with the help from government, would house price go up soon?

Generali

dopester wrote: »

I still wouldn't buy. Cheaper to buy than to rent - for the moment.

Government dishing out big bribes to artificially try and support the housing market.

Looks like deep trouble to me.

Exactly what I think. House prices have a fair way to come down over here. Possibly not as far as in the UK but maybe 20-30% overall in and around Sydney.

It was amazing in the South where I was today. Loads of what looked like holiday homes were up for sale. Inland, lots of 100 acre farms that are basically hobby farms are up for grabs too. There are a lot of very nice properties on the market and AIUI, they aren't shifting. New build FTB places are but the rest of the market is gummed shut.

bo_drinker

mewbie wrote: »

Do you seriously think government help will achieve anything? Take a look around, I think about 500 billion spent so far, may be wrong but it's a helluva lot more than we actually have. See anything achieved? Anything. Anything at all?

We might be doing a lot better if the government didn't 'help'.

This is the worrying thing, all these ideas to "fix" things and no change, so they will try something else next week and that won't work either. All costing money and getting us nowhere. Where are we heading ? No one knows

jonbjuk

wsharp wrote: »

As we noticed there will be more new policies from the government since next month to help FTBs, we are a bit worried that house price might go up again...

Any word on what these new policies might be?

jamesd

mewbie wrote: »

Do you seriously think government help will achieve anything? Take a look around, I think about 500 billion spent so far, may be wrong but it's a helluva lot more than we actually have. See anything achieved? Anything. Anything at all?

Lets see:

1. I see about a fifth of my annual income in my bank account instead of lost to Icesave.
2. Northern Rock savers with more than the old FSCS limit had a similar experience.
3. We appear to have a few banks that still exist, instead of being bankrupt. Like almost every major bank in the country that would be bankrupt now without government assistance.
4. The property market drop is being slowed by cheaper mortgage rates that are protecting those with otherwise unaffordable mortgages. It's uncertain that this is a benefit, though - there's a fair school of thought that a fast drop is better than a slow one.

You want more than saving all of the major UK banks and avoiding the catastrophic collapse losing them would have produced?

bo_drinker

If they bring in a rule of 3.5 x salary for mortgages as they are talking about then property will have to drop some more. Thousands will be in n e with no chance.

Dan:_4

bo_drinker wrote: »

If they bring in a rule of 3.5 x salary for mortgages as they are talking about then property will have to drop some more. Thousands will be in n e with no chance.

Which is why this ridiculous rule will not be implemented across the industry.

Mr_Mumble

Don't mean to pick on your post Jamesd but here's an alternative perspective.

jamesd wrote: »

Lets see:

1. I see about a fifth of my annual income in my bank account instead of lost to Icesave.

I see someone who didn't assess the risks of a bank's default specifically because of government 'guarantees', I see a government who allowed dodgy banks to operate in this country.

2. Northern Rock savers with more than the old FSCS limit had a similar experience.

I see Nationwide (£250m over 3 years) and other financial institutions who have been fiscally conservative - and by extension their customers - having to bail out the idiot banks. Thanks government!

3. We appear to have a few banks that still exist, instead of being bankrupt. Like almost every major bank in the country that would be bankrupt now without government assistance.

Bankruptcy doesn't stop banks existing. Orderly bankruptcy would have been a very good practice. You can wipe out all shareholders and creditors over the course of a weekend and have the bank operating perfectly on the Monday. I'd also disagree with most banks having disappeared, indeed in the case of Lloyds TSB they destroyed the institution by forcing through a merger with a toxic bank.

bo_drinker

Dan: wrote: »

Which is why this ridiculous rule will not be implemented across the industry.

Why. It was the norm a few years ago and we were not in the !!!!!! then 125% mortgages and all that cr4p. We are in deep as a country (not personally) because of greed etc so things need to go backwards it seems.

ad9898_3

bo_drinker wrote: »

If they bring in a rule of 3.5 x salary for mortgages as they are talking about then property will have to drop some more. Thousands will be in n e with no chance.

My feeling here is this, the government/FSA (ahem), will not bring in a rule that states 3x salary, as the government would be extremely unpopular to a large portion of the voting public who are in deep sh*t as we speak.

However what I do see happening is when the market eventually finds its way down to 3x-3.5x single income, as part of the natural house price cycle, ( call it undershoot if you like, but it will happen this time, just like it has happened every other crash) the government/FSA will then lock it at that level, therefore distancing themselves from the situation by saying 'We are just reacting to the natural cycle, to stop boom/bust in the market, rather than risk being seen to actually cause a crash in prices.'

They know something needs doing to curb peoples sheep like mentality of walking into oblivion, so that the scale of the current situation doesn't happen again. The problem for them is, how to do it without upsetting 'mondeo man' and thus electoral suicide.

bo_drinker

ad9898 wrote: »

My feeling here is this, the government/FSA (ahem), will not bring in a rule that states 3x salary, as the government would be extremely unpopular to a large portion of the voting public who are in deep sh*t as we speak.

However what I do see happening is when the market eventually finds its way down to 3x-3.5x single income, as part of the natural house price cycle, ( call it undershoot if you like, but it will happen this time, just like it has happened every other crash) the government/FSA will then lock it at that level, therefore distancing themselves from the situation by saying 'We are just reacting to the natural cycle, to stop boom/bust in the market, rather than risk being seen to actually cause a crash in prices.'

They know something needs doing to curb peoples sheep like mentality of walking into oblivion, so that the scale of the current situation doesn't happen again. The problem for them is, how to do it without upsetting 'mondeo man' and thus electoral suicide.

Makes sense.