MSE News: Halifax: House prices up again in August (+0.8%)

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL.

Here we go again. Suggesting stuff I haven't even said. Total ignorance of my "market value" part, how convinient.

Who is suggesting anyone sells at a loss? We have just had the biggest boom we have ever known, most having plenty of equity if they bought pre 2005. But you are now resorting to "why would people sell at a loss".

I feel theres no real point in discussing this any further, as anything I come up with, you resort to acting dumb, and then later on, you will probably tell me you are far more intelligent than me, so you are right, end of.

You have to get what you want straight Graham.

Do you want house prices to fall further so that your friends and family can afford to buy? A simple yes or no would do here (but something tells me we won't get one).

If you want house prices to fall further, people have to sell them. Agreed?

If you want a (say) 50% fall from peak, people have to be induced to sell at half the prices of mid 2007. Yes?

Why would anyone do that? Would you? The fundamentals are the same for you as anyone else, are you going to be forced into a sale any time soon? How many people do you know with houses who are going to be forced into a sale anytime soon? Forget the mythical BTL landlords and heavily leveraged liar loan bearing chavs whose reflected leering faces are even now etched into the coatings of their plasma TVs, we're talking about your celebrated "real world" here, not the imaginary landscape of the permabears.

If you're genuinely altrustic (instead of shamelessly playing to the gallery) then why not sell your house cheaply to someone? You don't have to follow the market, you can follow your heart. If you believe there are falls to come because of "fundamentals" (none of which seem to me to be too bad when you sit down and work out their actual magnitude, but what do I know?) then you might as well anticipate them and jump now. You could even start a social movement where massive numbers of deluded BTL landlords forget their yields and give something back to the children of the nation.

For my part I think I'll stay put. I think prices will be higher than they are now this time next year, and I think they'll be showing modest year on year rises for several years to come.

Graham_Devon

Julie.

To be frank, you are talking absolute rubbish. Again, talking about "selling lower" rather than at market price.

As someone said above, no point in arguing with prats.

Houses will sell for what they are worth at that time in the market. Simple as.

That is very different to "selling lower", as you well know, but are now acting dumb to try and change what was said. Can't really be bothered with that tbh. However, I am quite impressed that you have to go too such lengths, twice, to totally, purposely miss the point. Theres something in that.

Everyone can see what was actually said. Your thankers will thank you for your efforts yadda yadda. But that's NOT what was said, only what you are trying to tell people was said from your own peculiar little stance.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Julie.

To be frank, you are talking absolute rubbish. Again, talking about "selling lower" rather than at market price.

As someone said above, no point in arguing with prats.

Houses will sell for what they are worth at that time in the market. Simple as.

That is very different to "selling lower", as you well know, but are now acting dumb to try and change what was said. Can't really be bothered with that tbh. However, I am quite impressed that you have to go too such lengths, twice, to totally, purposely miss the point. Theres something in that.

Everyone can see what was actually said. Your thankers will thank you for your efforts yadda yadda. But that's NOT what was said, only what you are trying to tell people was said from your own peculiar little stance.

Graham,

If houses are not sold lower or higher than the current market price then the market remains stagnant.

It needs items to be sold either higher or lower to set the new market price.

What Julie is saying is that unless people sell for lower than the current market price, then it would be unlikely to drive the market price to the levels that some want / say are needed.

As you are an advocator of lower prices, Julie is maybe a little pedantically raising the point that maybe you should start the ball rolling (again) or put your money where your mouth is and start that new precedent of lower prices.

b0rker

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It will be interesting in the coming months.
We'll possibly see positive month on month figures next next month again, then from Oct / Nov start seeing the negative drops again.

Will they be accepted as many have said they expect to be over the winter months or touted as the second wave crash coming?

As the drops will be so small as the rises have been small over the past 6 months or so then only the TFH brigade would call another crash. The same lot that were shouting about 50% - 70% drops.

We are stagnating.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Graham,

If houses are not sold lower or higher than the current market price then the market remains stagnant.

It needs items to be sold either higher or lower to set the new market price.

What Julie is saying is that unless people sell for lower than the current market price, then it would be unlikely to drive the market price to the levels that some want / say are needed.

What Julie is suggesting is that if I was Tom, I should take an offer of 100k.

As you are an advocator of lower prices, Julie is maybe a little pedantically raising the point that maybe you should start the ball rolling (again) or put your money where your mouth is and start that new precedent of lower prices.

