Are Bulls on MSE : EA's : BTLers : Other :

Thrugelmir

tommy75 wrote: »

The people that were silly enough to borrow ridiculous multiples of their pa wage (most people in UK are ignorant of housing bubbles and thats why VI is working to some extent atm) between 2005 to the end of 2007, I see, and why would most of these people be bothered or not? A house is a home for most of the UK population, not a cash cow and thats how the majority of home owners look at it.
If I was in negative equity, I wouldn't be on here every single day trying to tell people that we are out of recession and house prices have stabilized at the high average there are at. If I lost my job, I still wouldn't be on here every night spouting green shoots, I'd be looking for a job.
Its either BTL or EA and maybe a few people with nothing else to do that bought in the last few years, and want to feel like they made a good financial decision rather than a poor one.

its not a 2 year bubble..... in reality NR started its aggressive lending around 1995. Lehmans its securitised packaging around the same time. This has been a while in the making. Creating a whole generation that only have known rising property prices.

IveSeenTheLight

ad9898 wrote: »

It's difficult to say, and to honest I'm not too fussed, if someone has a VI in prices going up due to employment or business, you can't really blame them, and to be honest on a forum it adds to debate, we do have some good debates on here.

My gripe at the moment is the media and government are full of bullish VI, with never any counter argument against rising prices, we have a bit of Beeney telling it like it is, a bit of Merryn Someret-Webb, and Jonathan Davies (former HPC spokesman), the latter two though get no airtime at all to speak of, and Beeney has only just come back on the scene.

This kind of one sided debate in the media is unhelpful, biased, and unhealthy. As far as the bulls go on here, they are sound, I'm not bothered what they do.

Just to answer the question though, I think most are BTL'rs.

The thing about Merryn Someret-Webb, she has a VI too does she not.
I understand she STR'd so obviously wants prices to go down so she has more of her equity cash left

tommy75

Thrugelmir wrote: »

its not a 2 year bubble..... in reality NR started its aggressive lending around 1995. Lehmans its securitised packaging around the same time. This has been a while in the making. Creating a whole generation that only have known rising property prices.

Yes but its only Mid 2004 average prices we are equal to now, so its only 2004-2007 that are in or are around negative equity and even so, its not going to be a huge amount (about 16% falls so far) unless its multiple homes.

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

In reality, of the 6 bulls on here who are regulars, 4 are - or claim to be - in BTL (ISTL, Kenny something-or-other, chucky and pickles+random numbers) whilst 2 (mitchaa and Really) bought close to the peak so are presumably stressed about negative equity.

So I voted for BTL, as that covered the majority.

Don't know any regulars on here who are EA's - a couple of mortgage brokers, who aren't generally especially bullish.

Remember, I'm a bull who.......
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=12813653&postcount=6

ad9898_3

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The thing about Merryn Someret-Webb, she has a VI too does she not.
I understand she STR'd so obviously wants prices to go down so she has more of her equity cash left

Yes she does, the point I was making is there isn't enough of people like her getting airtime, it's always RICS said this, EA's said that, CML said the other, with no one to counter their sometimes very feeble arguments.

IveSeenTheLight

ad9898 wrote: »

Yes she does, the point I was making is there isn't enough of people like her getting airtime, it's always RICS said this, EA's said that, CML said the other, with no one to counter their sometimes very feeble arguments.

Point taken, as long as people are aware of information provided from a VI point of view for both sides and can make informed decisions personally from the facts presented.

ad9898_3

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Point taken, as long as people are aware of information provided from a VI point of view for both sides and can make informed decisions personally from the facts presented.

Agree totally, it's just that two sides rarely exist, which is a pity.

1echidna

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL, how can I tell you, when I'm asking you a question based on what you said.

I also don't see why bears need to turn into bulls otherwise the markets could only ever go down?

We have bears, and bulls. If the bears all turned into bulls the markets would go crazy. Bears don't need to turn into bulls for markets to go up?!

There will always be bears, and always bulls, and I don't think it's just something you swap suddenly.

Assuming, in very rough terms bears are selling and bulls are buying a change in the balance will change the direction of the market.

As for a political change you seem to one who implies that Gordon Brown is responsible for the recession. Isn't is reasonable to assume that you would be more bullish about the markets if the Conservatives were in power?

Graham_Devon

1echidna wrote: »

Assuming, in very rough terms bears are selling and bulls are buying a change in the balance will change the direction of the market.

As for a political change you seem to one who implies that Gordon Brown is responsible for the recession. Isn't is reasonable to assume that you would be more bullish about the markets if the Conservatives were in power?

No, its not reasonable.

I don't hold brown responsible solely for the recession and never have. I have always said his disasterous policies have put us in a worse position.

To be fair, if the tories get in, I will be MORE bearish, as I believe the tories may actually make some tough decisions which will take us down further....but the key here is, we NEED to go down further if we are going to return to any sense.

I will never be bullish. Ever. At least I don't think. I have always been this way about things.

I believe strongly in people having the chance of a home and a life beyond work. I believe strongly that people should be able to enjoy life, aswell as work hard and pay their way.

I believe that the cost of houses and the cost of living in this country is stopping people from enjoying life and enjoying retirement. For those inbetweeners....those in the middle of having the safety of the benefits net, and being well off, retirement is a sad predicament. Living day to day is a sad predicament. I don't think it should be like this, and I do believe that bulls ramping markets and house prices in order to secure their own wealth is damaging to the nation as a whole.

I hae always said we need optimism just as much as pessimism. But the optimism I am seeing from the bulls, aswell as your first post on this thread, as I have said, is beyond dellusion.

It seems to me, SOME bull type personalities would sell their own mother into a home that they knew was going to lose value, so long as it keeps them on top.

IveSeenTheLight

tommy75 wrote: »

Yes but its only Mid 2004 average prices we are equal to now, so its only 2004-2007 that are in or are around negative equity and even so, its not going to be a huge amount (about 16% falls so far) unless its multiple homes.

CML report 900,000 in negative equity of which approx 600,000 are in NE for less than 10k

CML also report there are 11.1 Million Mortgages, therefore 8.1% of mortgaged property is in Negative equity or roughly 4% of all home owners

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/2285

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/filegrab/Homeownerhousingequitythroughthedownturn.pdf?ref=6360