At least a decade for prices to return to 2007 levels.

Max_Headroom_3

mitchaa wrote: »

Ahh you are suggesting banks have finally seen sense and capped their lending multiples;)

How much truth is there in this??

I agree the sub prime lenders have certainly had their fingers burnt and are not offering 7-8x anymore but the main lenders are still offering the same lending multiples if not more compared to this time last year.

Just looking at the C&G site and it is showing you can borrow 4.85x Joint salary. I am pretty sure when i set mine up last year it was at 4.4x Joint max lend.

You can still easily get 4x+ joint with most lenders, so nothing has been restricted as such.

Only deposits have been tightened and this appears to have 'slackened' already with re-introduction of 95%.

Try it yourself...

http://mortgagetools.lloydstsb.com/borrowing_calc.asp

Lloyds TSB but C+G funded.

You're talking as though banks have a choice. They don't.

They cannot afford to lend at the rate they were doing, it caused many of them to collapse! It's a proven physical impossibility, it does not work!!

They can't just go back to lending those sums of money, they neither have it nor can they get it, nor does it work as a business model. See Northern Rock for just one single example of many.

As to using an on-line calculator to "prove" that they will, fine, now try getting that money from them. The calculator is just a guide, nothing more.

mitchaa

Supercharge_Me wrote: »

Whilst i also notice a few regular posters come in this board laughing nonsense at this doom and gloom,

Mitchaa,

1.Why do you provide a wink or two with almost all of your posts?, have i missed something or is the emoticon list really that small?
2. Did you actually sell your house as noted in your sig? if not you have not made any money.

Im not trying to have a dig, id just be interested. Simply put if your or any other naysayers smart enough to make money in a downturn surely youd be better placed to predict the future?

The smilie is for tongue and cheek, to stir the pot a little, to wind up a few, but most of all to show a friendly natured post. Without it's use, you can perhaps come across as an aggressive know it all.

That's why i use the quite often as im not an expert, i dont claim to be and as i am constantly getting told black is white, i.e my signature, i think the use of it to be effective.

So perhaps you have missed something

As to your 2nd point, ISTL has summed it up perfectly, apparently we are down to 2005 levels nationwide;) (There i go again, wonder why i used it here:rolleyes: )

What does Mitchaa say to that.....

Lot of rubbish as quite a few areas are no-where near 2005 levels;)

thriftyminx13

I wonder are there regional differences. i live in northern ireland and prices have certainly dropped but i know a handful of friends in the last month that have seriously started to look again, have put in bids or have actually bought property. There seems to be a feeling over here that this is a good time to buy as long as you can afford the repayments........are they mad?

Cannon_Fodder

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

This is the UK average.
If you look at specific areas, many were not affected the same
Take a look at this link showing the last 20 years
http://www.hbosplc.com/economy/includes/19_01_08PostTownsData3.xls
If you look at Edinburgh for example, they had drops, but each year after recovered, so not trending as per the UK 8 years you describe above. It was only 1 year.

I'm sure the same will happen this year and that some areas will be hardly affected and others will be more affected than the UK average house price

HBOS are lending double what they did in 2007
NatWest have re-started 100% mortgages to existing customers
Lending is already available

See the point above

Of course there are extremes at each end of a set of averages...that's a useful link if you want to pick a specific location, but can you find the worst location for me, just in the interest of balance?

Strange, that despite the usual Aberdeen banter on here, you have chosen Edinburgh...nothing to do with the fact that Aberdeen took 5 years to regain peak, despite its "spec-oil-ness"?

(Of course, Edinburgh has had hundreds of millions given away to its construction industry in building the Parliament over-budget, so there should be plenty of cash to go round)

Maybe the whole of Scotland, as an average, will be less affected than the remainder of the UK. Its possible. But for a region that started the crash later than England, its disconcerting to see so many parts of Scotland getting close to the English Land Registry figure of -10%, so soon;

Argyll and Bute ; -7.4%
Clackmannashire ; -6.5%
Dundee City ; -7.8%
Glasgow City ; -7.0%
South Ayrshire ; -6.7%
Unallocated ; -10.7%

But maybe those less desirable areas don't matter to the "East Coast elite" !! LOL.

HBOS - the biggest lender - to double lending - no, sorry, that's just plain wrong....!!!

http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=36&storycode=3129401 its HSBC, a bit player - "We are punching above our weight,; said an HSBC spokesman." Taking advantage of the other banks' problems, might be good for business but is not going to make up for the rest of the mortgage lending shortfalls...

Lending is available - maybe, but not at 2007 levels, and as per http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7797027.stm who wants to take advantage of it, while sentiment is so damaged, and the recession has yet to unravel ??

IveSeenTheLight

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Of course there are extremes at each end of a set of averages...that's a useful link if you want to pick a specific location, but can you find the worst location for me, just in the interest of balance?

:rotfl: I do like to post on balance. The see-saw in here is very heavily balanced on house price falls, so I admit to trying to sit on the other side to maintain balance.

You stated that house prices did not recover for 8 years indicating that everywhere was affected by this stat. I just merely pointed out that some areas recovered much earlier.

