UK Property to HALVE Between Now and July 29, 2010

bendix

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Is that all fact?

Yes. It used to be my precisely my job to do exactly that when I worked at ING years ago. Fund managers and experts came up with positions to get media attention, knowing full well they'd never be held to account.

Cheap marketing trick.

Graham_Devon

bendix wrote: »

Yes. It used to be my precisely my job to do exactly that when I worked at ING years ago. Fund managers and experts came up with positions to get media attention, knowing full well they'd never be held to account.

Cheap marketing trick.

So who doesnt have bias and reports fact?

inspector_monkfish

lostinrates wrote: »

I'd rather not say. Its neurological.

ok, that figures.
i'm sorry to hear that

bendix

Good journalists.

Look, i get your point, but there is a world of difference between informed editorial comment as done by, say, The Economist, and the type of nonsense posted on the website in question.

It is geared SOLELY to sell subscriptions to a crappy magazine - he even solicits his subscriptions throughout his 'article'.

Graham_Devon

bendix wrote: »

Good journalists.

Look, i get your point, but there is a world of difference between informed editorial comment as done by, say, The Economist, and the type of nonsense posted on the website in question.

It is geared SOLELY to sell subscriptions to a crappy magazine - he even solicits his subscriptions throughout his 'article'.

See I wouldn't call it nonsence.

I would call the 50% a little "out there" but I would call nonsense as something that could never happen. 50% falls COULD happen, it's not impossible. They have backed up this 50% wioth the 5 reasons.

That's hardly nonsense in my view. I would call it nonsense if they just said it was going to fall 50% from now with absolutely no reasoning why.

It's not nonsense. It's just a different opinion.

Everyone, including the FT pushes stuff onto us when reading, whether it be advertising for selected companies, or subscription links, or advertising Sun Holidays, or a "free magazine or CD".

I honestly don't see this as any different?

bendix

I guess my point is that I'd expect a publication which purports to be financially savvy to be a bit more responsible than being 'out there'.

Perhaps we have different standards . . . .

Graham_Devon

bendix wrote: »

I guess my point is that I'd expect a publication which purports to be financially savvy to be a bit more responsible than being 'out there'.

Perhaps we have different standards . . . .

Perhaps not standards. Just viewpoints.

Moneyweek, if correct, or even halfway correct, could easily be commended as being financially savvy if they saved a few people from buying now

I don't know any news unless it is totally spun. This isn't spun, it is just their take on things. A lot of it I personally agree with, the 50% I don't.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Fair points

In reaction....

1. QE has somewhat distorted this. BUT, I would suggest the large difference between LIBOR rates and lending rates states they are scared of lending money. The fact you generally need 25% deposits also suggests they are scared.

QE has distorted nothing. It has done what it was supposed to do, increase liquidity in the markets. If liquidity has not increased by enough, then more QE is the solution.

2. What rates are coming down? It's worth looking at the fees and restrictions attached to these.

There was an article on here that fixed rates are about to come down again after last months increases. One bank at least has just reduced them.

3. I'm not going to go into the whole halifax affordability which last time I looked ignores females and puts the male average wage at 38k (i.e. 4.02) all over again.I don't believe thats a decent and fair way of measuring average wages. Nor do I believe 38k is anywhere near the average wage at all. But I cannot argue that the Halifax reports that. Worth bearing in mind here though that wage shave fallen 3% in the last year.

The only thing that matters with this is consistency of data over the long run. The reason Halifax uses male mean full time is because 50 years ago it also used male mean full time. (because thats all there was to use, generally!!!)

The Halifax long term average is around 4. The current Halifax average is around 4. Prices today are therefore consistent with the Halifax long term average.

In previous crashes prices have overshot on the downside. They probably will this time too. But we are at the long term average today. If QE and homeowner assistance can prevent the undershoot, or minimise it, then great. At least we'll have learned from the mistakes of previous crashes and less people will lose this time.

4. I doubt there was any reliable data on it in the US either. If there was, I doubt anyone would have bought all the sub prime stuff!!

True. But no credible commentator suggests UK sub prime was anywhere near as large a percentage of sales as US sub prime was. In fact, I can't think of ANY commentator, credible or looney-tunes, that suggests that.

5. Unemployment effects everyone, renter or not. I don't really get the ist of this part of your argument. Unemployed people do not have to be home owners to effect the price. Less people able to buy = less demand = lowr prices?

I saw all the posts about moneyweek themselves and how people are idiots for believeing anything they say etc. So guessed people were trying to down moneyweek, not just the 50% falls from here. However, 50% from here is NOT impossible.

Unemployment will not be a big enough factor. Despite all the speculation to the contrary, unemployment in this recession is mostly impacting the same people it does in all recessions. Primarily the young and low paid. Who generally don't own houses, nor are able to buy houses in all but the best of times when credit is most available.

50% from here is impossible. It would take down the entire global banking system, currencies, industries and probably governments. There is no prospect of that happening. You'll be lucky if it's 10% from here, and even that is looking doubtful now.

The biggest legacy this crash will leave is not a generation of FTB's able to buy at lower prices... That won't happen due to credit being too tight, and deposits being too high. It will be the consolidation of property ownership in a smaller segment of the population, and the percentage of ownership decreasing for the first time in decades. LESS people will fulfill the dream of property ownership, not more. It is sad so many bears advocate policies that will reduce ownership, but there you go. Myopia at it's finest.

lostinrates

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Unemployment will not be a big enough factor. Despite all the speculation to the contrary, unemployment in this recession is mostly impacting the same people it does in all recessions. Primarily the young and low paid. Who generally don't own houses, nor are able to buy houses in all but the best of times when credit is most available.

The young yes, and the low paid too I guess, but also lots of people in the City and its overseas equivalents. A sad number of our relatively highly paid friends (not just in UK, TBF) have become unemployed as a result.

Graham_Devon

1. QE is artificial, of course it's distorted things. If it didnt distort things, why don't we use QE for everything we can't afford?

2. Ahh, about to come down. So not actually coming down. The restrictions on the nationwide adjustment down were also punitive.

3. I know the reasons. I just do not accept that house prices at +150k are 4x wages. Not in the real world. The reasons are not what I was arguing. My argument is that house prices are not 4x wages. We seem to be in a situation on this forum where we use Halifax to set the house price multiples, Nationwide to set the average price for mortgages, and Merthy Tydvil as everyones local area. What I mean by this is we cherry pick data all the time depending on the point we want to argue. Hence why halifax is being used now.

4. UK Sub prime could never be anywhere like the scale the US had. It doesnt need to be, we are smaller in terms of land and finances, so even a quarter of the scale that he US saw could hit us twice as hard.

5. Again, this is the same argument chucky used. I do not believe those made unemployed need to own a home for house prices to be effected.