Why house prices are certain to fall

mewbie_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It's a decent graph.
Just taking the prices in 10 year stages

1973 Q4 = £9,767
1983 Q4 = £28,623 (a 2.9 multiplier than 10 years previously)
1993 Q4 = £51,050 (a 1.8 multiplier than 10 years previously)
2003 Q4 = £133,027 (a 2.6 multiplier than 10 years previously)

It would appear the bigger bubble was in the 70's early 80's despite what the scal of the graph protrudes

Means nothing without inflation adjustment.

bigheadxx

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

there are defintely still sales (tho rather less than in the recent past imo)

I don't think it follows that because everyone owns something that makes it the easiest its ever been. in fact this isn't a logical consequence at all.

ie to go back to the trinkets. of the 10 people: if one person owned all ten trinkets then only 10% of the population owned trinkets. prices go up over time and so does trinket-ownership - until eventually trinket ownership reaches 70%. going back to the original analogy - now from this point on whatever price they rise by (lets say 600% overnight) - 70% of the popn still own their trinkets. more people than ever before have owned trinkets (despite the fact they went up 600% overnight)

how easy is it for the 8th person to buy one?

The problem is that there has been such a dramatic fall in houses on the market and sales that 1 sale can have a significant affect on the average sale price as there may have only been 3 sales in that area that month whereas 2 years ago there could have been 30.

http://www.globrix.com/property-details/13898023-lower_high_street-conwy-ll32-3_bed-semi_detached_house

This link gives specific details for each area.

new_home_owner_3

mewbie wrote: »

Means nothing without inflation adjustment.

It means nothing if you dont understand it:rolleyes:do you want me to explain?

IveSeenTheLight

mewbie wrote: »

Means nothing without inflation adjustment.

Very true, but it does show an upward trend in nominal prices.

In case you think it's selective dates (started at earliest point in the graph), I've carried out the same using the latest date in the graph

1978 Q3 = £15,912
1988 Q3 = £54,352 (a 3.4 multiplier than 10 years previously)
1998 Q3 = £66,366 (a 1.2 multiplier than 10 years previously)
2008 Q3 = £166,188 (a 2.5 multiplier than 10 years previously)

Both these sets of 10 years price points have an average multiplier of 2.44 and 2.38 over the 10 year period

chucky

mewbie wrote: »

Means nothing without inflation adjustment.

you sometimes sound quite inteligent and sound like you do know what you're talking about.
what kind of inflation do you mean? Demand-pull inflation, Cost-push inflation or Built-in inflation for this adjustment

mewbie_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Very true, but it does show an upward trend in nominal prices.

In case you think it's selective dates (started at earliest point in the graph), I've carried out the same using the latest date in the graph

1978 Q3 = £15,912
1988 Q3 = £54,352 (a 3.4 multiplier than 10 years previously)
1998 Q3 = £66,366 (a 1.2 multiplier than 10 years previously)
2008 Q3 = £166,188 (a 2.5 multiplier than 10 years previously)

Both these sets of 10 years price points have an average multiplier of 2.44 and 2.38 over the 10 year period

Excellent, and from the same graph we can extrapolate the figures, point to a rapid recovery in house prices and whistle Dixie from our @ssholes.

the_ash_and_the_oak

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Right now FTBers are 36% of the market
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/2397

It was a similar level in 06 and 05
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/884


This document released in 2005 titles "Understanding FTBers" refers to the FTBer attributing to a third of the market, again similar to the recent transactions.
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/filegrab/pdf_pub_resreps_56.pdf.pdf?ref=3875


Trying to find info going back further, I did find this interesting graph showing FTBers have been below 40% since 2002 although were a higher percentage before that.

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/filegrab/pdf_pub_resreps_56.pdf.pdf?ref=3875

Good post. Interesting that although transactions overall are down the relative makeup of the market hasn't changed (arguments could be made in all directions for those two factors - all with merit imo)

IveSeenTheLight

mewbie wrote: »

Excellent, and from the same graph we can extrapolate the figures, point to a rapid recovery in house prices and whistle Dixie from our @ssholes.

Now now mewbie, don't get all hot and flustered or your knickers in a twist, I agreed with you inflation is a major factor if wanting to look at real prices instead of nominal prices.

The point was to back up new_home_owners comments that house prices go up and to point out nominally, this bubble is not as big as it was previously.

LydiaJ

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Right now FTBers are 36% of the market


http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/filegrab/pdf_pub_resreps_56.pdf.pdf?ref=3875

If the percentage of FTBers is in some way a reflection of the extent to which houses are affordable to FTBs, then this graph seems to me to show that houses started moving out of reach of FTBs in about 2000, and were already significantly unaffordable by 2003. This suggests to me that a return to 2004 prices (relative to earnings) won't be enough to get things moving again.

new_home_owner_3

chucky wrote: »

you sometimes sound quite inteligent and sound like you do know what you're talking about.
what kind of inflation do you mean? Demand-pull inflation, Cost-push inflation or Built-in inflation for this adjustment

the only inflation he knows about is when he is inflating is blow up sheep.:rotfl: