Sensible measures to improve the house market

justpurchased

carolt wrote: »

IIRC, London has a much higher proportion of renters than the national average - it's nearer 40% or more? - can't recall exact figure, but London is a classic example of a place where people - even on good London wages - can't afford to buy.

!

Thanks for proving a point Carol. There are enough rich people in london that 40% of houses are owened buy landlords. Its not like that here. Are you trying to make my point more valid? It was only a thought i had, but it is nice to add some substance to it.

Also what financial advice did I give? I am sorry you find my points offensive but they should not be, if you are secure with your own situation you should not take offense!

WTF?_2

Dan: wrote: »

The credit crunch resulted in tighter lending, higher mortgage rates and the withdraw of 100 - 125% mortgages. This is what has caused house prices to fall. Not because one morning everyone woke up and decided that houses were overvauled.

The market peaked around Sept last year, then prices started to show consistent MoM falls.

The withdrawals of mortgages only started around late Jan.this year IIRC.

Although I don't doubt that they have played a major part in the scale of the crash that is now unfolding.

It's also worth remembering what caused the credit crunch before trying to use it in a handwaving exercise to explain why the market is crashing: A dependence on securitization to produce cheap and easy credit, resulting in crazy loans that fuelled the runaway US housing market, whose borrowers defaulted in numbers completely trashing the securitization market and kicking off a wider credit crisis.

So the unfolding housing price crash across most of the western world is directly a victim of the house price boom across those same markets over the previous decade.

StevieJ

Dan: wrote: »

The credit crunch resulted in tighter lending, higher mortgage rates and the withdraw of 100 - 125% mortgages. This is what has caused house prices to fall. Not because one morning everyone woke up and decided that houses were overvauled.

It really is as simple as that, if the credit crunch had not struck then the markets would probably have seen a gentle orderly inflation led erosion of prices over two or three years.

Gorgeous_George

We will never really know but I think that there are enough thickos in the UK to have kept the high prices ticking along if credit was still cheaply available.

The crunch was preceded by higher mortgage rates compared to previous years. Following 9-11 Bank of England base rates fell dramatically from 5% to 3.5% rising to 5% gain in Nov 06. For over a year, rates stayed above 5% and it was 17 months before the base rate fell to 5% again (and has remained there for 5 months).

GG

lostinrates

chucky wrote: »

Not all the markets and not all businesses are dependant on or remotely related to the housing markets. Credit lines for many businesses are still available - credit against property is a different story.

Therefore they have not played a major part in the scale of the 'crash' that is now unfolding.

To expand on this, which markets and industries are doing well ATM?

DH is at professional training today out of the office and the majority of people were pretty gloomy. Noone had had to cancel at the last minute......so the course providers did well

michaels

Dan: wrote: »

The credit crunch resulted in tighter lending, higher mortgage rates and the withdraw of 100 - 125% mortgages. This is what has caused house prices to fall. Not because one morning everyone woke up and decided that houses were overvauled.

I disagree, I think it was much more expectations that drive this market. The only reason people were so desperate to buy was that the market was rising so the choice was to 'buy now and profit from rising prices or get the same for more later'. The dynamic of the market was such that even prices levelling off would remove this imperative and thus there was never any possibility of a levelling off of prices.

lostinrates

chucky wrote: »

you probably need to re-read my post.

there was no mention of industries doing well - i mentioned that credit was still available in many industries that were not remotely related to property in any way.

For credit to be available to them one might hasten to the conclusion the industries are doing well!

I'd be interested to know which industries credit is still very easily available for?

lostinrates

chucky wrote: »

that is not exactly what i have said and i didn't use the word 'very easily available' either - i just said available

but i'll go with it, i know you're a better person than him but just to let you this is the kind of change of wording that !!!!!! does all of the time... :-)

and the answer to your question is the Oil and Gas industries especially the exporation and extraction.

Crikey...how do you know I'm a better person than !!!!!!? I don't!
FWIW I'm not trying to wind you up. I'm asking genuinely. But I do think its connected with house prices I think the fact we talk about indirect relations is probably part of the reason they keep us in a little box at the top of the housing forum (only part of the reason, mind you;) )

Hmm. How much oil and gas industry does UK produce? (% of world production that is availabe outside reserves) As a percentage of UK needs? As export? How much do we hold in reserves?

Why does the oil and gas industry need credit?

As it happens DH might be able to answer those for me. I'll ask him at the weekend.

lostinrates

chucky wrote: »

without being rude or sounding rude - i don't really want to get into an off topic discussion that i don't know enough about to answer your questions above.

I don't think thats rude at all. Maybe someone else here knows, otherwise I'll have to wait til DH is home at the weekend (and its not the first topic of conversation we'll have)

it jus gives !!!!!!? an opportunity to jump in and make himself (no-one else) feel very important by putting media links in the discussion that have about 5% relevance to the whole discussion and thus taking it off topic.

this forum is what his own one dimensional life revolves about.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the. I don't feel this is !!!!!!'s personal forum (I don't even know if !!!!!! is male or female???), a lot of us are very active contributers and that rather devalues contributions made by people on both sides of the fence as well as those who see themselves as 'floating voters'. !!!!!! is merely one of the loud opinions here! I miss other recently departed or quietened posters too. The strong opinions help me find what I think which is usually somewhere in between, and dips to either side strongly at times.

As I said before, I for one feel the economy as a whole IS relevant to the House Price discussion and I feel the loadness of the contributers, the huge breadth of topics we discuss to try and understand one small area of the economy and that we can all talk so much is why we are up here...so that we CAN look at the wider picture without getting in the way of more purely housing issues topics in the main bit.

fc123

pawpurrs wrote: »

Think you have just about covered it.

!!!!!! for Goverment!:j

!!!!!!...Haven't had time to read the thread but you made noises about your job next Jan? You could join Sir Humphrey...make changes from the inside STS.

Unfortunately, this has happened just as a career in the civil service has become a much less attractive option, and recruitment has suffered. What was once a career of choice for many of the brightest and best university graduates now ranks a long way behind working for Goldman Sachs, or elsewhere in the City, which is where most of the top graduates now want to go. The civil service still gets bright people, but not in the same numbers.