Halifax +2.6 % MoM

ad44downey

Beware the bulltrap.

Don't get taken for a mug.

Lotus-eater

chucky wrote: »

it may not be a 5 bedroom house but it's a house.
it is possible, maybe not for everyone but it is possible.

unfortunately, there will always be and has always been people that can't afford to buy a house.

I think back to when I first bought and if I was in the same situation now, same job, same prospects, I would really struggle to buy the same house I did. Two up two down terrace.
In fact I wouldn't be able to buy it tbh. The markets still not right. Quite if it knows that, is something different.

chucky

MrDT wrote: »

like the house I'm viewing tonight, approx 45% down from peak.

good luck! :beer:

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Houses being affordable on normal wages, I guess.

I know it's a bit much to ask and all that, but kinda something that would help if people could actually buy a house on 3.5x their actual earnings, not some average wage figure of 35k for a bloke, which is actually pretty close to higher earner teritory, funnily enough.

I have to agree with you here, from what I gather West country doesn't pay very good wages and yet your house prices are higher due to holiday homes for Londoners and retirees. You have my sympathy

JonnyBravo

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Actually, I suppose when you look at this, it makes absolutely perfect sense. It follows the pattern perfectly.



I know it's been posted a lot of times, but so far, this graph has been nothing but accurate. And now, we seem to be following it yet again, with a massive surge in a bull trap.

Just as I cannot deny or write anything to bring down the positive 2.6% figure, I doubt anyone can deny we are following the path of that graph very closely.

Yeah we see that graph posted around a lot. And it does fit the trend of house prices since 1982 or summut.... a lot of people claim it is because it is the perfect model for predicting how house prices move.

That's disingenous I'm afraid.

As Really2 stated the model started out in a different context altogether. For it to apply to house prices in any meaningful way you need the same group of people buying houses in 1982 as now. What about all the people who have "left the market" and all the people who are new to the market (ie now old enough to buy)?
The model is designed to work on the premise that the participants experienced the earlier events and I'm afraid that just isn't true over such a large timescale.

Now I'm sure some will interpret this as saying I think house prices aren't going to fall further. Please don't. I think they will.
But for very different reasons than "it's going to happen cos we're following that graph".
(Those reasons being the underlying various weak fundamentals of the market)

mitchaa

chucky wrote: »

i've always thought this but i'm starting to think that unemployment isn't as an important factor here.

until we see massive drops in retail sales etc... i don't think unemployment is one of the biggest drivers of house prices.

As said in a previous thread, the majority are keeping their jobs and the numbers going into the dole queue are just not large enough to have a serious impact.

Sure reposessions are increasing but not on a large enough scale to bring the housing market to its knees.

Workforce = 30m
Unemployment expected to reach 3m, minus the long term average of 1.5m so 1.5m as a result of the downturn.1.5m/30m = 5%. Then we can rattle off a lot of this figure with those that are not housing market linked, to probably just 1-2%. Given those that are linked with the housing market, with the ISMI scheme in place to pay mortgage interest, a lot of unemployed will keep their homes, so the numbers (to me anyway) are insignificant to make much of an impact.

The test comes with interest rates to which again i have a little optimism

Really2

MrDT wrote: »

well, someone had to do it, may as well be me...



A / B? Discuss

For the record, I think "A" - but that wouldn't stop me buying somewhere that's priced correctly... like the house I'm viewing tonight, approx 45% down from peak.

edit - beaten, by graham, half an hour from starting to write a post to clicking the submit button, that's just poor foruming

But like you said it could be A or B we are only likely to find out in the future.(so that is why i disagree with the graph)

If you belive the graph we are at B as the return to mean pricing.:eek:

I dont belive we are though that is why I think the graph is pants and is used to try and rationalise asset markets with a process.

It is in the end market forces that drive assets.

ad44downey

A salutory lesson for any potential mugs out there:

'House prices in Britain rose last month, confirming that the slump levelled
'
House prices in Britain rose last month, confirming that the slump in the south of England has levelled out, according to the Halifax,' ran the story in The Times. 'The Halifax's latest quarterly survey shows that prices in general rose by 0.5%, and the indications are of a definite bottoming-out'.


The above statements were not made this week or last week. In fact, they were made in October 1990. House prices didn't bottom for another four years.


http://www.moneyweek.com/investments...ash-14794.aspx

Really2

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Yeah we see that graph posted around a lot. And it does fit the trend of house prices since 1982 or summut.... a lot of people claim it is because it is the perfect model for predicitng how house prices move.

That's disingenous I'm afraid.

As Really2 the model started out in a different context altogether. For it to apply to house prices in any meaningful way you need the same group of people buying houses in 1982 as now. What about all the people who have "left the market" and all the people who are new to the market (ie now old enough to buy)?
The model is designed to work on the premise that the participants experienced the earlier events and I'm afriad that just isn't true over such a large timescale.

Now I'm sure some will interpret this as saying I think house prices aren't going to fall further. Please don't. I think they will.
But for very different reasons than "it's going to happen cos we're following that graph".
(Those reasons being the underlying various weak fundamentals of the market)

I could not (and did not) say it better myself.:D

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

i can't, but i've seen it so many times now. but i have a question - the x-axis doesn't indicate a time period.
do you think that's it's a one-size fits all graph to suit an argument?

I would say it doesnt indicate a time period, as you cannot put a time period on such a thing?

If I asked you to tell me when this will all be over, you'd be able to tell me the best time to buy, you'd be a very VERY rich man.

So I guess there is no time period, as it's impossible to give.