Halifax down 0.5% MoM, 15% YoY

moggylover

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You can buy a reasonably priced house today in large parts of the country. Just not in areas where the demand far outstrips supply.


i.e. those where there is insufficient work to pay the necessary very large mortgages.;)

Dream all you want, that won't change unless a lot more houses are built in the places people want to live, of the type people want to buy, and where employment exists to support them.

As little as 100 years ago, 90% of houses were owned by 10% of people. The lack of credit availability will do nothing but concentrate ownership in the hands of an increasingly smaller and wealthier section of society.

Like it or not, property has never been, and will never be, affordable to 100% of the population. This crash will not change that. At some point, people with money will see value at a price point higher than people without money can afford. That is the way things have always been, and always will be.

I would much prefer house prices to be affordable to the masses than to be pumped up to provide an extra comfy retirement to others (and I am 50 plus myself).

Just as a matter of interest, when you first bought your home did you do so just as an investment? How much did it cost and (most importantly) what wage multiplication did you have to use?

Unless the youngsters of today can have that same opportunity then eventually no-one will be able to move up or down the chain because without first time buyers who can actually AFFORD the bottom houses no-one moves! Worth considering when whining about our pension pots!

By your reasoning: any pensioner 100 years ago who expected to go on holiday every year would have been committed to a locked ward so maybe pensioners need to adjust their expectations of their old age as well!

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

Lots of country properties, many very desirable ones, go to auction. Some have ties/restrictions, lots do not. At least half the properties we have considered hve been going to auction, the rest seem to end up as bnest and final offers/seal bids. Although the idea of auction is uncomfortable to me I think its a better option than sealed bids.

That may be because of being agricultural land or estate sales?

Property with working land or country estates does tend to go to auction as it is often released on distress (imminent bankruptcy or death)

Generally only a small amount of "homes" go to auction unless distressed.

Agree auction is usually cheaper than sealed bids but also I suppose sealed bids could stop you overpaying (some people can be a bit compulsive at bidding at auctions)

misskool

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The social welfare bill has gone through the roof to support people who cannot afford house prices, or, to rent with house prices, so get housing benefit.

This is not a good situation to be in.

I don't believe it's a want. Housing is a need. If prices keep going up, so does the social welfare bill, so do our taxes, and life get's harder and harder, working longer hours and longer in terms of lives to survive.

I'd like to ask you, what good actually comes from your viewpoint? Investors do well. That's the only thing I can think of.

Housing is a need, of course, everyone's right is to be housed and have somewhere warm and safe at night. However, buying your own house is nothing more than an aspirational need.

Not everyone is capable of being able to maintain a house or want to maintain a house. Investors may do well from it but that's the state of play. It may not be right or it may not be fair but there are always going to be people who are richer, cleverer, smarter, and more good looking than you. Life, clearly, isn't fair. It's the same when you replicate that to buying houses.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

misskool wrote: »

Not everyone is capable of being able to maintain a house or want to maintain a house. Investors may do well from it but that's the state of play. It may not be right or it may not be fair but there are always going to be people who are richer, cleverer, smarter, and more good looking than you. Life, clearly, isn't fair. It's the same when you replicate that to buying houses.

:T:T:T:T

Best post I've seen on this board yet....

carolt

misskool wrote: »

Housing is a need, of course, everyone's right is to be housed and have somewhere warm and safe at night. However, buying your own house is nothing more than an aspirational need.

Not everyone is capable of being able to maintain a house or want to maintain a house. Investors may do well from it but that's the state of play. It may not be right or it may not be fair but there are always going to be people who are richer, cleverer, smarter, and more good looking than you. Life, clearly, isn't fair. It's the same when you replicate that to buying houses.

Sorry, didn't mean to thank.

I don't think fairness is either here nor there.

I'm not aware of anyone on here arguing that house prices will fall because it's not 'fair'; that may or may not be true, but is really rather irrelevant.

House prices will fall, whether Hamish likes it or not, for good solid economic reasons.

See the other current thread (geoffky's, I think) which sums up neatly 5 reasons why house prices are only going one way - down.

Whether this is a good or bad thing, or 'fair', is obviously a matter of opinion.

It's a matter of fact that current price levels are unsustainable in the current economic climate.

misskool

carolt wrote: »

Sorry, didn't mean to thank.

I don't think fairness is either here nor there.

I'm not aware of anyone on here arguing that house prices will fall because it's not 'fair'; that may or may not be true, but is really rather irrelevant.

