Buyers beware as confident home sellers start to hold out for the asking price

chucky

Harry_Powell wrote: »

where did I say that house prices would fall 70%?? :rolleyes:

Ohhh, he's making it up as he goes along!

you still haven't come back with anything to back up your sweeping generalisations - so we'll take this step by step for you...
the sentence has two parts to it and is comparing two things - i've linked them by putting the word 'and' in there...

"it's quite similar to the generalised statement that young Harry made and the argument that house prices will drop 70%."

the first part relates to you, hence it having your name mentioned.
the second part is related to the generalised comments on this forum.
it's not hard to understand...

Cannon_Fodder

JonnyBravo wrote: »

You're making the same mistake now CF.
Of course it's in first place for those who lose their job. Question is how many FTBers is that?
I'd bet many more are affected by the contraction of easily available mortgages with 5% deposits etc.
(Please note I am NOT saying that 5% mortgages are necessarily sensible and are needed etc)

All I've said is, its AN EFFECT.

MORE unemployment is going to have a negative impact, compared to FALLING unemployment...is that an untrue statement?

Stats do not exist for all combinations of situations.

That doesn't make something untrue, unless you can prove it...with stats...

chucky

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

you should try it now and then...

i do - you obviously don't understand them or don't suit your agenda :beer:
bad day?

Cannon_Fodder

http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2009/06/18/housing-market-confidence-outweighed-by-unemployment-fears/
Housing market confidence outweighed by unemployment fears

"However, fear of redundancy continued to put up a barrier with 61% of respondents citing this as their main concern when considering a house purchase. The proportion is unchanged from March."

" The Association’s head of mortgage policy, Paul Broadhead, comments: “People clearly recognise that with both property prices and mortgage rates having fallen, there are potential bargains to be found … however, for many, concerns over job security mean that they are unlikely to actually go ahead and buy.” "


Where yours...?

Harry_Powell

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Are you a pot or a kettle?

Care to consider my argument?

Your argument is simply an extension of Chuckey's Strawman. I said nothing except "lots of people losing their jobs would affect house prices". Chuckey started rambling on about all the other stuff not me.

Do you disagree with my statement that "lots of job losses would affect house prices"?

I also made a statement that I, personally, would be less likely to buy a house if I lost my job than I would be from lack of lending or lack of wage inflation. You introduced the percentage affects per capita argument, not me.

Do you disagree with my statement that "I, personally, would be less likely to buy a house if I lost my job, then I would due to lack of lending or wage inflation"?

chucky

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

All I've said is, its AN EFFECT.

MORE unemployment is going to have a negative impact, compared to FALLING unemployment...is that an untrue statement?

nobody has disagreed - questions have been asked whether other factors have a bigger impact on house prices which you seem to agree with anyway. why are you getting all cuffuffled for?

Harry_Powell wrote: »

We've had almost 15 months of bad news with the banks nearly going under and lots of people currently losing their jobs. A few 'green shoot' press reports aren't going to make much of an impact, no matter how much a few MSE bulls wish it.

from reading this the two most important factors that drive house prices are the banks going under and unemployment - i disagree and from one of your previous post you do too.

JonnyBravo

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Your argument is simply an extension of Chuckey's Strawman. I said nothing except "lots of people losing their jobs would affect house prices". Chuckey started rambling on about all the other stuff not me.

Do you disagree with my statement that "lots of job losses would affect house prices"?

Nope.

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I also made a statement that I, personally, would be less likely to buy a house if I lost my job than I would be from lack of lending or lack of wage inflation. You introduced the percentage affects per capita argument, not me.

Do you disagree with my statement that "I, personally, would be less likely to buy a house if I lost my job, then I would due to lack of lending or wage inflation"?

Nope.


If that is all you are asserting then I'm more than happy to agree with you.

Simples.
1. I misunderstood the stance you were taking, I thought you may have been using an anaology and applying your hypothetical situation to a population.
2. You clearly are not claiming this
3. We actually agree
4. Harmony

Harry_Powell

chucky wrote: »

you still haven't come back with anything to back up your sweeping generalisations - so we'll take this step by step for you...
the sentence has two parts to it and is comparing two things - i've linked them by putting the word 'and' in there...

"it's quite similar to the generalised statement that young Harry made and the argument that house prices will drop 70%."

the first part relates to you, hence it having your name mentioned.
the second part is related to the generalised comments on this forum.
it's not hard to understand...

My "sweeping generalisation" that you don't seem to agree with is that "lots of job losses will impact the housing market", and I believe that CF has already provided you with supporting documentation. I also don't believe for one minute that you think job losses have no impact on the housing market. I do believe that you're simply looking for an argument.

If you combine two statements together (with an 'and'), and put someone's name in the middle of those statements, it's not inconceivable to assume that people would attribute both statements to the person you're quoting. Well, for those of us who have a command of the English language, anyway. :cool:

chucky

i think we're nearly done with this one Harry

Harry_Powell wrote: »

My "sweeping generalisation" that you don't seem to agree with is that "lots of job losses will impact the housing market", and I believe that CF has already provided you with supporting documentation. I also don't believe for one minute that you think job losses have no impact on the housing market. I do believe that you're simply looking for an argument.

no argument to look for here - maybe you're being a bit over sensitive.
i've never told you that unemployment doesn't impact house prices - it's just not the major driver, in my view anyway.
and i think we could even agree on that...

Harry_Powell wrote: »

If you combine two statements together (with an 'and'), and put someone's name in the middle of those statements, it's not inconceivable to assume that people would attribute both statements to the person you're quoting. Well, for those of us who have a command of the English language, anyway. :cool:

i accept your apology

Harry_Powell

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Nope.




Nope.


If that is all you are asserting then I'm more than happy to agree with you.

Simples.
1. I misunderstood the stance you were taking, I thought you may have been using an anaology and applying your hypothetical situation to a population.
2. You clearly are not claiming this
3. We actually agree
4. Harmony

D'accord.