nationwide down 1.9%

fatpig_2

there's no deep fried mars bars in Baghdad chip shops AFAIK

mewbie_2

mitchaa wrote: »

I just get fed up of 'silly' people saying every homeowner in the UK lost £4500 last month

I think part of the problem is that some of us southerners think of the UK as just another name for England.

meester

mitchaa wrote: »

A lot but not all.

I certainly do not regret buying June 2007;) Similar houses on sale for a lot more than what i bought mine for last year (+£40k)

They're shifting too.

This 10% is a wide generalisation of a whole country which is pointless and most of all completely useless.

I would have wasted around £1100pm rental for 15mths since i bought, that's £16500 in rental. Instead i have paid around £4-5k off my capital and made in theory about £40k in growth.

How is the £16,500 wasted? Have you got a 0% mortgage?

I don't think so.

You will have paid a very similar amount of interest on your mortgage.

neverdespairgirl

mitchaa wrote: »

A Scots family earning 2x £35k or a London family earning 2 x £50k

Every 2nd person being a foreigner etc etc, can go on and on.

Living on £100k and above a chip shop would be entirely a matter of choice in London, not necessity!

Hang on with the racist stuff - aren't you from Romania? Or am I confusing you with someone else?

neverdespairgirl

dopester wrote: »

She lives in Aberdeen, as does Iveseenthelight, and both think Aberdeen is immune to a serious crash.

I've Seen the Light is in the far east somewhere - maybe Malaysia? From Aberdeen, though, I think.

MrSafeGaz

mitchaa wrote: »

A lot but not all.

I certainly do not regret buying June 2007;) Similar houses on sale for a lot more than what i bought mine for last year (+£40k)

They're shifting too.

This 10% is a wide generalisation of a whole country which is pointless and most of all completely useless.

I would have wasted around £1100pm rental for 15mths since i bought, that's £16500 in rental. Instead i have paid around £4-5k off my capital and made in theory about £40k in growth.

Market currently is not moving up nor down.

So comments such as the comment 'MRSafeGaz' made is complete bol*ocks and has no relevance to a lot of people.

Ahh, when you have a page of light hearted banter its only a matter of time until you come to a super serious post from some overly defensive soul.

The generalisation might not be accurate when it comes to concentrating on a more specific region but it certainly is not useless. It gives a rough indication of the market as a whole and whether you like it or not the market as a whole is falling. Maybe not your area (god forbid) but certainly on average. After reading "Market currently is not moving up nor down.", you may want to research into the definition of an average and then revise your statement.

If my comment was complete bol*ocks then it would have no relevance to all people, not just some, so I would appreciate it if you would omit any contradiction from your points in future.

Cleaver

!!!!!!? wrote: »

I'd say that a further 10% over 2009 looks like a cert at this stage with falls continuing well into 2010.

A lot of people who bought in recent years are going to bitterly regret doing so.

No, some people who bought in recent years are going to bitterly regret doing so. These some include people who bought throwtogether flats in city centres or bought to solely make profit. Those who bought a house to live in will always need a house to live in and all other houses will be relative in value. This is why you only ever hear about people talking about falling house prices on websites such as this and not the real world: most people who have owned houses for years, and own them to live in, know that they go up and down and are relative to all other houses. And this is 90% of people.

Those other 10% could be screwed though.

On another note, the posts on here discussing how much they have 'saved' this by not buying a house in the last 12 months are so simplistic I'm not going to even go there.

WTF?_2

Cleaver wrote: »

No, some people who bought in recent years are going to bitterly regret doing so. These some include people who bought throwtogether flats in city centres or bought to solely make profit. Those who bought a house to live in will always need a house to live in and all other houses will be relative in value. This is why you only ever hear about people talking about falling house prices on websites such as this and not the real world: most people who have owned houses for years, and own them to live in, know that they go up and down and are relative to all other houses. And this is 90% of people.

Those other 10% could be screwed though.

On another note, the posts on here discussing how much they have 'saved' this by not buying a house in the last 12 months are so simplistic I'm not going to even go there.

Frankly, such was the pricing insanity that I would guess that the majority of people buying into the market in 2005-2007 stretched themselves considerably. Even if you were just moving up the ladder the price increases meant you paid over the odds irrespective of what you got for your old place.

