House sales jump 40% in March

MORPH3US

Could the stamp duty relief ending in September (?) have anything to do with the increase also... (although I understand that this will now be extended until December in today's budget).

System

The HPC site version of this topic is hilarious

"But sales are still down compared to 2007!!!oneone!

"OMG it's the bbc don't believe them!"

garthdp

Really2 wrote: »

Dream on people

The worst as gone, the recession is not far over.

See, claims like that are easy if you don't back them up with any fact:)

lets talk again in 6 months and see where we are.we can quote " facts" till we are all blue in the face but the way the world economy has been run,the unimaginable debts run up that will need to be covered,the over priced housing ,well I could go on .But this aint over by a long chalk.I am not a doom merchant just a realist

themanbearpig

Really2 wrote: »

See, claims like that are easy if you don't back them up with any fact:)

Someone hasn't been keeping up with current affairs. The IMF disagrees with your analysis:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/edmund_conway/blog/2009/04/21/we_are_not_even_halfway_through_the_banking_crisis__imf

and


http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3554446/the-imfs-damning-verdict.thtml




The government were so concerned with this graph:


They pulled some strings and got it removed from the report.

You are the one that is dreaming if you believe things are only going to get better.


This report revealing the reality and enormity of this recession got a whole 30 seconds on the news.

Graham_Devon

I just posted a thread about mortgage lending increasing 16%.

So this doesn't correlate with sales up 40%. Though of course some could be doing it without mortgages.

Does this 40% figure include SSTC? I'm seeing loads on rightmove moving in and out of SSTC. I suppose they ARE sold, but many don't get through to completion.

Or is this 40% solely sold and completed? In which case, it's a pretty big jump.

ad9898_3

When we see these headlines, does anyone remember 1991 ? and what happened there after ? I can't believe people have either short memories, or no memory at all. We had many months in the '90's when prices 'rose' some were 2 or 3 in a row, then they were reversed, with a bit on top leading to overall price falls for 4 years. I see nothing different here than last time.

JonnyBravo

Cat695 wrote: »

Oh and sales are still less than HALF of last year!!

Just to reinforce and expand on JoeSkeppi's view.
Of course they are lower.
Do we ever want them to get back to that level?
If the numbers of transactions get back to that level it would suggest lending has become incredibly lax again. Surely everyone agrees the market will recover without going back to the numbers of mortgages being handed out having to go to the 2007 levels?
I'm not saying it is in full blown recovery now but to use this as some kind of proof that there is no recovery until we get back to the lunacy of 2007 is wrong IMO.

lostinrates

ad9898 wrote: »

When we see these headlines, does anyone remember 1991 ? and what happened there after ? I can't believe people have either short memories, or no memory at all. We had many months in the '90's when prices 'rose' some were 2 or 3 in a row, then they were reversed, with a bit on top leading to overall price falls for 4 years. I see nothing different here than last time.

I don't really.

I was 12 or something like that and had fairly limited interest in house prices and the economy. Not no interest, but I'd say house prices still came lower down my list of interest and concern than a new type of clear mascara and my homework. For people who still don't follow the economic news and have no interest in the history and are around my age or younger...my guess is its no memory,and no interst in reading of others.

Dan:_4

ad9898 wrote: »

When we see these headlines, does anyone remember 1991 ? and what happened there after ? I can't believe people have either short memories, or no memory at all. We had many months in the '90's when prices 'rose' some were 2 or 3 in a row, then they were reversed, with a bit on top leading to overall price falls for 4 years. I see nothing different here than last time.

Yes but in 1991 prices had only fallen by less then 10%.

Graham_Devon

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Just to reinforce and expand on JoeSkeppi's view.
Of course they are lower.
Do we ever want them to get back to that level?
If the numbers of transactions get back to that level it would suggest lending has become incredibly lax again. Surely everyone agrees the market will recover without going back to the numbers of mortgages being handed out having to go to the 2007 levels?
I'm not saying it is in full blown recovery now but to use this as some kind of proof that there is no recovery until we get back to the lunacy of 2007 is wrong IMO.

It does seem rather odd that the benchmark of 2007, height of the boom, has been set as the "recovery point".

I don't think it's the fault of people themselves as such though, as even Gordon Brown has set that benchmark with all his promises of lending being returned to 2007 levels whenever he spends taxpayers money on another massive loss plan.