It's true - houses just aren't moving

WTF?_2

mircea wrote: »

Nope can't see the "stupidity" at all. Are you telling me that the cleaner at the Rover factory who's inherited 10k from her grandmother is a smaller risk to a lender because she is putting her 10k as a deposit than let's say a heart surgeon who wants a 100% mortgage? You lot on this board are so horse blinkered by your own righteousness of 3.5 x salary deposit blah blah blah you can't even see when people are talking about side issues and you just keep on and on about this blah blah. I am really bored now.

Giving out cash hand over fist to any Tom, !!!!!! or Harriet who comes along looking to buy a house is what has got us into the mess we are currently facing.

Once the ludicrous lending stopped, the house market practically seized overnight. That should tell you that the market was dependent on crazy lending.

A return to sane lending practices will benefit everyone (except the over-indebted) in the longer run once the market stabilises at a price level that makes sense: Banks, borrowers, sellers, the economy as a whole will all be in a better position. Unfortunately there is going to be pain in the shorter term but after the massive credit binge of much of a decade there is no easy way out of the resulting mess.

confused31_2

I spoke to both of my estate agents the other day, i have my house up with 2 agents and they both told me the same thing, my house is up at 160,000 and they told me they are struggling to get any veiwings as they are waiting for people with first time buyers properties who want to move up the ladder, to view my house.

We all know its like a chain, they went on to say that with the banks tightening their lending and cutting a lot of their mortgage deals, first time buyers are finding it very hard to borrow the money to buy a home.

They then went on and said they can't see it getting any better until the banks relax their lending criteria and the first time buyers can borrow money more easily.

I have to agree with this as i seen a programme the other day and a lot of deals the banks are doing for first time buyers to get the best deals they need a 20% deposit, now i know when i bought my house i would have struggled to save 20,000 pounds, and thats just on a house of 100,000 pound.

No wonder the housing market as come to a standstill, i think the only people who will be buying houses will be young people whos family will lend them the money, but how many young peoples mommy and daddies can afford to do that,?not many i suspect.

confused

dopester

confused31 wrote: »

I have to agree with this as i seen a programme the other day and a lot of deals the banks are doing for first time buyers to get the best deals they need a 20% deposit, now i know when i bought my house i would have struggled to save 20,000 pounds, and thats just on a house of 100,000 pound.

If that £100,000 came down to £40,000 then a 20% deposit would be a lot more manageable.

The young earners of tomorrow won't be supporting this greedy generation's crazy notions of what their houses are worth.

confused31_2

dopester wrote: »

If that £100,000 came down to £40,000 then a 20% deposit would be a lot more manageable.

The young earners of tomorrow won't be supporting this greedy generation's crazy notions of what their houses are worth.

I agree with that all houses are overpriced, i wouldnt have been able to afford my house at the price it as been valued at, and to be honest i wouldnt pay it.

If the house prices do fall by 40%, the people who have bought houses in the last 4 years are going to be in a big mess, unless they had big deposits when they bought, or they sold and bought at the same time.

I think if people can afford it they will try and hang in there and ride out the storm, but theres still gonna be a load that will have to get rid as they are going to repossessed.

Ive seen a property i like it was up for 225,000 last year and now its down to 200,000, has theyve bought their price down ive bought my house down in relation to that one.

So if they fall 50% and they drop their house 50% and i drop my house 50% it will mean me having to borrow less money for the house i want.

Its just a waiting game for me, im not bothered whether they go up or come down im just waiting for them to stabalise so people will come and buy again.


confused

WTF?_2

confused31 wrote: »

I agree with that all houses are overpriced, i wouldnt have been able to afford my house at the price it as been valued at, and to be honest i wouldnt pay it.

Exactly - this was what many of us were saying a year or two ago when prices were high and going only one way, up. Yet the inescapable logical conclusion that this meant things could not continue seemed to be escaping many who just assumed that they had been gifted with a massive amount of personal equity with no consequences.

Or of course those who decided that their new found housing wealth proved that they were some sort of financial guru and rushed out to MEW it

If the house prices do fall by 40%, the people who have bought houses in the last 4 years are going to be in a big mess, unless they had big deposits when they bought, or they sold and bought at the same time.

It'd be disappointing for anyone who bought in the last four years to see their equity disappear but assuming you borrowed a sensible amount you should have no trouble repaying it (barring misfortune) and hanging in.

It's all the people who borrowed gut-wringing amounts of money beyond their ability to pay who are going to be in trouble. And of course the fool banks who loaned it to them. Oh, and the rest of us who will be hit by the recession and be milked through taxes and inflation to bail the stupid and greedy out.

Generali

!!!!!!? wrote: »

It's all the people who borrowed gut-wringing amounts of money beyond their ability to pay who are going to be in trouble. And of course the fool banks who loaned it to them. Oh, and the rest of us who will be hit by the recession and be milked through taxes and inflation to bail the stupid and greedy out.

Actually the bankers were incredibly sensible. Their bonus can never be less than 0 so better for them to make £100 one year and lose £1,000 the next than to make £20 each year.

WTF?_2

Generali wrote: »

Actually the bankers were incredibly sensible. Their bonus can never be less than 0 so better for them to make £100 one year and lose £1,000 the next than to make £20 each year.

And that loss of £1000 is where the rest of us come in..... Privatise the profits, socialise the losses.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSBNG17231320080805?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Generali

!!!!!!? wrote: »

And that loss of £1000 is where the rest of us come in..... Privatise the profits, socialise the losses.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSBNG17231320080805?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

If someone wa going to be me £x00,000 with 2x that as a bonus then I don't think I'd be too worried about what was going to happen in a couple of years. I suspect most people would be the same if put into that position.

You'd be amazed what people will do for a few bob.

BernardM

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I'd be interested in your breaking that promise - I'd like to know why AS is one of your heroes? Only if you feel like discussing it, of course.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/07/arthur-scargill-miners-strike

There is nothing thick about this man neverdespairgirl. Maybe you will see the light and change your mind after reading this.

BernardM

And in case you missed it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/07/scargill-miners-strike-thatcher