British House Prices Probably Won’t Fall This Year, RICS Says

Mr.Brown_4

Really2 wrote: »

March 2 (Bloomberg) -- U.K. house prices probably won’t fall this year as the shortage of homes and low interest rates support the property market, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said.

Poor RICS, is that the best they can do to pump it up? Sounds like they have given up.

In other news...

Car manufacturers say they might sell a few, but not sure.

Retailers expect the odd customer to visit, with a bit of luck.

Labour think there are still some voters on their side.

Wookster

abaxas wrote: »

Intesting point, why is credit being used to prop up house prices when it could be used for investment?

Surely returning to a strong economy is more important that anything else?

Mortgages have historically been a safer bet for banks as house prices have risen consistently in the past meaning that in the event of a repossession, the bank would not be exposed.

Not always so clear cut with corporate lending for expansive activity.

Wookster

abaxas wrote: »

Surely returning to a strong economy is more important that anything else?

Thinking about this, no. The British people (Hamish is an extreme example) seem to think that ever increasing house prices make one rich and the any debt racked up in the process is non-consequential.

StevieJ

LisbonLaura wrote: »

Indeed. Or the last of the (record breaking) spinning plates.


Point of order (if I may?) - doesn't McTavish have exclusive posting rights to such topics? - i.e. those that link to VI rolloks

Have you just found your password ?

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are ignoring how transaction levels got to where they were.

It's not hysterical, it's simply looking at the whole market. You said normal, I asked you what normal was. You say transaction levels.

I say how can transaction levels get back to that "normality" without the prodcuts enabling people to transact. i.e. mortgages. It's merely a question.

What was transaction levels historically?
I'm talking the 60's, 50's, 40's etc

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

What was transaction levels historically?
I'm talking the 60's, 50's, 40's etc

What does it matter?

To use one of your favourite lines, 70% ownership. MUCH higher than in those decades. So transaction levels will be minimal in those decades.

I'd love to know the point you are attempting to make here though.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

You are a blithering fool who can't READ THAT SEEMS TO BE THE MAIN PROBLEM HERE.


Your sole focus as been on 100%+ mortgages and a normal market being one with 100%+ mortgages.
No one else mentions them as they do not see them as historically normal (but even they will come back one day).

So Graham what changed in 2009 for houses transactions to increase did 125% mortgages come on to the market?

No your supposed point is the point of a fool, a fool who knows the number of transactions will increase in the coming years without 100%+ mortgages.

So whats normal. Please define normal. That's all I'm asking.

You can define me as a fool. So surely, as you seem to know what you are on about, can define "normal".

You seem to want to answer something with "when they are back to normal" with absolutely no indication of what normal is, and when someone asks, you simply turn it into them being a fool.

What's the big deal here between you chucky and ISTL. Why can no one simply tell me what you thik normal is?

Really2

Graham, you seem to believe transaction rates can not increase without 100%+ mortgages.

Could you explain the following.
http://www.mortgageintroducer.com/mortgages/236791/4/Daily_news/Temporary_setback_says_RICS.htm

"Our judgement is that this downturn in transactions will prove temporary and that buyer interest will have rebounded in the February data. Lack of mortgage finance, or the requirement for relatively large deposits, remains an issue as does the absence of sufficient good quality properties for sale. Even so, we still expect the number of mortgage approvals granted per month to quickly climb back to the high 50,000s seen as the back end of last year. Over the course of 2010, this figure should gradually climb to nearer 70,000."

Look forward to your answer.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Graham, you seem to believe transaction rates can not increase without 100%+ mortgages.

Do I? Nice of you to tell me.

I actually believe that transaction rates cannot hit the levels they did just before the boom without the mortgages I was on about.

Another side step though instead of simply answering.

Look forward to your answer.

My answer is I never ever said, implied, or stated that they cannot rise. I was simply asking what normal is, as I have a problem believeing they can rise to the normality of 2003 onwards.

What you got for me next? Why don't you tell me I am actually talking about lambs running around toys r us on a sunday afternoon and that I don't understand? Would make more sense than the rest of the guff your implying I have said.

I'm all up for the argument really

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So whats normal. Please define normal. That's all I'm asking.

You can define me as a fool. So surely, as you seem to know what you are on about, can define "normal".

You seem to want to answer something with "when they are back to normal" with absolutely no indication of what normal is, and when someone asks, you simply turn it into them being a fool.

What's the big deal here between you chucky and ISTL. Why can no one simply tell me what you thik normal is?

About 85,000 mortgage approvals looks about historically normal to me for low HPI.
So could you anwer the question relating to aprovals increasing without 100%+ mortgages now?