House prices seen as overvalued

IveSeenTheLight

Emy1501 wrote: »

Also got think if they are not overpriced why all this need for shared ownership etc for people earning up to 60K! 60K is way past the average household income.

I know many people earning far less than 60k that have far better than the average house.
Your making a very strong point for local prices varying.

The question that needs to be asked is why is it that someone on £60k has to opt for shared ownership in the areas you are referring to?
The answer is easy in that the demand (those with desire and affordability) in those areas far outstrip the supply.

Increasing prices acts as a way to reduce the demand, by pricing those out that cannot afford.

The simple fact is that what is required is to increase the supply of properties in the areas which ave the highest demand.
This is the only way that properties will become affordable to more

Of course those that earn higher will then be able to possibly afford second homes etc and if they choose to do so it would increase demand again, but simply put, the demand side of the scale is high and the supply side of the scale is low. This increases competition for property and increases prices.

Reduce the competition for property and prices will lower / rise at an acceptable level.

I've re-itterated myself a couple of times here, but sometimes the simplest message seems to be required to be repeated time and time again.

doire_2

chucky wrote: »

it's only the people that can't afford to buy that think that houses are unaffordable

those that can afford it fully appreciate and know they're expensive

the others are just the afflicted

Nonsense......

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Why choose 2000?
That was the same price as it was in 1988
Indeed, it was 2002 before prices returned to the previous peak of 1989.

So please justify why 2000 is the magic year in which inflation adjusted rises should.

Simply because it made up a nice round decade.

Theres no need for you to look further in to this as to my motivations.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Simply because it made up a nice round decade.

Theres no need for you to look further in to this as to my motivations.

So essentially a date plucked out of the air because it fits in with what you'd like to see rather than an analysis of where it should be.

Simple thing is that house prices are set by all of the factors involved and obviously is affordable to those that buy.

If you wish for house prices to be affordable to more than the current market is set at, you need to change the fundamentals.

Drawing back credit availability, will indeed curb demand and in theory lower prices if demand is sufficiently cut, I don;t see how this corresponds to more being able to afford as by changing this fundamental, you make it harder to get credit.

Can you think of another way in which the fundamentals that set house prices would change and result in house prices being lower AND more people being able to access the funds required to buy?

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

So essentially a date plucked out of the air because it fits in with what you'd like to see rather than an analysis of where it should be.

Oh, looks like I hit a nerve somehow.

No, I went back 10 years from today, to look at inflation at 3% over a decade. It also happens that if you go back from today, it makes a nice round decade, 2000-2010. That is all.

Wheres the crime? What did I do wrong? Should I have ignored certain years over the last decade maybe? Maybe I should have ignored the last decaide alltogether? Or maybe only taken the years since the peak in 2007 and gone from there.

Where do you want me to start from then? What would please you? You do realise that you are essentially starting something for no reason here?

Think about it, if I REALLY wanted to make a point here, I could have chosen to start somewhere in the 1990's, maybe 96? THEN you could have chosen to complain.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh, looks like I hit a nerve somehow.

No, I went back 10 years from today, to look at inflation at 3% over a decade. It also happens that if you go back from today, it makes a nice round decade, 2000-2010. That is all.

Wheres the crime? What did I do wrong? Should I have ignored certain years over the last decade maybe? Maybe I should have ignored the last decaide alltogether? Or maybe only taken the years since the peak in 2007 and gone from there.

Where do you want me to start from then? What would please you? You do realise that you are essentially starting something for no reason here?

Think about it, if I REALLY wanted to make a point here, I could have chosen to start somewhere in the 1990's, maybe 96? THEN you could have chosen to complain.

no complaint and no nerves hit.
Just clarifying that you indeed have no justification as requested.
No thought as to the increase in population, availability of credit, change in home owner multiple income, the amount of properties buit / renovated etc etc etc.
Just a date chosen from a decade ago because it's a nice round number

You have no justification for choosing that date and therefore no point that can be meaningfully discussed.

I was hoping for some new angle to look at, something to reason with, but you don't have one.

Maybe next time then

Jonbvn

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I was hoping for some new angle to look at, something to reason with, but you don't have one.

I think "this" may be the reason.

lemonjelly

kriss_boy wrote: »

I cant see them rising at all over the next 2/3 years.

Fundamentally the cost of living can only increase and with wage inflation likely to be non-existant over the next 2/3 years what chance do house prices have of increasing.

I believe theres lots of couples like myself and my girlfriend who could afford to upsize, but wouldnt dream of it until we see evidence to support which way house prices are going. That will take another year or so at least.

Since the turn of the century, house prices have risen well above the rate of inflation & wage inflation. Given that it happened before, what is to say it won't happen again?

My concern is that debt is not being repaid at the level required, & consumer credit lending really does not appear to be returning. Restricted availability of credit may well impact on a lot of people - whether they own, aspire to own, or neither.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

no complaint and no nerves hit.
Just clarifying that you indeed have no justification as requested.
No thought as to the increase in population, availability of credit, change in home owner multiple income, the amount of properties buit / renovated etc etc etc.
Just a date chosen from a decade ago because it's a nice round number

You have no justification for choosing that date and therefore no point that can be meaningfully discussed.

I was hoping for some new angle to look at, something to reason with, but you don't have one.

Maybe next time then

I haven't the foggiest what you are trying to argue here.

You stated that 3% inflation wouldn't be such a bad thing.

I stated yes, it wouldn't have been a bad thing if this had happened 10 years ago, as lots of the problems we face today wouldn't exist.

You are now banging on about me justifying this, including credit, population, change in home owners, multiple incomes.

I beg your pardon, but what the frick are you going on about?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I haven't the foggiest what you are trying to argue here.

ahhhhh... not another thread where graham doesn't understand :wall:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I beg your pardon, but what the frick are you going on about?

he's trying to explain Graham - if you don't understand, just admit it.