House Prices up 4.2% in 3 months Nationwide

mp2

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.

the thing you need to appreciate is the relativity of it all. its not a case of prices will just go up, but go up from what reference point?

if i told you at the height of the housing boom in 1989 , in todays equivalent money, inlfation adjusted, prices were £110-120k in todays money. ( nominal prices were actually around 60k)

i.e even after the recent price falls, house "values" today at 150k are still way higher than what they were in 1989 at the very top of the peak.

if you think fundamentally there is a shift in the market and that house values are "worth" (not priced) significantly more these days, then thats up to you.

but taking history into account, the real long term values of houses should be closer to 90k in todays money.

System

Lotus-eater wrote: »

At the moment there is far too much hope and belief that it will be where it was in Sept 07 in a years time.

Despite constant suggestions that this is the case, I've never once seen anyone say this.

Lotus-eater

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Despite constant suggestions that this is the case, I've never once seen anyone say this.

I don't care what suggestions you have heard, several people have said this to me in the last few weeks.

I didn't record it though. Maybe I should have done.

chucky

mp2 wrote: »

the thing you need to appreciate is the relativity of it all. its not a case of prices will just go up, but go up from what reference point?

if i told you at the height of the housing boom in 1989 , in todays equivalent money, inlfation adjusted, those prices would be £110-120k in todays market. ( nominal prices were around 60k)

i.e even after the recent price falls, house "values" today at 150k are still way higher than what they were in 1989 at the very top of the peak.

if you think fundamentally there is a shift in the market and that house values are "worth" (not priced) significantly more these days, then thats up to you.

but taking history into account, the real long term values of houses should be closer to 90k in todays money.

so why choose 1989 as the reference point - why not 1975, 1985, 1995 or even 2005?

System

Lotus-eater wrote: »

I don't care what suggestions you have heard, several people have said this to me in the last few weeks.

I didn't record it though. Maybe I should have done.

Stop socialising with morons then

chucky

Lotus-eater wrote: »

I do and I remember every other week someone popping up to say the crash was over and everyone go away, nothing to see here.

ok - do you know what happened in the earlys 80s recession and even 1975 HPC can you you remember what happened then?

because coming out of recession was different to the early 1990s recession and a much shorter recovery.

mp2

chucky wrote: »

so why choose 1989 as the reference point - why not 1975, 1985, 1995 or even 2005?

because in real terms, in 1989 house prices were valued higher than they had ever been before, and inevitably it all tumbled back to the norm again.

so when people talk about it stabilising etc.. you still need to appreciate that they would be stabilising at a price for higher than the top of the previous boom in 1989.

if you think thats sustainable then thats your choice.

Lotus-eater

chucky wrote: »

ok - do you know what happened in the earlys 80s recession and even 1975 HPC can you you remember what happened then?

because coming out of recession was different to the early 1990s recession and much shorter.

No I can't and I go on what I remember. To me that's more relevant. Most of the people I talk to seem to have even forgotten that one. Joe says that I may be socialising with morons, which may be true, or may not be The fact that people think differently to the way you think, you don't seem to like or believe.

If you believe that prices will continue up from now, that's your choice, I just happen to think otherwise.

chucky

mp2 wrote: »

because in real terms, in 1989 house prices were valued higher than they had ever been before, and inevitably it all tumbled back to the norm again.

in 1973 or even 1980 (before 1989 obviously) house prices would have been valued higher that they'd ever been before because they had always increased afterwards.

it's like saying i'm going to choose 2007 comparing it to 2009 because 2007 is when they've been higher than before in nominal calculations.

mp2

chucky wrote: »

in 1973 or even 1980 (before 1989 obviously) house prices would have been valued higher that they'd ever been before because they had always increased afterwards.

it's like saying i'm going to choose 2007 comparing it to 2009 because 2007 is when they've been higher than before in nominal calculations.

no because in 1973 or 1980, inflation adjusted, the real values of houses were not that high.

someone posted a chart from nationwide that shows this data. ill see if i can find it.