Of course there are always some people with lots of money who won't have been bothered by such prices. However, most people have to earn a living wage and the sorts of ridiculous prices for FTB places and average houses were simply not affordable to them without continuing access to cut-price mortgage credit credit deals and of course a 'greater fool' who could be relied upon to snap the place up.

It seems to me that a lot of people made 'can I afford this' decisions based on the near-term monthly payment and nothing else save maybe the thought that a profit was assured. Now we are entering an era of falling prices more expensive credit and a deteriorating economy that decision is being revealed for what it was - shortsighted and misguided.

Now, if we are talking people who have owned houses for years and bought well before the madness of the bubble, I agree with you that they won't have much to worry about (unless they MEWed of course). But my post was about people who bought recently.

As for savings due to not buying near the peak - they will be quite real when the time comes to borrow tens/hundreds of thousands of pounds from the bank to buy.

Generali

mitchaa wrote: »

-1% in Inverness and -19% in Plymouth gives an average of -10%. However the -10% figure is completely useless and irrelevant as its far from being the truth in both areas. This is what is happening with nationwides figures, it's wrong to generalise a whole country, a breakdown of individual regions is what to take note of

Not in a weighted average it doesn't. AFAIK, the Halifax and Nationwide house price indices are both weighted and mix adjusted.

Unless of course Plymouth and Inverness have simialr housing markets. Having never been to either place (and shamefully not knowing how many virgins came down from Plymouth) I am ill placed to comment.

Cleaver

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Frankly, such was the pricing insanity that I would guess that the majority of people buying into the market in 2005-2007 stretched themselves considerably. Even if you were just moving up the ladder the price increases meant you paid over the odds irrespective of what you got for your old place.

Of course there are always some people with lots of money who won't have been bothered by such prices. However, most people have to earn a living wage and the sorts of ridiculous prices for FTB places and average houses were simply not affordable to them without continuing access to cut-price mortgage credit credit deals and of course a 'greater fool' who could be relied upon to snap the place up.

It seems to me that a lot of people made 'can I afford this' decisions based on the near-term monthly payment and nothing else save maybe the thought that a profit was assured. Now we are entering an era of falling prices more expensive credit and a deteriorating economy that decision is being revealed for what it was - shortsighted and misguided.

Now, if we are talking people who have owned houses for years and bought well before the madness of the bubble, I agree with you that they won't have much to worry about (unless they MEWed of course). But my post was about people who bought recently.

As for savings due to not buying near the peak - they will be quite real when the time comes to borrow tens/hundreds of thousands of pounds from the bank to buy.

We bought our first house in early 2004. It was a two-bed terrace for £130,000. Which is mental money really for a terrace in nowheresville, midlands. We had mortgage offers thrown at us and could probably have borrowed a lot more. My missus and I had a joint income at the time of around £33,000 but could comfortably afford the £552 a month mortgage payments. Fast forward nearly five years and the house is worth... well, I dunno. I guess between £100 - 110k? Our joint income is now around 65k, which is more than we probably thought it would be now, but we always knew it would be more in five years than when we bought our house. Our very low mortgage is up in January 09 and will go up a couple of percentage points, but we've saved £20k between when we point the house and now so we'll pay a lump sum off. All of this is also by the by as we're not selling the place.

Maybe we're fortunate, but at the present time the house prices don't bother me because of the above. I wasn't dumb in 2004, I knew house prices would only go one way (I thought 20% down from when we purchased, but I'm now thinking more like 35% overall before a slow climb back up over 10 years. But predicting house prices is a bit like predicting share prices, a bit pointless).

And most of my friends are in similar positions. Lots of us bought houses between 2002 and 2005, we're all having a bit of a moan about extra mortgage payments each month, some earn a bit more, some earn the same but... really... none of us are on the breadline. We're average joes, with average lives, who all bought houses that were pretty expensive at the peak of things, but we all took the long view and will whether the 'storm'. A 'strorm' that doesn't really effect all of us anyway: we can pay our mortgages and we have houses to live in.

I know your argument is true and that there will be people who overstretched, and these will be the 'poster boys' of the housing crash. We'll all read their stories with a mixture of sympathy and condemnation on here and in the Daily Mail. But I still think that these will be in the minority, and the rest of us 'fools' who bought in 2002-2004 will be sitting here in 2015 with houses probably worth the same as when we bought them, nothing lost, nothing gained, just living happy lives.