Prices Stable or Rising in 94% of the UK....

Charterhouse

Really2 wrote: »

Read the post he/she does not mind "investing" as long as it is one property.

You could hardly say three moves in 9 year upsizing and downsizing would be done for any other reason.

It clearly states he/she sold at peak and "made" £210K.

If say Hamish did the same and posted it would you be so happy to accept it? I think not.

Buying and selling to make money is investing no matter how you dress it graham.

Full quote


How can you really read it any other way?

Investing was related to my single comment about "smart investors will always do well". Should I have rephrased that as "smart home buyers will always do well"? I don't see it as investing in my case as I have only ever owned a house to live in. When I was a child I moved every 2 years as we were an army family, 3 times in 9 years is pretty low turnover for me to be honest, although I can appreciate to many people it might seem like a lot. There were other factors involved in selling up in 2007 including the breakup of a long term relationship, it wasn't that I suddenly up and sold the house - I broke up with a long term girlfriend, I wanted to sell the house and move closer to town, I had the house valued, and the valuations that came back were truly insane, so I happily took the money and downsized. I'm not supporting the asset class as an investment, what I am trying to get at by saying that it is possible to make money regardless of huge general HPI is that most people don't approach buying a house in the right way and actually study price per square foot etc.

I see that the sentiment is slightly contradictory, I appear to be saying "I would like lower house prices" and at the same time saying "I want to make money in property". That is not the case. The money that has been made has been a happy coincidence, no more than that. I don't see what I have done as investing, I see it as having been smart about where I live and making value calls based on my own independent opinion of value in certain areas, both on a general area basis and on an individual property basis. The house price that an Estate Agent sets is largely irrelevant to me besides my own valuation. Apologies if this seems self-congratulatory, that was not my intention.

My real intention is to get the point across that higher house prices are not, as many people seem to think, a good thing. There is a good article on this in the FT today at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0d616a54-1b63-11df-838f-00144feab49a.html on the topic.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Charterhouse wrote: »

My real intention is to get the point across that higher house prices are not, as many people seem to think, a good thing.

And once again, it is totaly irrelevant whether high house prices are good or bad. This is not a moral issue. It is simply a function of the basic laws of supply and demand.

If you want cheaper houses, build more.

There is a good article on this in the FT today at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0d616a54-1b63-11df-838f-00144feab49a.html on the topic.

[/quote]

Sorry, thought you said there was a good article, not just the same old boomer bashing nonsense that Willets is spewing to sell his book.

Charterhouse

Guess what, people are writing books about this stuff because it's becoming a big issue for the wider economy. House prices plus the changes to pensions plus the constant extension of the pensionable age are all having a very negative effect on the younger generation of this country.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And once again, it is totaly irrelevant whether high house prices are good or bad. This is not a moral issue. It is simply a function of the basic laws of supply and demand.

It is not irrelevant at all.

If it was irrelevant, you wouldn't come out with full on happy clappy icons in celebration when prices are rising.

Can't believe you could turn round and say it's irrelevant!!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Charterhouse wrote: »

House prices plus the changes to pensions plus the constant extension of the pensionable age are all having a very negative effect on the younger generation of this country.

And when I was young, people were saying similar things. Except of course it turned out to be complete nonsense.

Willets claims the boomers puled up the bridge behind them leaving Gen X and Gen Y behind. Which is rubbish.

I am Gen X. I am far wealthier than my parents or grandparents ever were. Most of the people I know are in a similar position. To make matters even better for Gen X, we are a far smaller generation than the boomers that were our parents, (although our numbers are being topped up by immigration) so there will be a concentration of wealth through inheritance, versus the boomers generation which saw a dilution of wealth.

On the flip side of that, we have to deal with higher house prices, yes, but far lower interest rates on our mortgages, so the percentage of disposable income we pay on housing is less than our parents did. We also get paid better, have lower taxes, more opportunity and better standards of living than our parents or grandparents ever did.

As for pensions, I pity the poor boomers who are going to get screwed by the pensions deficit and inevitable slide in benefits. Thankfully, most of them own quite valuable property, so they'll get through it. But it is not the young being screwed over there..... It is the old.

doire_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

http://www.rics.org/housingmarketsurvey


RICS poll surveyors around the country and ask them if prices in their local areas are, rising, stable, or falling.

The results for January are below.

Rising Prices 35%

Stable prices 59%

Falling Prices 6%


So contrary to recent speculation to the contrary, prices are only falling in 6% of areas in the country.:beer:

And they are stable or rising in 94% of the UK.......

An astounding result for the middle of winter less than 3 years after the start of the crash.

Just another survey then?

Ahh well nice spin anyway

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And when I was young, people were saying similar things. Except of course it turned out to be complete nonsense.

Willets claims the boomers puled up the bridge behind them leaving Gen X and Gen Y behind. Which is rubbish.

I am Gen X. I am far wealthier than my parents or grandparents ever were. Most of the people I know are in a similar position. To make matters even better for Gen X, we are a far smaller generation than the boomers that were our parents, (although our numbers are being topped up by immigration) so there will be a concentration of wealth through inheritance, versus the boomers generation which saw a dilution of wealth.

On the flip side of that, we have to deal with higher house prices, yes, but far lower interest rates on our mortgages, so the percentage of disposable income we pay on housing is less than our parents did. We also get paid better, have lower taxes, more opportunity and better standards of living than our parents or grandparents ever did.

As for pensions, I pity the poor boomers who are going to get screwed by the pensions deficit and inevitable slide in benefits. Thankfully, most of them own quite valuable property, so they'll get through it. But it is not the young being screwed over there..... It is the old.

That's your experience and you are free to your opinion.

But it's obviously not the experience of the majority.

If it wasn't the experience of the majority we wouldn't have so many problems today and there wouldn't be books detailing the problems.

[Deleted User]

Do we have problems today (other than the problem of people demanding more than previous generations had)?

The young seem to have spending power that only the very select few had in my day. And they seem unwilling to live in the type of property that we were pleased to own.

In my experience the majority of people are doing very well out of house price increases and are quite happy about the situation. The impression I get is tha politicians seem to think they'll win votes by keeping house prices high - suggesting to me that's what most people want?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If it wasn't the experience of the majority we wouldn't have so many problems today and there wouldn't be books detailing the problems.

right... just because there are plenty of books on depression so that must mean that we are all clinically depressed...

it just gets better and better. brilliant logic :wall::wall:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Deleted_User wrote: »

Do we have problems today (other than the problem of people demanding more than previous generations had)?

The young seem to have spending power that only the very select few had in my day. And they seem unwilling to live in the type of property that we were pleased to own.

In my experience the majority of people are doing very well out of house price increases and are quite happy about the situation. The impression I get is tha politicians seem to think they'll win votes by keeping house prices high - suggesting to me that's what most people want?

Spot on.

The only generational problem we have today is a bunch of young underachievers whining about how everything should be handed to them on a plate.

The world doesn't work that way. And never did.