Incidently, I do not state Edinburgh is the best, just one I notices when doing random area checks, you can see in this thread (post 2 to be precise) that but I will not be checking every are to find the worst, you can take the time to do that.

See here for the random areas I checked more than 7 months ago
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=10696431&postcount=2

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Strange, that despite the usual Aberdeen banter on here, you have chosen Edinburgh...nothing to do with the fact that Aberdeen took 5 years to regain peak, despite its "spec-oil-ness"?

Using the same thread, I posted data for Aberdeen in post 1
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=10696347&postcount=1
[/quote]
I chose an area to show my point that some areas recivered within a year and not 8 years as you intimated, which I did.
It's interesting you state 5 years to regain peak for Aberdeen, whereas in reality its 5 years of stagnation

Here's the data again, you will see that it dropped the most in 1993 and almost fully recovered in 1994 (£3.5k from 1992 peak). It dropped again in 1995 and recovered the following year to only £500 less than the 1992 peak

IveSeenTheLight wrote:

Annual Data – 1988 £42,027 No Data available
Annual Data – 1989 £45,881 9.17%
Annual Data – 1990 £59,112 28.84%
Annual Data – 1991 £65,060 10.06%
Annual Data – 1992 £72,447 11.35%
Annual Data – 1993 £65,869 -9.08%
Annual Data – 1994 £69,050 4.83%
Annual Data – 1995 £65,640 -4.94%
Annual Data – 1996 £71,948 9.61%
Annual Data – 1997 £73,037 1.51%
Annual Data – 1998 £79,022 8.19%
Annual Data – 1999 £83,656 5.86%
Annual Data – 2000 £78,390 -6.29%
Annual Data – 2001 £84,845 8.23%
Annual Data – 2002 £92,426 8.94%
Annual Data – 2003 £107,240 16.03%
Annual Data – 2004 £112,639 5.03%
Annual Data – 2005 £135,604 20.39%
Annual Data – 2006 £171,767 26.67%
Annual Data – 2007 £202,755 18.04%

Here it is in graph form


And the period I refer to as stagnation and you refer to as 5 years to recover to peak price

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

(Of course, Edinburgh has had hundreds of millions given away to its construction industry in building the Parliament over-budget, so there should be plenty of cash to go round)

And there hasn't been construction in England / London that went over budget

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Maybe the whole of Scotland, as an average, will be less affected than the remainder of the UK. Its possible. But for a region that started the crash later than England, its disconcerting to see so many parts of Scotland getting close to the English Land Registry figure of -10%, so soon;

Argyll and Bute ; -7.4%
Clackmannashire ; -6.5%
Dundee City ; -7.8%
Glasgow City ; -7.0%
South Ayrshire ; -6.7%
Unallocated ; -10.7%

You should refer to the Registers of Scotland Executive Agency when quoting these percentages.

The latest release is October 2008
http://www.ros.gov.uk/pdfs/la_oct08.pdf

Here is October 2007 for YoY calculations
http://www.ros.gov.uk/pdfs/la_oct07.pdf

Using your areas identified above the results are as follows: -

Argyll and Bute ; -5.89%
Clackmannashire ; +3.34% (thats plus 3.34%)
Dundee City ; -17.49% (also east coast, who said anything about elite :rotfl: )
Glasgow City ; -10.85%
South Ayrshire ; -11.32%
Unallocated ; -2.73% (not quite as dramatic as you post)

But as I said, every where will be affected BUT THEY WILL BE AFFECTED DIFFERENTLY IN EACH AREA

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

But maybe those less desirable areas don't matter to the "East Coast elite" !! LOL.

Who has said anything about East Coast Elite? Only you I think :rotfl:
Like I said, each area will be affected differently and on different timescales to the UK average drops and time you imply will happen everywhere

IveSeenTheLight

thriftyminx13 wrote: »

I wonder are there regional differences. i live in northern ireland and prices have certainly dropped but i know a handful of friends in the last month that have seriously started to look again, have put in bids or have actually bought property. There seems to be a feeling over here that this is a good time to buy as long as you can afford the repayments........are they mad?

Most definately there are regional variations.
Have a read of this post
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=898381

boyse7en

this is a good time to buy as long as you can afford the repayments........are they mad?

There is almost never a good time to buy. Prices will always be cheaper/more affordable next year, unless prices are rising in which case you should wait until after the inevitable crash.

or so I've heard.

Cannon_Fodder

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

but I will not be checking every are to find the worst, you can take the time to do that

Here's the data again, you will see that it dropped the most in 1993 and almost fully recovered in 1994 (£3.5k from 1992 peak). It dropped again in 1995 and recovered the following year to only £500 less than the 1992 peak

Like I said, each area will be affected differently and on different timescales to the UK average drops and time you imply will happen everywhere

I think most people who post on here understand average, do I have to waste my typing efforts with caveats every time?

Haven't gone through to find any 9+ year ones...by definition an average "evens out" the best and worst, so that we can have "sensible" discussions about what is happening to "house prices" and "the economy"...

