Will the average house price be lower or higher in August 2010?

nearlynew

In response to the thread title.................

House prices will be lower in August 2010.............. (obviously)

HPI is not going to rescue all you debt-junkies.

Get used to it.

Dan:_4

nearlynew wrote: »

In response to the thread title.................

House prices will be lower in August 2010.............. (obviously)

HPI is not going to rescue all you debt-junkies.

Get used to it.

no-one is predicting HPI, or even wants it. Stability is best for everyone.

nearlynew

Dan: wrote: »

no-one is predicting HPI, or even wants it. Stability is best for everyone.

But we need stability at a lower price level.

House prices are still too high.

Dan:_4

nearlynew wrote: »

But we need stability at a lower price level.

House prices are still too high.

20-25% down from 2007.

If people still can't afford a house = home ownership not for them

If people have huge depoists and can easily afford a house = just as greedy as a HPI cheerleader.

nearlynew

Dan: wrote: »

20-25% down from 2007.

If people still can't afford a house = home ownership not for them

If people have huge depoists and can easily afford a house = just as greedy as a HPI cheerleader.

Sounds like you have fallen into the "debt-is-wealth" trap.

Dan:_4

nearlynew wrote: »

Sounds like you have fallen into the "debt-is-wealth" trap.

Im in the 'my house is where I live' trap.

Graham_Devon

Dan: wrote: »

20-25% down from 2007.

If people still can't afford a house = home ownership not for them

If people have huge depoists and can easily afford a house = just as greedy as a HPI cheerleader.

Don't agree with that in the slightest.

Houses rose around 25% in just 2 years. You are basically saying if people could not afford house prices at 2005 levels that house ownership is not for them. 2005 was a very expensive year.

Because of the severity of the boom, 20% down does not mean affordability. This is shown on the graphs with a trend line, as the trend has not reached the fall in house prices yet. And then you have the problem with the trend line being pulled upwards (hence the curve. If the trend line had been allowed to just carry on the pattern it was showing, at some point, the trend line would be practically vertical). (Don't really fancy a million and one arguments about that one).

Around 35% off peak and I would start to agree with you. But 2005 level prices, can't agree with that.

Dan:_4

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Don't agree with that in the slightest.

Houses rose around 25% in just 2 years. You are basically saying if people could not afford house prices at 2005 levels that house ownership is not for them. 2005 was a very expensive year.

Because of the severity of the boom, 20% down does not mean affordability. This is shown on the graphs with a trend line, as the trend has not reached the fall in house prices yet. And then you have the problem with the trend line being pulled upwards (hence the curve. If the trend line had been allowed to just carry on the pattern it was showing, at some point, the trend line would be practically vertical). (Don't really fancy a million and one arguments about that one).

Around 35% off peak and I would start to agree with you. But 2005 level prices, can't agree with that.

People who coudn't afford 2005 levels 4 years ago may well do today.

People could still afford 2007 levels until the credit crunch struck.

Just because you couldn't afford it [hence your shared ownership scheme] doesn't mean everyone else can't.

Graham_Devon

People couldnt afford it at all.

They could get the money through borrowing every increasing sums.

Whole different ballgame.

Nice dig. Have already explained before that I could but chose SO as it allowed me to actually have a life at the same time.

Dan:_4

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Nice dig. Have already explained before that I could but chose SO as it allowed me to actually have a life at the same time.

If you call 24 hours a day posting on MSE a life, then I'm happy for you, truly I am.