Whither house prices? The BBC's take on 2009

neverdespairgirl

However much you think your house is worth now, it seems it may be rather less valuable in a year's time.

In 2008, house prices suffered their biggest fall on record, outstripping the annual drop seen in 1990, and even that of 1932 during the global depression.

Now the economy is heading for a new recession, unemployment is rising fast, and the flow of mortgage funds is still being choked off.

The warm glow that rising prices brought to many people has disappeared.
That is hardly surprising.

The Halifax estimates that the average house is now worth £36,000 less than it was in the summer of 2007.
The Nationwide has put the average drop in value at nearly £28,000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7795672.stm

Cat695

The number of mortgages granted to home buyers in November by the major banks was just under 18,000 - down by more than three-quarters on the same month two years ago.


Jesus thats a low figure

overlander

Welcome to Gordons Miracle, but house only ever go up!

WTF?_2

Cat695 wrote: »

The number of mortgages granted to home buyers in November by the major banks was just under 18,000 - down by more than three-quarters on the same month two years ago.


Jesus thats a low figure

Once prices come down to a reasonable level where buyers can afford to borrow a sensible amount (max 3.5x single or 2.5x joint multiple of income), prices will stabilise and the banks can start lending in earnest.

Kind of stating the bleeding obvious but the longer it takes for prices to fall, the longer it will take for the market to get back to a position where it can grow.

Hence the sorts of stupid, expensive measures to 'hold up' prices are not only damaging the economy with their longer term effects, they are also delaying the recovery.

ad44downey

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Once prices come down to a reasonable level where buyers can afford to borrow a sensible amount (max 3.5x single or 2.5x joint multiple of income), prices will stabilise and the banks can start lending in earnest.

.

That's the only sensible policy to avoid all this mess ever happening again.

chucky

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Once prices come down to a reasonable level where buyers can afford to borrow a sensible amount (max 3.5x single or 2.5x joint multiple of income), prices will stabilise and the banks can start lending in earnest.

so extremely nice areas would have to have the same price as less nice areas due to these restrictive income multipliers.

those are exactly the same income multipliers that were around in the 80s - a few things have changed since then.

pickles110564

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Once prices come down to a reasonable level where buyers can afford to borrow a sensible amount (max 3.5x single or 2.5x joint multiple of income), prices will stabilise and the banks can start lending in earnest.

Kind of stating the bleeding obvious but the longer it takes for prices to fall, the longer it will take for the market to get back to a position where it can grow.

Hence the sorts of stupid, expensive measures to 'hold up' prices are not only damaging the economy with their longer term effects, they are also delaying the recovery.

Problem is that some people on low incomes would love to own but will never get the chance, this is so wrong as everybody should have the right to own their own homes.

robin_banks

Home ownership isn't a right.

amcluesent

Today, I 'as mostly been reading -

"Buying Bargains at Property Auction", H Gooddie
"Successful property Letting", D Lawrenson
"Price the Job", S Beeny

2009 will be a chance in a generation to buy into Bloomsbury/W1C.

mitchaa

pickles110564 wrote: »

Problem is that some people on low incomes would love to own but will never get the chance, this is so wrong as everybody should have the right to own their own homes.

I suspect you mean everyone that works rather than everyone;)

Imagine the thought...You work hard and pay your taxes for 40+ years, and then someone like Karen Matthews comes along. She wants to own her own home, she keeps popping out more and more sprogs so every couple of years, she keeps getting bigger and better homes until she eventually lives in a home the size of Buckingham Palace.

She reaches infertility, her children leave, and she's left with a 20 bed mansion that she has no use for and then downsizes to the 1 bed flat she now needs.........Whallah, she now has a massive pension fund and lives the rest of her days better than someone who has worked all their life.

I have a sneaky suspicion that was the plan until she got busted trying to extort more £££

Im sure you meant everyone that works and contributes rather than everyone

olly300

pickles110564 wrote: »

Problem is that some people on low incomes would love to own but will never get the chance, this is so wrong as everybody should have the right to own their own homes.

Agree with Robin Banks - home ownership isn't a right.

Lots of responsibilities come with owning a home and some people aren't cut out of it and/or can afford maintenance bills.

If you are on a low wage, you own your own home and your boiler breaks down how are you going to pay for it? (Not everyone is entitled to a government grant.)

What is a right is the right to shelter.

However following on from that you could argue that everyone has a right to stable place to live at a reasonable price i.e. no short term tenancy agreements.