MSE News: House prices to fall next year, says Nationwide

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucky wrote: »

not really resolved - but the question is, what percentage of FTBs is required to support the market? there has to be FTBs but how many? nobody can really answer this.

you would need to drill deeper into this question though - you have single FTBs and dual income FTBs, both have very different affordability, dual income can afford property, for single earners it's very, very hard.

agreed! wouldn't really want to put a figure on it - but would hazard a guess that - ideally - it would be a touch higher than whatever it was in 2005 that prompted a rate cut

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You know full well you are asking an impossible question.

What people can tell you, which is why you are trying to divert to an impossible question is houses have been propped up by:

- QE, meaning banks are more likely to lend. But this is not solely for house prices.
- BOE TELLING banks to lend. There are so many articles declaring that they are indeed not lending to the level that they should
- Interest rates being put to the lowest level in over 300 years. Again, this is not solely for the benefit of house prices. A major intention was for the ability for businesses to be able to operate with the credit that is required
- Government putting pressure on banks to not reposess, but instead, allow arrears.Arrears are actually lowering as a result of lower interest rates. It's wasn't really in the interest of banks to repossess NE properties in a falling market where there is a lower transaction level. Much better to let the owner keep up the payments with the benefit of lower interest rates.
- New homebuyer / rescue scheme.There have been new buyer schemes for a long time, long before the credit crunch [/QUOTE]

I accept it is an impossible answer giving the data available, but it is still a good question for reflection.
Too many, people pose things as THE reason without considering the impact of what they are implying

IveSeenTheLight

Emy1501 wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/dan-roberts-on-business-blog/2009/oct/28/northern-rock-housing-market

http://www.summitfinance.co.uk/blog/?p=50

Its closer to 9billion if you believe the above two articles and of course a far bit of the money that has gone into propping up RBS and Lloyds will be used to lend.

If you feel that propping up the housing market is more important than education, healthcare, looking after the elderly then good luck to you.

I suspect though that most of the population would rather the money spent on the above than propping up the housing market. Especially a market than even the BOE would admit is too high

Where did I say that money should be spent on propping up the economy rather than healthcare, education etc?

So with £9Billion being attributed to propping up house prices, this equates to £145 per person

IveSeenTheLight

Emy1501 wrote: »

So why waste at least 10-15billion propping it up then? next you will telling me that the market would be where it is if the 10-15b had not been spent :rolleyes:

Already the figures are being massaged
Your previous post factored it at £9 Billion but now its £10-15 Billion. :rolleyes:

IveSeenTheLight

wageslave wrote: »

No honestly. How many FTB entered the housing market this year? Because everything else is just the same money going round and round.

The latest figures showed that 39% of mortgage transactions was for FTBers.
This is pretty much bang on the long term FTBer percentage trend if I recall correctly

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/2455

Emy1501

chucky wrote: »

no Emily you missed the point once again - you're deeply entrenched HPC viewpoint is not letting you think outside your world.

what happened in 2005 when the BOE reduced interest rates - it helped the housing market that was starting to struggle. we could have had the 2007 scenario in 2005 - we didn't. the results of this was that the the pound struggled. economic actions by government will always have downsides, the current actions will probably also have adverse affects at some point.



no that's not what i have said Stuart from Hants - 2009 demand is supporting 2009 house transactions and 2009 house prices - it can't be any clearer than that... house prices go up, house prices will go down - these things happen, people need to get over it.

I own thank you so I'm capable of thinking outside the box. House ownership is a private matter not a public matter so the government should not be spending tax payers money propping it up. Its pretty simple really.

Also since when did the BOE use interest rates to keep house prices high? I thought interest rates tools were about inflation. Also the 9B talked is nothing to do with interest rates?

As for 2009 demand supporting 2009 transactions I wonder what would have happened if the 9B had not been put into the housing market?

Emy1501

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Already the figures are being massaged
Your previous post factored it at £9 Billion but now its £10-15 Billion. :rolleyes:

The government have told RBS and Lloyds they have to lend therefore its pretty obvious that a large amount of the money invested in them would have gone on mortgages. I suspect the figure I quoted is way less than it is.

doire_2

Afriend wrote: »

A pic of a house being propped up.

Probably worth £170,000 during the crazy boom years

the_ash_and_the_oak

in asking prices maybe.

tbh doubt it would have gone for much over 155k

doire_2

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

in asking prices maybe.

tbh doubt it would have gone for much over 155k

Depends how many bathrooms it has though