House Prices up 4.2% in 3 months Nationwide

Generali

chucky wrote: »

you are of course correct but and not directed at you but why do people always refer to the 90s recession. why not the arly 80s one or even the mid-70s one which was more similar to today's?

The mid-70s seems to have the best analogy to me - high oil prices, flaky financial system, Labour Government ruining the State finances by taking on private sector debt.

I wonder if we'll have a General Strike (as the UK pretty much had in 1978-9)?

chucky

Generali wrote: »

The mid-70s seems to have the best analogy to me - high oil prices, flaky financial system, Labour Government ruining the State finances by taking on private sector debt.

I wonder if we'll have a General Strike (as the UK pretty much had in 1978-9)?

the mid-70s recession also had the banking crisis where banks had to be bailed out due to loose lending - there was also a massive asset price increase when we came out of recession.

my point really was why couldn't that happen now - why compare it to the 90s recession when there are very few similarities?

my view on that is because most of the graphs and facts we see are from the 90s recession and most of them come out of HPC.co.uk and similar sites because it fits peoples agendas and viewpoint not because it's could happen.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

I wonder if we'll have a General Strike (as the UK pretty much had in 1978-9)?

You are joking, people are scared for their jobs :eek:

Generali

chucky wrote: »

the mid-70s recession also had the banking crisis where banks had to be bailed out due to loose lending - there was also a massive asset price increase when we came out of recession.

my point really was why couldn't that happen now - why compare it to the 90s recession when there are very few similarities?

my view on that is because most of the graphs and facts we see are from the 90s recession and most of them come out of HPC.co.uk and similar sites because it fits peoples agendas and viewpoint not because it's could happen.

All reasonable points. I'd say there is one thing that makes a big boom in asset prices less likely than in the mid-70s and that's the age of baby boomers. In the mid-1970s, the baby boomers starting to hit their 20s and 30s which meant there was a lot of cash entering the pension funds. Also, women entering the workplace in large numbers meant that there was a lot more income available to service large mortgages.

Now that generation is in their 50s and 60s so more likely to be winding down risky assets in favour of low risk, high income products. Also, the proportion of women in the labour market isn't likely to climb markedly in the future.

The former might mean buying BTL places for cash (perceived low risk, produces a steady income, one would hope) but is more likely to mean IMO buying Gilts either directly or via an annuity. BTW, my feeling is that the only great hope for the Government to get away the massive Gilt sales they have planned is for reitrees or soon to be retireds to buy them.

Generali

StevieJ wrote: »

You are joking, people are scared for their jobs :eek:

Not joking at all. Most public sector workers feel their position is pretty much bombproof. Why would they worry about getting the sack if they strike when for decades Governments have shown they will tolerate public sector employees going on strike.

The_White_Horse

StevieJ wrote: »

You are joking, people are scared for their jobs :eek:

I think you are the one joking. Do you really think things like facts and figures will stop the rabid lefty unions??? hahahahaha

they want more, and more and then some more and it is irrelevant to these scum bags where it comes from.

StevieJ

The_White_Horse wrote: »

I think you are the one joking. Do you really think things like facts and figures will stop the rabid lefty unions??? hahahahaha

they want more, and more and then some more and it is irrelevant to these scum bags where it comes from.

What lefty unions

davilown

So back to the topic, is this a 'dead cat bounce' or is the market recovering?

I can't see the market recovering because of the tax increases, below inflation pay rises and IR increases - surely they can't lead to further increase? Less take home pay = >% on mortgage/rent?

Dan:_4

davilown wrote: »

So back to the topic, is this a 'dead cat bounce' or is the market recovering?

I can't see the market recovering because of the tax increases, below inflation pay rises and IR increases - surely they can't lead to further increase? Less take home pay = >% on mortgage/rent?

Not recovering, just reaching the bottom.

Snooze

ad9898 wrote: »

I think the best time to buy is 2-3 years time, then you will know if you still have enough money left from your take home pay to service your mortgage *, after IR's have returned to normal, tax hikes have come in and obviously you still have a job. All these issues are going to affect the market in a negative way. At this point, the financial meltdown has been averted, now what we will see going into the future is what a very bad recession will do to the housing market, the bottom line is, it's not going to be good.



* Assuming you need a mortgage.

:eek: Don't leave it til then ad9898!! You'll have missed the boat!!

R :rotfl: