2004...My Ar*e....Make Your Predictions...

mitchaa

beecher wrote: »

Well it is clear from the figures that Aberdeenshire peaked after Glasgow - have no idea what's so funny about that. How else do you explain them being £24,000 higher in Glasgow in 07 and only £5,000 higher now?

You are a wind up merchant, but I wonder what you get out of it?

You're keeping the argument going my friend.

Perhaps Glasgows desirability, unemployment levels, crime levels and sheer nastiness of the place has something to do about it's demise

2004/2005 levels, whatever we agree or disagree on, they are long way off of what the majority here have voted for. I suspect many of the votes due to them being hidden are of the wind up variety. Pre 2000 levels i simply cannot comprehend, but hey ho, let and let live.

I'll end my input to this thread now as to be honest it's 6 pages worth of drivel, and cant be bothered doing battle with another 6 pages.

Wookster

Average wages (courtesy of the ONS) are about £25,000 PA. This means that even at current average house price levels, house prices are still over 6X average salaries.

It is simply not sustainable.

I'd say we probably need to drop to about 4.25-4.5X average salaries which would imply another ~30% fall in prices.

It sounds like a lot but if you accept that there are another 2 very tough years ahead with regard to consumer spending, low confidence and constrained credit then its not beyong the realms of possibility.

(but that doesn't mean its going to happen!)

beecher

mitchaa wrote: »

Perhaps Glasgows desirability, unemployment levels, crime levels and sheer nastiness of the place has something to do about it's demise

.

Oh dear. I can't wait for you to hit the anger phase - it'll make me :rotfl:

Kenny4315

ad9898 wrote: »

No need to worry about me Kenny, I have my binoculars out looking at the horizon, no boat of any kind there yet and even if their was it will be moving so slowly anyone with good credit/savings will have all the time in the world to hop on. I have seen the type of house I would like, there are 2-3 up for sale now in my area, I could put an offer in on any one of them and have the available funds for a 65% LTV mortgage within 4-5 weeks.

Now with the bottom of previous crashes being 4-5 years, it's unlikely that the bottom of this crash is going to be 4-5 weeks:D.

your more likely to buy lower than the market if you can time the purchase before the stablisation than after it has stablised, as people can't see the bottom and want security that it isn't going to fall even further tha they expected. Once it stablises they'll know its the bottom of the market and the trend will be upwards. Hence you won't have as much room from a cheeky offer. :money:

Same in a HPI, often people pay more than the highest market value because they can't see the peak, and assume they'll never get on the property ladder unless they buy NOW.

whathavewedone

That makes a lot of sense actually. If I was selling my house at a time when it was widely recognised that the bottom had been reached and buyers were piling in I would be much less likely to accept a low offer than I would in a time of uncertainty when no one really knows how low it will go and when (ie now).

It's also true that there was a feeling during HPI that people needed to buy asap for fear they'd be priced out in 3 months time. And this caused people paying the asking price and well above it in many cases.

stephen163

It's an example of how absurd the housing market is. I think the government should take it upon themselves to abandon political short termism and attempt to minimise the boom/bust cycle inherent in the housing market. Why not set a target HPI and task the MPC to include this in their remit?

Cannon_Fodder

Or set multiples at 3xsingle or 2xjoint, in law...

If salaries rise it will naturally boost lending/prices, if they do not then prices stay sane.

chucky

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Or set multiples at 3xsingle or 2xjoint, in law...

If salaries rise it will naturally boost lending/prices, if they do not then prices stay sane.

i don't think multiples are a bad thing but they should have been left in the 80s...

for example a graduate or most young people can only take out a 3x single mortgage even though his personal circumstances will/should improve - his salary will increase greatly, once they are married he is still restricted or previously limited to that property as he could only buy with the 3x salary multiple. here is where the 5x multiplier mortgages were sold incorretly.

i'm not saying multipliers are a bad thing - just feel they are very inflexible to peoples future circumstances and are a bit antiquated. they can work but need to be more flexible.

Cannon_Fodder

Partially agree, that its inflexible, but I think that is the point. It would make people think harder about when/why they are buying.

Previously, the hardest anyone had to think is whether to only take the £200K they've been offered over 35 years...

Depending on the source used, average age for first-time buying is between 29 and 34, it appears.

Any graduate should be in the job/position/salary by 29 to make most of their x3, surely?

And because it would be across the board, there would no longer be the "getting left behind" problem. Or at least greatly diminished.

It may have the effect of increasing sales turnover, by putting some more rungs back into the ladder, as people have to take smaller jumps up it/more often, if your concerns are realised.

But with prices remaining lower, Govt would need some way of recovering lost stamp duty levels, so increased transactions could mitigate that issue.

chucky

i agree with the logic but don't feel that it isn't practical to restrict to multipliers when mortgages for homes are involved.

as i said before for many people these multipliers will restrict their personal future - many people have additional future income, from bonuses, maturing savings plans, even inheritances and many other scenarios. none of these guaranteed by the way...

so restricting them to the multiplier would not suit them. much stricter regulation maybe the answer here, i don't know.

a similar problem is forcing people to have a repayment vehicle or forcing upon them repayment mortgages instead of interest only - it just doesn't suit everyone.