Property has potential, but work required.....

skap7309

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Odd that so many bears are still in denial.

This below is interesting;

However, when recovery does come, it is expected to be weak, and there are fears that it will not last long. If the UK economy suffered any unexpected shocks and experienced a double dip recession – where growth returns briefly only to be followed by another period of contraction – it would not be good news for the housing market.

TBH this is the general consensus of the majority of bears - hardly denial, more a very well educated estimate. Too many factors remain to see sustained HPI return - it is physically impossible. :rolleyes:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm using HPC to read stuff.

Me too.

There are still bulls posting.

Yes, a few new ones, possibly some back under a new ID, but all of them being accused of being trolls, again. See Bruce Banner or Pete.hpc's sigs.....

Paranoia in the extreme. But mildly amusing to watch.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

skap7309 wrote: »

TBH this is the general consensus of the majority of bears - hardly denial, more a very well educated estimate. Too many factors remain to see sustained HPI return - it is physically impossible. :rolleyes:

Actually, I would say the majority of bears expect a further big leg down. The general consensus seems to be another 15% to 20%, for total falls of around 30% to 40% off peak.

And yet the article is clear this is unlikely.

So although risks remain, the worst is behind us and the most likely scenario is that house prices will stabilise: we can afford some optimism, albeit muted.

chucknorris

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Me too.




Yes, a few new ones, possibly some back under a new ID, but all of them being accused of being trolls, again. See Bruce Banner or Pete.hpc's sigs.....

Paranoia in the extreme. But mildly amusing to watch.

I find it strange that an apparently open forum would ban one side of an argument because then it just becomes something like clapping at a party political meeting, ie meaningless, because the other side of the argument has been silenced. But I am starting to believe you now because you have said it several times and no one has shot you down yet for saying it.

skap7309

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And yet the article is clear this is unlikely.

Hamish - it is far too easy to sit there and say that this article states this that and the other, i thought even a poster like yourself knew that. I could pull up a thousand articles that state 35-40% drops overall that you mentioned - however nowadays i choose not to because at the end of the day no-one on earth holds the key predictions to what is happening. These articles sell papers and create speculation - nothing more.

mr_fishbulb

chucknorris wrote: »

I find it strange that an apparently open forum would ban one side of an argument

What does the C in HPC stand for? Decision has been made before any discussion.

At least on here is open to all views (even if some of them are very annoying )

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chucknorris wrote: »

I find it strange that an apparently open forum would ban one side of an argument because then it just becomes something like clapping at a party political meeting, ie meaningless, because the other side of the argument has been silenced. But I am starting to believe you now because you have said it several times and no one has shot you down yet for saying it.

Not half as strange as we found it, believe me.

Every single one of the prominent bulls was banned, on the same day. Not a single bear was banned. And it only happened when prices started rising. No coincidence there.....:rolleyes:

Besides, the moderators actually admitted it was to show newbies our arguments "had no veracity". Which makes the subsequent price rises all the more delicious, to be honest.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not half as strange as we found it, believe me.

Every single one of the prominent bulls was banned, on the same day. Not a single bear was banned. And it only happened when prices started rising. No coincidence there.....:rolleyes:

Besides, the moderators actually admitted it was to show newbies our arguments "had no veracity". Which makes the subsequent price rises all the more delicious, to be honest.

A lot of the arguments DON'T have any veracity.

Every single one of the arguments you push ignores all the stimulus.

If bulls had predicted this level of stimulus, they could quite rightly say "told you so".

As I have never seen a bull, or indeed, any article in the papers predict the kind of stimulus we have now, which is creating the background for prices to rise (hence called stimulus), I think it's a bit rich to be saying I told you so over and over again.

Would we be where we are now, without the collosal amounts of debt we have created for future generations to pay off?

If the answer is yes, and you can prove this, then feel free to keep banging on and on about how prices are up etc etc etc.

If the answer is no, then just accept, the timing of the election and the stimulus packages have helped your side no end. It's created an artificial economy. Nothing more, nothing less.

shakerbaby

An artificial economy that cannot last to boot.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A lot of the arguments DON'T have any veracity.

Every single one of the arguments you push ignores all the stimulus.

If bulls had predicted this level of stimulus, they could quite rightly say "told you so".
.

Actually, I pretty accurately forecast the size, type and scale of govt intevention and stimulus many months before it happened.

We told you that house prices and the economy were too closely interlinked for the government not to respond, and for them to throw everything up to and including the kitchen sink at the problem.

Well, they did, and it worked.

All that time, the bears said it couldn't happen, wouldn't work, and nothing govt did could effect the markets. They were wrong.