Property prices will have stabilised by this time next year. Yes or NO?

dervish

pickledpink wrote: »

Looks like you'll never be able to buy then doesn't it? Not many mortgage companies would lend to someone of your age - you may as well keep paying for your lodgings.

:mad:

Disgusting and appalling personal attack.

Cannon_Fodder

Never is a long-time. People using 40 to 200 year-old interest rates in other debates should check their facts, perhaps.

Interesting that the 1900-1920 one was before the Great Depression etc...

Looks to be around -10% in 80s and 90s...may not be a crash, but neither is it "always go up".





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_bubble
and "San Francisco house prices dropped 11 percent between 1990 and 1994."

chucky

dervish wrote: »

:mad:

Disgusting and appalling personal attack.

Agreed and unnecessary.

I'm sure that Carol gives out as well - less frequently but she definately knows how to give out.

Cannon_Fodder

getting repetitive and boring, now.

"he said it first", "no you said it first"...ner, ner, ner, ner. nerrrr....
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=10185097&postcount=1

can EVERYONE just grow up a little...me included!

Stick OT and take your personal animosities to PMs...

Please.

carolt

It's fine - pickledpink has never had a disagreement with me where she hasn't ended up looking foolish, though she still keeps trying.

I think it's down to her age; anyone who thinks 37 is 'ancient' clearly has a little bit of growing up to do.

JayScottGreenspan

rizla01 wrote: »

Surely we have had unsustainable rises in property prices before this 'New fangled' finance vehicle was thought up.

Property prices have ALWAYS risen and fallen and the fact that the stupid lending by the banks caused this fall to be more noticeable and painful this time, doesn't mean that it wouldn't have happened as a matter of course anyway. Trouble is we will never know how long and painful it would have been if different methods were used for financing the mortgages.

I agree.

My guess is that without the RMBS money we would have had a slow correction starting in 2005. As it happens, the then-bubblerific prices surged up a bit further on the back of RMBS to even more bubbletastic levels.

The correction is and will continue to be pretty harsh. Anyone expecting this to ease whilst the recession plays out and job losses mount may be in for a shock.

WTF?_2

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

I agree.

My guess is that without the RMBS money we would have had a slow correction starting in 2005. As it happens, the then-bubblerific prices surged up a bit further on the back of RMBS to even more bubbletastic levels.

The correction is and will continue to be pretty harsh. Anyone expecting this to ease whilst the recession plays out and job losses mount may be in for a shock.

What other sorts of mechanisms could have allowed the banks to lend as much as the 'new financial instruments' did, though?

Those things were designed to get around capital adequacy requirements specifically so that the banks could lend stupidly large amounts of money and make unfeasibly large profits in the process - at least for a few years while prices continued to go up.

Generali

!!!!!!? wrote: »

What other sorts of mechanisms could have allowed the banks to lend as much as the 'new financial instruments' did, though?

Those things were designed to get around capital adequacy requirements specifically so that the banks could lend stupidly large amounts of money and make unfeasibly large profits in the process - at least for a few years while prices continued to go up.

Another way to look at it of course is to say that allowing a big tranch of risky assets to be held on the books as if they were risk free and the rest to sit off the balance sheet was a pretty shoddy piece of regulation. It's not like this was done in secret or anything. When I worked at Goldmans I used to get an email every day listing the CDOs etc that were up for sale.

I suspect the reason that the regulators allowed this to happen is that they didn't understand what the banks were doing which, if true, is a shocking state of affairs. I have seen many annecdotal things which make me think that the FSA doesn't understand a lot of the products being traded by financial institutions.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Another way to look at it of course is to say that allowing a big tranch of risky assets to be held on the books as if they were risk free and the rest to sit off the balance sheet was a pretty shoddy piece of regulation. It's not like this was done in secret or anything. When I worked at Goldmans I used to get an email every day listing the CDOs etc that were up for sale.

I suspect the reason that the regulators allowed this to happen is that they didn't understand what the banks were doing which, if true, is a shocking state of affairs. I have seen many annecdotal things which make me think that the FSA doesn't understand a lot of the products being traded by financial institutions.

The regulators would have had to be pretty smart because I don't think the banks or rating agencies understood them either.

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

The regulators would have had to be pretty smart because I don't think the banks or rating agencies understood them either.

I can't speak for anyone else but Goldmans understood these products IMO. They were creating them and trading them.