After that recent poll, of "where are you", there'd be little common ground for us to discuss anything if we had to stick to matching locality. (Felixstowe apart, which seems to have a high % presence.)

Hence average stats have to be used...


Your stagnation chart only looks like stagnation because of the £250K scale!!! Try £85K as the max, please. How do you get graphs into here, like that? I can never get complicated things to paste in properly.

Ok, its not HUGE drops like the graph !!!!!! you see on HPC or even here, and a bit wavy up and down - its called spring bounce, or dead-cat bounce I believe! - but there was a peak of £72,447 at 1992, and that figure was not reached again until around mid-1997, before it reached £73,037 at the end of 1997.

I don't think its valid to say, ooh - only £500 quid short that'll do for our stats - although I suspect the Govt might do some of that when it suits them!

By 1995, to be at £65K, from £72.4K, plus 3 years plus of inflation on top, is not a good advertisment for HPI. Ok, there are some people who say a downturn or correction is/not a crash, and I don't want to confuse the thread with that debate, so I won't say "crash".

But, there was a peak, it didn't continue, and took best part of 5 years to "recover" to that same peak.

Is that something we can agree on?


Can I refer you to http://www.ros.gov.uk/pdfs/2008_11_tables.pdf, which I have used for the Argyll etc examples. I think we've noticed before how ROS stats seems pretty up and down, possibly because of the small numbers of transactions, or the exclusion of £1M properties. Quarterly is more likely to even out low turnover anomalies...


To sum up, I agree that some areas will not be affected so badly as the average. Can you confirm that you agree that there will be areas affected more badly than the average?

You might choose to infer that I am implying it means the same thing everywhere. I cannot stop you.

edit; re unallocated - quarterly change of -16.6% in my link, makes you wonder whats in that definition...
using your October link, 18 properties in that month...too few to be relied on, perhaps.

[Deleted User]

mitchaa wrote: »

The smilie is for tongue and cheek, to stir the pot a little, to wind up a few, but most of all to show a friendly natured post. Without it's use, you can perhaps come across as an aggressive know it all.

That's why i use the quite often as im not an expert, i dont claim to be and as i am constantly getting told black is white, i.e my signature, i think the use of it to be effective.

So perhaps you have missed something

As to your 2nd point, ISTL has summed it up perfectly, apparently we are down to 2005 levels nationwide;) (There i go again, wonder why i used it here:rolleyes: )

What does Mitchaa say to that.....

Lot of rubbish as quite a few areas are no-where near 2005 levels;)

Ok thanks for clearing that up, i personally see the as sarcasm, which would make sense if your here to wind people up.

None the less, your sig means absolutely nothing but good luck to you and anyone else who bought at peak price and manages to avoid negative equity.

IveSeenTheLight

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

I think most people who post on here understand average, do I have to waste my typing efforts with caveats every time?

Then why state it will take 8 years to recover, when you know some areas will not be said affected.
Looking at the UK average house price means avsolutely diddly squat when seriously looking at property to purchase. It will depend on area, type of property, demand and affordability

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Haven't gone through to find any 9+ year ones...by definition an average "evens out" the best and worst, so that we can have "sensible" discussions about what is happening to "house prices" and "the economy"...

I can agree on this, but jump in when someone states for a fact that the average and its return to peak is some sort of bible as to what will happen everywhere this time

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Your stagnation chart only looks like stagnation because of the £250K scale!!! Try £85K as the max, please. How do you get graphs into here, like that? I can never get complicated things to paste in properly.

Ok, its not HUGE drops like the graph !!!!!! you see on HPC or even here, and a bit wavy up and down - its called spring bounce, or dead-cat bounce I believe! - but there was a peak of £72,447 at 1992, and that figure was not reached again until around mid-1997, before it reached £73,037 at the end of 1997.

I don't think its valid to say, ooh - only £500 quid short that'll do for our stats - although I suspect the Govt might do some of that when it suits them!

By 1995, to be at £65K, from £72.4K, plus 3 years plus of inflation on top, is not a good advertisment for HPI. Ok, there are some people who say a downturn or correction is/not a crash, and I don't want to confuse the thread with that debate, so I won't say "crash".

But, there was a peak, it didn't continue, and took best part of 5 years to "recover" to that same peak.

Is that something we can agree on?

My point about it being stagnation is that it "almost" recovered fully each year. Certainly worth bearing in mind if worrying about negative equity. In negative equity instance, you only needed to be wait a year to recover.

My point was not about HPI, but about the price recovering in nominal terms

P.S. as for graphs, go to http://imageshack.us/ and you can post any graph / table / image etc

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

To sum up, I agree that some areas will not be affected so badly as the average. Can you confirm that you agree that there will be areas affected more badly than the average?

Most definately I agree with this, I've said many a time.
Each area is different, some will fare far better and others far worse than the UK average

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

You might choose to infer that I am implying it means the same thing everywhere. I cannot stop you.

You said

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

http://www.allagents.co.uk/house-prices-from-1952/

as per graph in the link, the last crash in 1989 took until after 1997 to reach peak again.

...and that was without a Financial crisis.

Which was why I showed that it didn't in all areas.

I think in the end we have adequately put both our points accross