Homeowners are in for a drop in prices in next year’s first half

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

From the Telegraph's coverage of the Item report Brit worked himself into a frenzy over.

It predicts prices will fall by 1.6per cent in the first half of 2010, despite forecasting a 2.8 per cent rise in prices over the second half of this year.

Wait..... Thats it?

1.6%?:rotfl:

You worked yourself up into a frenzy, and got 13 thanks from the bear crowd over a paltry 1.6%????:eek:

Oh dear...... Should have read the report Brit.....:rolleyes:

mewbie_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wait..... Thats it?

1.6%?:rotfl:

You worked yourself up into a frenzy, and got 13 thanks from the bear crowd over a paltry 1.6%????:eek:

Oh dear...... Should have read the report Brit.....:rolleyes:

It's a typo Hamish. If you check their web site they have issued a correction apology. Should read 16%.

Really2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Again, I wasn't arguing against the inheritance part, just pointing out there are a number of unknowns in your calculation making it no better than a guess.

don't do a Graham on me:(
It was only a very simple example to back up the below quote, I am more than aware of the varied scenarios that could affect the figures. That is why I never stated the figure as correct just as an "up to".

But this is my statement.

Really2 wrote: »

Sorry there are 100,000's of children who lose a parent / parents before the age of 25.
.

But like I said i never pushed the figure as factual, just as a mere ball park based on each person just having one child (not norms, just basic figures to back up a point, my brief calculation is most probably an under estimate, but an under estimate would suffice for the point.)

Don't take this as argumentative but if you could give a likely figure I would be greatfull rather than just pointing out the calculation is wrong (because I know it is not a fact).

I like to learn form errors so perhaps you could give me the correct way of doing the basic calcualtion (other than to prove a point like I did). Again to repeat it is not be confrontational, I am just enquiring how to do it as I am interested.

Don't feel hounded, I am not trying to fall out. i am just very interested to know what norms you would use to work out a proper estimation .

IveSeenTheLight

Really2 wrote: »

I am just very interested to know what norms you would use to work out a proper estimation .

I wouldn't know sorry, I also don't think it's that relevant to your point.

I think we could agree that the numbers of people receiving inheritance is generally static although arguably slightly lowering as the number of deaths each year have slightly lowered (aging population).

You made a valant effort to estimate a specific age group in receiving inheritance and could utilise towards a deposit, however as stated above, this is unlikely to have changed much over the years.

Additionally from your estimation of over 100,000 who lose a parent before the age of 25, this does not mean that they lose both parents and get any inheritance, so for me a bit of speculation.

What could be happening in the last year or so is that same number of FTBers with a healthy deposit (assisted by inheritance) could be looking at investing the money more wisely than in previous years (again speculation on my part) instead of utilising on more luxurious spending.

It's also quite possible that the lending restrictions have meant that they use more of the money to get the better rates, almost forced into it by the current lending criteria.

Lots of if's and buts, one thing for certain is that you cannot discount them and the facts are that higher deposits are being put down, again possibly as you say because less people with lower deposits are getting the mortgages.

P.S. I'd never do a Graham on you One of my problems is that I look at things analytically and delve into the facts, if I see flaws I flag them up (not just in here but in anything). My wife sometimes says I look on the negative at things, but I think I see the problems and therefore can look at a way of resolving / getting round them.

Sorry I'm not looking at resolving your calculation, but like I said, I didn;t think it was that worth it

lostinrates

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I think we could agree that the numbers of people receiving inheritance is generally static ......, however as stated above, this is unlikely to have changed much over the years..

Just to drag this out further :o:D:D

Is it static, has it generally been increasing, with more people leaving houses? I know very little about the whole thing. the other point is that I guess in the past people were more likely to be inheriting houses that were under the tax threshhold that now are well over.

IveSeenTheLight

lostinrates wrote: »

Just to drag this out further :o:D:D

Is it static, has it generally been increasing, with more people leaving houses? I know very little about the whole thing. the other point is that I guess in the past people were more likely to be inheriting houses that were under the tax threshhold that now are well over.

Well according to the stats, there are less people dying each year.
Down something like 30,000 per year than a decade ago.

When I said static I meant in numbers, not in actual inheritance received.

You raise a good point though that more of these people are likely to have been homeowners than previously, but also conversly we are seeing many old people having to use their homes to pay for care.

I don't see the tax threshold as an issue. What you are raising is that the inheritance that people receive is likely to be larger than in previous years.

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

Just to drag this out further :o:D:D

Is it static, has it generally been increasing, with more people leaving houses? I know very little about the whole thing. the other point is that I guess in the past people were more likely to be inheriting houses that were under the tax threshhold that now are well over.

And to go further, further. :o:D:D

Add critical illness, accidental death other insurances etc etc etc.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

this does not mean that they lose both parents and get any inheritance, so for me a bit of speculation.

Also you do not have to lose both parents to get an inheritance, they don't have to lose any to have an inheritance. it depends completely on the will of the person who died.;)

I would have thought inheritance increased as a nation got richer and assets inflated (EG that is why the government clocked on and increased inheritance tax)