some thought would occur due to the UKs economic prospects. Official figures (not including all the unofficial entrants) show another 250,000 net increase in 2010! Annual net migration to the UK in 2010 was 252,000 - the highest calendar year figure on record, figures show. More people, less housing, hmmmmm, wonder if that will have any effect on rents/prices? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15868793 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drbubb Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Chartered Surveyor, on 17 November 2011 - said: QUOTE ===== May I suggest this title is changed to No HPC, this time its different... . . . Like a tide London leads the way and I am firmly of the opinion that we have are now entered the start of a crack up boom that is moving at a great pace now. . . . In view of this I am now interested in the opinions of the readers of this site as to the effects of a crack up boom on debt, housing in the UK. UNQUOTE ===== Artificially low rates have delayed the crash, but they cannot prevent it. So far, the government has show no ability to boost incomes in a meaningful way, so when the rate rises come, the crash will come too. These charts, may back up my still-Bearish view on UK Property... SAME OLD SAME OLD... until it breaks "We are injecting GBP 75 Bn in the British Economy" - Merv Nothing new here, this "reflationary effort" has been going on a long time. See Bond prices - and this is what it has done to the UK Yield Curve UK Bonds ... update : 6mos UK Curve ... update No magic is coming from this, apart from ongoing levitation in Property prices. If they stop lowering rates, then something wil break, and they cannot go on lowering them forever - Especially since "something IS BREAKING" now in Europe, and may spread. Good luck, Merv. You may be a Hero-in-your-own-mind now. But you will be a Greenspan-like Villain when this method blows up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now