House Prices Soar By 10%

nembot

Let's hope if we ever have to communicate with extraterrestrials using math, it's not you doing the numbers.

System

nembot wrote: »

The figures are all there, although why you're being such a kn0b about it, is another question entirely. Big mortgage, small penis possibly?

Child.

This message is too short

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chucky wrote: »

the simple answer is that interest rates were much higher then - it's much easier to be paying your mortgage in difficult times at 5% (now) than 15% (then)

you also have to factor in the welfare state now to 1980 and 1970 there is much more protection now than at those times.

And of course the supply issue......

We went into the 90's crash with an oversupply of property, we hadn't been underbuilding for a decade, and we kept building all the way through.

Whereas in this crash, house building fell off a cliff almost immediately. And yet we keep adding 400,000 people and 250,000 new households every year but only build 80,000 houses, down from 200,000 plus in previous years, which still wasn't enough.....

The current shortfall is a million houses and growing......

That situation just did not exist in the 90's crash.

Nor did low rates, govt assistance for mortgage payments, etc etc etc...

And yet still some very naive bears expect things to play out exactly the same way.... Amazing.

dopester

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And of course the supply issue......

We went into the 90's crash with an oversupply of property, we hadn't been underbuilding for a decade, and we kept building all the way through.

Whereas in this crash, house building fell off a cliff almost immediately. And yet we keep adding 400,000 people and 250,000 new households every year but only build 80,000 houses, down from 200,000 plus in previous years, which still wasn't enough.....

The current shortfall is a million houses and growing......

That situation just did not exist in the 90's crash.

Nor did low rates, govt assistance for mortgage payments, etc etc etc...

And yet still some very naive bears expect things to play out exactly the same way.... Amazing.

I was going to bite at Chucky's response to this, but I'm on uncertain ground - although I'll suggest it anyway.

If anything, except for those with really superior skills, all these extra people puts pressure on wages I would have thought, and house prices.

Hear me out. By itself an ever growing intake/population growth doesn't sustain or push up house prices. Money and credit and the economic environment are key factors.

If there aren't enough jobs to support, or pay is cut partly because of increased willingness of those in the growing population to take lower pay for doing some jobs, then do you really expect house to rise in value... simply because of immigration/population growth?

Instead of sustaining or pushing up house prices... the growing population, the economy which some people still believe has many difficult transitions/reforms to make, public sector cutbacks... the fact everything is thrown to supporting existing home-owners/house prices... could feasibly also cause greater levels of social unrest than in the last crash, impacting on the house values of trapped home-owners.

chucky wrote: »

the only thing that will avoid this happening is increased immigration and the limited supply and building of new property in the UK.

The only immigration/population growth variable I could see sustaining and pushing up house prices, is if you had groups of people clubbing together their money/salary to buy a house in limited supply. Or if you get lots and lots of immigrants coming over with a lot of money willing to buy a 3 bed amongst 5 or 6 people.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

dopester wrote: »

The only immigration/population growth variable I could see sustaining and pushing up house prices, is if you had groups of people clubbing together their money/salary to buy a house in limited supply. Or if you get lots and lots of immigrants coming over with a lot of money willing to buy a 3 bed amongst 5 or 6 people.

Or if you get landlords renting houses by the room..... Which increases yield and drives up prices.

Or people having to rent together to pay high rents..... Which further increases yield and drives up prices.

Or simply the obvious one..... When you only build a third of the houses you need, then only the top earning 35% of households need to be able to afford to buy for prices to rise.

But anyway you look at it, an increase in population without an equivalent increase in housing must, in every single case, lead to greater average housing density.

And with an increase in housing density also comes an increase in earners per household.

And with an increase in earners per household, comes an increase in average household income.

Which provides the support to raise rents, and then house prices.....

IveSeenTheLight

nembot wrote: »

Let's hope if we ever have to communicate with extraterrestrials using math, it's not you doing the numbers.

LOL, my numbers add up and have been proven.

What was it you said?

nembot wrote: »

The challenge is there, what's the matter - cocky comeback easier than finding facts?

Hardly suprising...

At least you live how you portray.

twadge_face

Dear oh dear. When I saw the Sunday Express's headline I literally LOL'd. I do sometimes wonder if it is a self-satirising publication.

That daft meaningless headline next adjacent to a big picture of a young girl skipping through spring-imbued fields.

It even offered a free Twirl to every reader.

DOES LIFE GET ANY BETTER?

IveSeenTheLight

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

Dear oh dear. When I saw the Sunday Express's headline I literally LOL'd. I do sometimes wonder if it is a self-satirising publication.

That daft meaningless headline next adjacent to a big picture of a young girl skipping through spring-imbued fields.

It even offered a free Twirl to every reader.

DOES LIFE GET ANY BETTER?

I guess we'll see how daft the headline is when Nationwide release their figures on thursday

Sunday_Express wrote:

The Nationwide Building Society is expected to report on Thursday that house prices rose 0.5 per cent month-on-month in April, pushing the year-on-year increase to 9.8 per cent, according to think-tank Global Insight.

twadge_face

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I guess we'll see how daft the headline is when Nationwide release their figures on thursday

But what's better? What sells more newspapers? 10% property price increases or a free Twirl? They had roughly equivalent space on the front page...

Those Express readers are spoiled for joyfulness.

IveSeenTheLight

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

But what's better? What sells more newspapers? 10% property price increases or a free Twirl? They had roughly equivalent space on the front page...

Those Express readers are spoiled for joyfulness.

LOL, I see your point, however they hardly shares the smae space on the front page..
The Twirl advert was about a 1/4 of the headline and not counting the article itself.