If house prices fall another 37% ...

SingleSue

Kenny4315 wrote: »

My prediction has always been around the 30% to 35% mark. It is this week it was last week, and it was the same, months and months ago. :money: It'll be the same next week and the following too.

I thought I was being daring with 15% down, 20% at the absolute outside when this all started.......now it is into plain scary territory.

Kenny4315

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh really!?

That means then obviously that they should be priced out of thr market and home owners should just keep getting richer through bricks.

Your vested interests and really shining through lovely now. Keep those FTB's in your properties renting lining your pockets.

That's what I like to hear Devon now your getting it.......

Was round at my flats today sorting out the fire alarm, had a nice cup of tea and biscuits, with one of my tenants. Coming round mine next week to play some video games, said I'd brush off my N64 and Dreamcast.

Funny his views did not reflect yours, he was very happy to pay a very fair rent, in a well maintained building, in a great location, strange that isn't it.

He has no intention of being tied to a property good job there are community spirited individuals around to help these type of people. :money:

He's been there for 3 years, and was so happy he had his friends move into the ground floor flat and into the top flat when they became free. Must be doing something right there GD.... :T

whathavewedone

Not really Sue, this is just another "maybe" "perhaps" "what if" article written by some bloke who's sold to rent and has a vested interest in prices going as low as possible. Back to 1996 levels? Very nice too.

Kenny you are right, it is the 30-55 year old age bracket that drive the economy but the 22 year olds sitting on their mums' computers are not going to acknowledge that.

Mewbie, there are lots of things that could be done.

1. Inflation could be fiddled to keep interest rates artificially low. This won't stop house prices falling or make them rise but it will stop people who haven't lost their jobs from being forced to sell/repossessed.

2. Alternatively in the event of inflation interest rates could be raised for savers, first time buyers and those with equity who haven't fixed their rates but those who are in negative equity to nationalised banks could be given long term fixed rate repayment mortgages at low rates. The banks get their money, the borrowers get to stay in their homes, the government doesn't get any nasty publicity, everyone's a winner.

3. Nationalised banks could repossess properties in the event of default due to high interest rates and negative equity and rent them back to the owners on a long lease.

4. The American system of hand back the keys could be brought in enabling people to walk away from their debts and start afresh - maybe buying a house for cash if they were that cheap.

I'm sure if I had more time I could think of a number of other alternatives.

Graham_Devon

whathavewedone wrote: »

1. Inflation could be fiddled to keep interest rates artificially low. This won't stop house prices falling or make them rise but it will stop people who haven't lost their jobs from being forced to sell/repossessed.

Are you serious? Fiddle inflation to make house prices rise!? Are you kidding me?! You can't just fiddle a figure, inflation will still be there!! We'll all still be paying higher prices!

2. Alternatively in the event of inflation interest rates could be raised for savers, first time buyers and those with equity who haven't fixed their rates but those who are in negative equity to nationalised banks could be given long term fixed rate repayment mortgages at low rates. The banks get their money, the borrowers get to stay in their homes, the government doesn't get any nasty publicity, everyone's a winner.

Apart from the banks, who lose money left right and centre as they are paying more to savers than they are lending for.[/quote]

3. Nationalised banks could repossess properties in the event of default due to high interest rates and negative equity and rent them back to the owners on a long lease.

And who pays for this? The taxpayer? So taxes have to rise, along with fiddled inflation, along with house prices rising!??!

4. The American system of hand back the keys could be brought in enabling people to walk away from their debts and start afresh - maybe buying a house for cash if they were that cheap.

Erm, well this caused America's downfall.

I'm sure if I had more time I could think of a number of other alternatives.

Any that will work!?

StevieJ

SingleSue wrote: »

I thought I was being daring with 15% down, 20% at the absolute outside when this all started.......now it is into plain scary territory.

What is scary about 20%

themanbearpig

whathavewedone wrote: »

Not really Sue, this is just another "maybe" "perhaps" "what if" article written by some bloke who's sold to rent and has a vested interest in prices going as low as possible. Back to 1996 levels? Very nice too.

