Experts say wait 5 years to buy back into property

kje_2

I bought in 1994 which was, pretty much, the bottom in my location (just luck on my part as I'm not some property investor and I wanted somewhere to live). My house didn't start to rise much in value for a few years after. Certainly, not the double digit figures experienced by other areas in the growing boom. Then things caught up and prices went up but not as crazy as other locations. Even within a large town or city there are going to be areas that rise or fall more than others. During the peak, I'd still say that prices in this area were "affordable" even if too expensive for what you were getting.

Just be wary of the "average price" and the "average market".

Harry_Powell

Sheesh, 5 years? Oh well, 18 months down, only 3.5 years to go.

I dont think my GF will let us wait that long! Actually, that's unfair, because I wouldn't want to wait that long either. We'll probably be basing our decision to buy on how many of our 'tickboxes' are checked. We want a family sized home with a decent sized garden, preferrably semi or detached, in a location with a good community feel, a high street, good schools, low crime figures and most importantly, within our price range. As soon as the majority of these boxes are ticked, we'll by buying.

I suspect that the day we buy will be the day we forget about house prices and start worrying about mortgage rates, council taxes and utility costs.

amcluesent

>in a location with a good community feel,...low crime figures<

Say no more, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Are you related to Enoch by any chance?

mewbie_2

The artifical lowering of interest rates (inflation is still well over target and set to rise), means that hard pressed owners have in some cases found a bit of breathing space. The drops may slow for a brief period, giving an equally artificial bottom. The non appearance of the 2010 'spring bounce', increase in interest rates AND taxes, will give renewed impetus to the drops.

lana22

RDB wrote: »

Surely it would be better to get it over with. Get the price back down to the mean long term average where it should be. Everyone knows it will get back there which means most homeowners are going to be in neg equity and millions are going to be reposessed, but lets just get it over with so we can move forward.

I don't know the figures, but I am pretty sure that "most" home owners won't be in negative equity.

mewbie_2

lana22 wrote: »

I don't know the figures, but I am pretty sure that "most" home owners won't be in negative equity.

Early days mate. Who would have thought banks could lose 90% of their value? House price bubbles are the only ones where a slow deflation takes place. Don't mistake slow for controlled.

Dan:_4

RDB wrote: »

Surely it would be better to get it over with. Get the price back down to the mean long term average where it should be. Everyone knows it will get back there which means most homeowners are going to be in neg equity and millions are going to be reposessed, but lets just get it over with so we can move forward.

Roughly translated, this means, Can house prices harry up and fall 70% because I earn a below average salary.

lana22

mewbie wrote: »

Early days mate. Who would have thought banks could lose 90% of their value? House price bubbles are the only ones where a slow deflation takes place. Don't mistake slow for controlled.

I still don't buy it. I think something like 25% of the population own outright. Even if prices drop, say 70% from peak, then I am sure there are another 25% of home owners who had <30% LTV at peak (bearing in mind not everyone bought in the last few years/mew'd).

So for MOST people to be in negative equity just seems like a bit of an overstatement.

I am not disputing that houses are going to drop, just the proportion of people who will be in NE.

mewbie_2

lana22 wrote: »

I am not disputing that houses are going to drop, just the proportion of people who will be in NE.

You're right, I was thinking more about people who have taken on BTL's in the last ten years, by releasing equity from the family home.

"I own four properties"
"Er no. You have huge mortgages on four properties with an ever decreasing amount of equity in each"

NE on one property would be bad, but not the end of the world. On multiple properties, drowning in a sea of debt - unimaginable.

Oh but sorry I forgot. It's all Fred Goodwin's fault.

Cleaver

mewbie wrote: »

Oh but sorry I forgot. It's all Fred Goodwin's fault.

Yeeeeeaaaaah, that Scottish no good, greedy, Louis Walsh looking, slimey, b*stard banking, money losing, equity creating, bank buying, collatorized dabt munching, Amro fudging, m*therf*cking-sub-priming git.