What Julie is saying is a load of bullsh*t designed to totally ignore the point to be honest.

People sell for the market value.

- Tom puts his house on the market for the estate agents valuation of 220k.
- Market falls over 6 months by 10%.
- Toms house is still up for 220k.
- Fred comes along, offers the market value of 200k.
- Tom accepts the 200k offer.
- Tom bought 5 years ago at 120k

Tom walks away with 80k more than he paid for the house 5 years ago. Tom has not accepted a lower offer, or sold at a loss, he has accepted the market value for the house.

Are you now suggesting that the market value is ONLY based on sales higher or lower than averages!?

Blimey, we've had so many arguments in the past about all the influences of various indicators on house prices, but now, in this little argument, it's just higher or lower offers which changes the market calue of the house!?

See this is what I can't stand. All rallying round each other, all the highly intellectual posters, acting completely and utterly dumb.

I have not said ANYTHING about people should sell at lower than what the house is actually worth. Julie, is just turning things around, acting dumb and trying to score a point, and you will get the usuals thanking her for doing so.

I realise I will now get hounded by chucky, really, Joe etc. So I'm out of this one, as once that's started, you cannot even talk sensibly or indeed, ammecibly.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Graham rant totally missing the point again.

People sell for the market value.

- Tom puts his house on the market for the estate agents valuation of 220k.
- Market falls over 6 months by 10%. (How does the market fall unless people sell for a lower price. Julie is asking you to help facilitate this phase by selling your property at the 10% or whatever you now predict house prices to fall))
- Toms house is still up for 220k.
- Fred comes along, offers the market value of 200k.
- Tom accepts the 200k offer.
- Tom bought 5 years ago at 120k

I tried once to explain and you have once again either missunderstood, or ignored the point.

I'll not try and get into a discussion further (hitting a head against a brick wall is not nice) than this.

Market are set by sold prices. They need the commodities to be sold (not marketed) higher or lower in order to change the new current market price

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

See this is what I can't stand. All rallying round each other, all the highly intellectual posters, acting completely and utterly dumb.

have you actually thought that it could be you acting dumb and not understanding?

baileysbattlebus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, Hamish.

No matter how much you say all this stuff, funding was not simply withdrawn. Property crashed. It crashed for a reason. it crashed because the funding you are talking about that was withdrawn was funding such as 125% mortgages. We had 125% mortgages because people simply could not afford to buy a home in this country. So, more than the cost of the home was lent to allow people to buy.

No matter how many silly affordability figures you give us (which relies hugely on todays base rate and couples both working full time etc) the fact remains property crashed because prices were not affordable, and still aint.

So keep giving us the figures, keep telling everyone property is more affordable now than ever. It's simply NOT TRUE in the real world. It may be true on a piece of paper. But out there in the real world, we have crashed because your argument is simply not true, and does not apply to the real world.

Bankrupcy rates are going up, stress releated to finance going up, benefits bill to keep people living going up etc etc etc. I just wish you would stop painting this rosy picture of yours and spurting out the same figures which are massively influenced by base rates, and LOOK at the real world out there.

I'm not going to argue with you or anything Graham - I just want to ask you a question or maybe 2.

Did house prices crashing in the UK and US cause the financial crisis and the freezing of the credit markets.

Or did the freezing of the credit markets precipitate the crash?

Don't forget for us - the start of it was Northern Rock who found they couldn't borrow money - in the summer of 2007.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

I'm not going to argue with you or anything Graham - I just want to ask you a question or maybe 2.

Did house prices crashing in the UK and US cause the financial crisis and the freezing of the credit markets.

Or did the freezing of the credit markets precipitate the crash?

Don't forget for us - the start of it was Northern Rock who found they couldn't borrow money - in the summer of 2007.

Stop talking sense, you'll make his head hurt.:D

Graham_Devon

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

I'm not going to argue with you or anything Graham - I just want to ask you a question or maybe 2.

Did house prices crashing in the UK and US cause the financial crisis and the freezing of the credit markets.

Or did the freezing of the credit markets precipitate the crash?

Don't forget for us - the start of it was Northern Rock who found they couldn't borrow money - in the summer of 2007.

Depends how you ask the question I guess.

As you could always say, what caused Northern Rock the problem with borrowing money?

A sub prime crisis. What caused the sub prime crisis? High house prices.

So although I see the gist of what you are saying, i.e. houses fell because of lack of credit, the lack of credit was caused because of high house prices and people simply unable to ever pay for those high house prices.