Kenny you are right, it is the 30-55 year old age bracket that drive the economy but the 22 year olds sitting on their mums' computers are not going to acknowledge that.

Mewbie, there are lots of things that could be done.

1. Inflation could be fiddled to keep interest rates artificially low. This won't stop house prices falling or make them rise but it will stop people who haven't lost their jobs from being forced to sell/repossessed.

2. Alternatively in the event of inflation interest rates could be raised for savers, first time buyers and those with equity who haven't fixed their rates but those who are in negative equity to nationalised banks could be given long term fixed rate repayment mortgages at low rates. The banks get their money, the borrowers get to stay in their homes, the government doesn't get any nasty publicity, everyone's a winner.

3. Nationalised banks could repossess properties in the event of default due to high interest rates and negative equity and rent them back to the owners on a long lease.

4. The American system of hand back the keys could be brought in enabling people to walk away from their debts and start afresh - maybe buying a house for cash if they were that cheap.

I'm sure if I had more time I could think of a number of other alternatives.

Those sorts of drastic measures would probably be used in a 1990's Japan type scenario, where assets are predicted to fall to 1/10th of their peak values.
The government only believed the house prices would fall 5% and then stagnate for 3 years! You really think they are competant enough to carefully engineer a slowdown of falls?

50%-60% of peak values would arguably be more beneficial for the masses in the long run. There will be lots of people who become poorer as a resuly, but what really matter more, the baby boomer generations 'wealth', or a fairer society for all?

cocktail

themanbearpig wrote: »

50%-60% of peak values would arguably be more beneficial for the masses in the long run. There will be lots of people who become poorer as a resuly, but what really matter more, the baby boomer generations 'wealth', or a fairer society for all?

what matters is, people losing money in all fronts-salary cuts, share market, house equity,weaker currency, higher taxes, lower interest for savings.
obviously for people who have none of the above--no salary, no shares, no house, no savings-- it makes no difference.
what fairer society are you talking about. do you want a socialist society.

Kenny4315

cocktail wrote: »

what fairer society are you talking about. do you want a socialist society.

Exactly.... it's the society were those who have been saving for years/decades steadily, climbed up the market and then are reduced to nothing or worse, so those currently leaving school or university can buy within 6 months. :money: or those moaners priced out of the market because there the ripe old age of 20 can buy instead of renting, as buying would be a way to make them some hassle free money.

Time2Go_25

themanbearpig wrote: »

a fairer society for all?

Please define what you mean by a fairer society.

SingleSue

whathavewedone wrote: »

Not really Sue, this is just another "maybe" "perhaps" "what if" article written by some bloke who's sold to rent and has a vested interest in prices going as low as possible. Back to 1996 levels? Very nice too.

Kenny you are right, it is the 30-55 year old age bracket that drive the economy but the 22 year olds sitting on their mums' computers are not going to acknowledge that.

Mewbie, there are lots of things that could be done.

1. Inflation could be fiddled to keep interest rates artificially low. This won't stop house prices falling or make them rise but it will stop people who haven't lost their jobs from being forced to sell/repossessed.

2. Alternatively in the event of inflation interest rates could be raised for savers, first time buyers and those with equity who haven't fixed their rates but those who are in negative equity to nationalised banks could be given long term fixed rate repayment mortgages at low rates. The banks get their money, the borrowers get to stay in their homes, the government doesn't get any nasty publicity, everyone's a winner.

3. Nationalised banks could repossess properties in the event of default due to high interest rates and negative equity and rent them back to the owners on a long lease.

4. The American system of hand back the keys could be brought in enabling people to walk away from their debts and start afresh - maybe buying a house for cash if they were that cheap.

I'm sure if I had more time I could think of a number of other alternatives.

Yes....I meant the situation now is what is scaring me as that is over and above what I thought the drops may be by the complete finish of it all.

You could say I was originally taking the optimistic bear attitude.