Some facts for a change, instead of speculation......

ruggedtoast

chucky wrote: »

funny that you say that. house prices have increased this year, there obviously are many people able to pay.

I don't disagree (well I do somewhat because I dont believe the Haliwide figures are giving an accurate representation of what they say they are) - but its not endless capacity, and there are plenty of unsold places - or places that are just priced too high.

If Walkers had tried to sell crisps for 50p a pack in 1980 they'd have gone bankrupt - they can sell them for that now but thats because economic factors support that.

If people believe that the fundamentals are going to return to 2007 levels for all property in the next year then fine - I just think theyre wrong. For all; the recessionary reasons we've all argued about already.

Generali

Really2 wrote: »

No one is trying to argue with you but your have made a statement and fail to notice we all think the reason prices fall, rise or stagnate is because of supply and demand.

In a free(ish) market like that for houses in the UK there can be nothing else.

For each house there is a person or other entity willing and able to buy at a particular price (or not) = demand and a person or other entity willing and able to sell at a particular price (or not) which is supply.

There is nothing else.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Even to people like Graham who will be unable to understand it anyway.;)

We are a charitable bunch here...

oh I understand Hamish.

I understand that I asked a question about supply and demand, and that the credit crunch was blamed for the fall in house prices.

I understand that I then went on to say well supply and demand is not the oinly factor then is it, you can't have it both ways to say they will just keep rising as the population gets bigger, that this credit crunch then gets lumped into supply and demand.

Then, all hell breaks lose, people realise their mistake, and go down the "just cus you don't understand graham" as usual.

I understand fine. Supply and demand is effect by other variables. Variables which you do not want to talk about, so easier to go childish and pretend they don't exist, or pretend you can include them in supply and demand as if you have ALWAYS included these variables in supply and demand whenever you talk about it.

ruggedtoast

The demand for houses is not going to fall, ever. It is probably up there with the demand for Ferraris in the all time demand stakes.

Ferraris arent exactly commonplace however.

4000 mars bars - er no I'll pass thanks. Want 4000 houses - oh yes please. It doesnt change the fact that someone somewhere has to pay for them, and for most of us that involves committing to a long long period of paying back a mortgage.

Really2

Generali wrote: »

In a free(ish) market like that for houses in the UK there can be nothing else.

For each house there is a person or other entity willing and able to buy at a particular price (or not) = demand and a person or other entity willing and able to sell at a particular price (or not) which is supply.

There is nothing else.

Good job you are a god like spector Gen.

Now I think we can draw all draw a little line under.

Ever fancied working for the UN?

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Even to people like Graham who will be unable to understand it anyway.;)

We are a charitable bunch here...

I think this is a good point for me to call you a nob again.

chucky

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I don't disagree (well I do somewhat because I dont believe the Haliwide figures are giving an accurate representation of what they say they are) - but its not endless capacity, and there are plenty of unsold places - or places that are just priced too high.

If Walkers had tried to sell crisps for 50p a pack in 1980 they'd have gone bankrupt - they can sell them for that now but thats because economic factors support that.

If people believe that the fundamentals are going to return to 2007 levels for all property in the next year then fine - I just think theyre wrong. For all; the recessionary reasons we've all argued about already.

i agree with your crisps analogy - but people do have a choice they can eat crisps, peanuts, chocolate or a million other snacks if they think crisps are too expensive.

with houses the options are limited due the constraints of work, family requirements, locations, wages etc...

Emy1501

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No Graham, you've had the answer on numerous occasions.

If you suddenly and artificially withdraw almost all the mortgage funding from a market because the lending sysem freezes up, then price falls are inevitable.

Now that lending is recovering, prices are rising.

It is no coincidence that prices have risen in tandem with the availability of lending for new purchase all year.

Prices have risen due to saving rates being poor therefore meaning many savers using their savings to invest in property. Last time I looked the average FTB deposit was 25%. Do people really think FTB's are able to save up 25% this money is all coming from the bank of Mom and Dad. Most purchases this year are by Cash buyers, the bank of mom and dad and people who have STR'd

The above will start too run out soon and once it does its likely prices will struggle again.

Also the government is forcing banks not to repossess properties again they cannot do this for ever, at sometime banks will have to repossess and when they do these properties will come bank onto the market.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The demand for houses is not going to fall, ever. It is probably up there with the demand for Ferraris in the all time demand stakes.

Ferraris arent exactly commonplace however.
.

:rolleyes:

Good grief. It's like arguing with a 3 year old..... or Graham.

Ferrari produce (supply) enough cars to meet current demand, and no more. They can then set the price for those cars. Vintage Ferrari's can only command prices of millions of pounds because there are not enough of them to meet demand.

If the demand for houses (including ability to pay) is greater than supply then prices rise. If the demand for houses (including ability to pay) is lower than supply (as happened last year when mortgages became almost unavailable) then prices fall.

Now that supply has reduced, and demand has increased (as mortgage lending increases), then prices have risen.

It really is that simple.

purch

I understand that I asked a question about supply and demand, and that the credit crunch was blamed for the fall in house prices

Err..............I think it was that the credit crunch was 'blamed' for the drop in demand, that led to a drop in house prices.