House prices will fall, whether Hamish likes it or not, for good solid economic reasons.

See the other current thread (geoffky's, I think) which sums up neatly 5 reasons why house prices are only going one way - down.

Whether this is a good or bad thing, or 'fair', is obviously a matter of opinion.

It's a matter of fact that current price levels are unsustainable in the current economic climate.

In the nice spirit of it being sunny today, I've thanked you back.

I'm sure house prices are going down, and yes, they are down for many reasons but I was merely replying to graham_devon's post where he implied that I was only wishing investors to do well.

I have no intentions of bulding an empire of houses nor profiteering from it, it's just my opinion.

lostinrates

misskool wrote: »

Housing is a need, of course, everyone's right is to be housed and have somewhere warm and safe at night. However, buying your own house is nothing more than an aspirational need.

Not everyone is capable of being able to maintain a house or want to maintain a house. Investors may do well from it but that's the state of play. It may not be right or it may not be fair but there are always going to be people who are richer, cleverer, smarter, and more good looking than you. Life, clearly, isn't fair. It's the same when you replicate that to buying houses.

I absolutely agree with this. I don't think everyone will or necessarily should be able to own. I think when people in top 10% earners (though I do not argue 10% wealth holders) struggle to buy modest family property, as has happened in high pressure areas like London, then we similarly must accept there is an issue: not of necessairily of fairness but of sustainability. I think its shocking that colleagues of DH's on six figure salries are excited to have bought ex LA flats in Zone two. Not because its not fair but because if thats what good earners can afford what can average owners afford, and then those same prssure working pipulation of all incomes are paying higher proportion of income/taxes to provide housing/money for housing for a potentially increasing proportion of the population.

ETA: My concerns about social benefit/fairness of housing are intricably linked with my other thoughts, but in a less tangible fluffier way.

Edit again: I think I prefermy typo of pipulaton to the correct alternative. I'm sticking with it.

Graham_Devon

misskool wrote: »

Housing is a need, of course, everyone's right is to be housed and have somewhere warm and safe at night. However, buying your own house is nothing more than an aspirational need.

Not everyone is capable of being able to maintain a house or want to maintain a house. Investors may do well from it but that's the state of play. It may not be right or it may not be fair but there are always going to be people who are richer, cleverer, smarter, and more good looking than you. Life, clearly, isn't fair. It's the same when you replicate that to buying houses.

This is fine, and I think you are basing your opinions on europe etc, whee many don't buy houses, but rent.

But we live in the UK. And people DO buy houses in the main.

So i don't think it's worth ignoring reality here.

Renting in this country for life would be stupid. Your mortgage goes down over time as inflation ups wages. Rents stay with inflation in the main.

The person renting all their lives will always have to keep up with inflation and also have to pay rental right through retirement.

I don't think you are looking at the reality of the UK in all honesty.

I agree with your outlook, it's NOT a need to buy. BUT, I also like to stick to reality.

Not everyone is capable of paying a mortgage no. But there are a hell of a lot more who would be unable to pay rent in retirment.

Graham_Devon

misskool wrote: »

In the nice spirit of it being sunny today, I've thanked you back.

I'm sure house prices are going down, and yes, they are down for many reasons but I was merely replying to graham_devon's post where he implied that I was only wishing investors to do well.

I have no intentions of bulding an empire of houses nor profiteering from it, it's just my opinion.

I didn't imply anything of the sort.

I ASKED you who does well out of your situation. I said the only people I PERSONALLY can see is investors.

So please don't tell me I somehow implied you thought that, its annoying. I asked you a question, simple as.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is fine, and I think you are basing your opinions on europe etc, whee many don't buy houses, but rent.

But we live in the UK. And people DO buy houses in the main.

So i don't think it's worth ignoring reality here.

Renting in this country for life would be stupid. Your mortgage goes down over time as inflation ups wages. Rents stay with inflation in the main.

The person renting all their lives will always have to keep up with inflation and also have to pay rental right through retirement.

I don't think you are looking at the reality of the UK in all honesty.

I agree with your outlook, it's NOT a need to buy. BUT, I also like to stick to reality.

Not everyone is capable of paying a mortgage no. But there are a hell of a lot more who would be unable to pay rent in retirment.

But if you believe the above why do you think further falls of 30-50%?

Not picking on you but your post is bullish in the outlook for housing, thus house prices.