Recession finally hits the white hot property market of Aberdeen

wageslave

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wageslave, best to at least try to stick to accuracy if you're going to have a go at me.;)

I didn't buy a BTL at the top of the market. I don't own a BTL property.

I bought a smaller house in the city to live in, as we allowed our other house in the country to be lived in rent free by an aging relative whose circumstances had changed.

So I bought this time, for precisely the same reasons I bought last time. I happened to need a house at the time, and the choice was to buy one or rent one.

As it turns out, with Aberdeen rental yields for this type of property at almost 8% per year, and the price of these properties being down around 5% from absolute peak now, but still slightly higher than when I bought, the decision also happened to be financially sound as I'm significantly better off buying than I would have been if I'd rented.

I apologise for the inaccuracy but not for the rest of my post.

wageslave

Afriend wrote: »

British people owning assets which are high in value (aka houses) are not a bad thing...
If houses are high in value, future generations could, in the future, sell a part share and buy a luxury home abroad somewhere nice.

I am all for people owning their homes and I look forward to the day I can sell of the kitchen (an extremely unnecessary room) and buy a little place in Italy;)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

wageslave wrote: »

The sort of HPI that drove the economy may well have been wonderful for those who own property but it proved to be a great deal less wonderful for the country as a whole.

But as 70% of people live in owner occupied property, then it is self-evident that HPI is good for the majority.

And realistically, the 20% that live in social housing are never going to be able to afford a private house on the open market, and never have been in tha past either..

So we're really talking about the 10% in the middle, in private rental, primarily the aspiring FTB's.

For them, HPI is theoretically bad..... ALthough it's also worth pointing out that this crash, and the associated difficulties in obtaining finance, make it far harder to get on the ladder now than it was in 2007.

So the crash has not really benefitted them much either, as whatever smaller amount they are paying on the price, has as often as not been eaten up by the difference in mortgage rate margins.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

wageslave wrote: »

I apologise for the inaccuracy but not for the rest of my post.

But the rest of your post doesn't make any sense given the innacuracy.

If I don't own a BTL, and if I am financially ahead by buying, even in the crash, then there is no "desperate" need for HPI. WHich spoils the premise of your post.

Anyway, I think the following is closer to reality...

Those who advocate lower house prices, and the conditions needed to lower the prices, such as recession, unemployment, reposession, etc, are engaging in the politics of envy.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

THEY don't have a house, and cant afford one, so they construct an artificial reality to fantasise about how recession, poverty, reposessions and unemployment are somehow a good thing for the country as a whole.

Being basically decent human beings, and unable to accept that in most cases it was their previous choices that put them in this position, they lie to themselves in order to try and justify their own poor decisions in not buying previously.

The fact that there are several thousand of them, and they get together on here and hpc to wallow around in confirmation bias, doesn't make them any less wrong.;)

wageslave

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But as 70% of people live in owner occupied property, then it is self-evident that HPI is good for the majority.

And realistically, the 20% that live in social housing are never going to be able to afford a private house on the open market, and never have been in tha past either..

So we're really talking about the 10% in the middle, in private rental, primarily the aspiring FTB's.

For them, HPI is theoretically bad..... ALthough it's also worth pointing out that this crash, and the associated difficulties in obtaining finance, make it far harder to get on the ladder now than it was in 2007.

So the crash has not really benefitted them much either, as whatever smaller amount they are paying on the price, has as often as not been eaten up by the difference in mortgage rate margins.

Hamish you are a bright man, I honestly dont know how you can bring yourself to type the nonsense you do.

In the past property prices rose at a steady level but what we have just come out of was a bubble Hamish. And bubbles are not good.

As for those living in social housing never being able to afford to buy, had hyper house inflation continued they would have been the only sods who could have possibly bought. They, after all, can buy at a heavily subsided price.

And that ten percent you are so quick to denigrate, they are the life blood of the housing market. Without FTB, the market collapses.

wageslave

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But the rest of your post doesn't make any sense given the innacuracy.

If I don't own a BTL, and if I am financially ahead by buying, even in the crash, then there is no "desperate" need for HPI. WHich spoils the premise of your post.

Anyway, I think the following is closer to reality...

Those who advocate lower house prices, and the conditions needed to lower the prices, such as recession, unemployment, reposession, etc, are engaging in the politics of envy.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

THEY don't have a house, and cant afford one, so they construct an artificial reality to fantasise about how recession, poverty, reposessions and unemployment are somehow a good thing for the country as a whole.

Being basically decent human beings, and unable to accept that in most cases it was their previous choices that put them in this position, they lie to themselves in order to try and justify their own poor decisions in not buying previously.

The fact that there are several thousand of them, and they get together on here and hpc to wallow around in confirmation bias, doesn't make them any less wrong.;)

But I own both a house and several acres of land.

How am I indulging in the politics of envy?

ThrowingStonesAtYou

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Those who advocate lower house prices, and the conditions needed to lower the prices, such as recession, unemployment, reposession, etc, are engaging in the politics of envy.

But house prices had been fairly stable around the £80k mark (real terms, with 25% ish variations in either direction) for decades, are you suggesting we have struggled with all the negative things you mention for all this time up until the last 10 years?

abaxas

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But as 70% of people live in owner occupied property, then it is self-evident that HPI is good for the majority.

I'm sure, quite a large %age of men would like to shag 'Ola Jordan' from Stictly.

That doesnt mean should happen, or it's in the best interests of the country.

Emy1501

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But as 70% of people live in owner occupied property, then it is self-evident that HPI is good for the majority.

And realistically, the 20% that live in social housing are never going to be able to afford a private house on the open market, and never have been in tha past either..

So we're really talking about the 10% in the middle, in private rental, primarily the aspiring FTB's.

For them, HPI is theoretically bad..... ALthough it's also worth pointing out that this crash, and the associated difficulties in obtaining finance, make it far harder to get on the ladder now than it was in 2007.

So the crash has not really benefitted them much either, as whatever smaller amount they are paying on the price, has as often as not been eaten up by the difference in mortgage rate margins.

Funny because ICM did a poll for the BBC in 2008 and only 22% of the people polled wanted prices to rise.

The reality is only downsizers, those in negative equity or investors want properties to rise. FTB do not, neither to upsizers and also many older people who are mortgage free don't because they see that homeownership is becoming harder and harder for their children.

The poll actually found that 46% wanted them to stay the same and 28% wanted them to fall.

ThrowingStonesAtYou

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But as 70% of people live in owner occupied property, then it is self-evident that HPI is good for the majority.

How many of these 70% living in OO property actually own part of the property? I would suggest a small proportion, certainly people's kids don't, some people will be lodgers, some partners won't have a share of ownership etc etc.. so how do any of these people benefit from a rise in the value of an asset they don't own?

Also of those that do own the property, what makes you so sure high prices benefit them? If they are looking to upsize they will have a higher price gap to jump, so high prices are bad for them. Many people are not looking to move or sell, so the price change is neutral. Only those selling up to move somewhere smaller or for alternative living arrangements (eg nursing homes) will see any benefit.

I'm willing to listen to any arguments to justify that HPI is good in the medium-long term for majority of the population, but your statement there is just silly.