Why house prices must fall by 28 per cent

twadge_face

StevieJ wrote: »

Say what you want but it doesn't make it right

Nyeh nyeh, nyeh-nyeh nyeh.

This is forum demonstrates entropy beautifully.

twadge_face

chucky wrote: »

do you know what that means in real terms?

"Real" terms?

Feeling existential?

twadge_face

phil_b wrote: »

Winter is the new 'spring' in the housing world. Prices will jump 10%!

It could be the K-Spring, but I thought it was K-Autumn.

twadge_face

FATBALLZ wrote: »

This is a shocker, I was certain they were going to fall by 27%.

I know, it's disturbing. And when they start going up 0.1% every other month it'll be the recovery. Again.

chucky

!!!!!!_face wrote: »

"Real" terms?

Feeling existential?

maybe... or it could be like when someone says they feel 'real'.

i just don't any more Mr Face

Thrugelmir

buglawton wrote: »

Which, assuming 2 to 3 percent compound inflation per year, would mean no real price rise at all.

If inflation runs at 3% per annum and house prices stagnate (as per early 90's). Then the average house price will have fallen 15.5% in real terms in 5 years.

A 28% fall isn't as high as it may seem, nor it will appear to be a crash.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Real terms is a horribly misleading phrase.

This is actual house prices. What you pay in the real world.




Adjusting that figure against the price of chocolate bars and bananas, as the hpc graph does, is pointless.

Unless wages increase, then a "real terms" decrease does you no good at all. It just means that houses AND everything else became mroe expensive relative to wages.

Now, hands up all the bears who are expecting significant average wage increases over the next few years......

Thrugelmir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Real terms is a horribly misleading phrase.

This is actual house prices. What you pay in the real world.




Adjusting that figure against the price of chocolate bars and bananas, as the hpc graph does, is pointless.

Unless wages increase, then a "real terms" decrease does you no good at all. It just means that houses AND everything else became mroe expensive relative to wages.

Now, hands up all the bears who are expecting significant average wage increases over the next few years......

So between 89 and 95 house prices fell while wages did increase. If average wages don't increase at all as you suggest then what is the likely impact in that scenario? Between 2010 and 2015, the period of this Government in fact.

chucky

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Real terms is a horribly misleading phrase.

so horribly misleading that those that rejoice about 'real' house prices falling actually think it's positive for them. it's not.

it affects future FTBs more than any group of people...

Batchy

Lets just get this straight, house prices are reaching a level first time buyers can afford.

House prices are lower, which I think we can all agree on... and mortgage rates are also very low, the only thing stopping first time buyers at the moment is insecurity. Until the press stop reporting all the negativity towards austerity cuts and 600k public sector workers going, then there will be no positivity and no one will spend... they will hoard their cash.

I think the time is now or relatively soon to take advantage, as by the time people (being the majority or the press) actually think the bottom has been reached the crazyness will start again... and then it will be too late to get on the band wagon at the bottom, and you will pay increased prices again, the quality properties will just go before they hit the market. etc etc etc.

If people are serious about buying and are close to levels they are comfortable with, then they will be monitoring the housing market probably daily and will be registered with agents who will call with hot properties.

The only things left are the naff ones.