Interesting? Can it be argued?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, don't really want this to go off down an arguing level, but even if buying was cheaper than renting, if you can't get a mortgage, you can't buy. (Unless you have the cash of course)

I know it's simple. But it doesn't need to be complicated.

I can't see what you have stated as a reason price falls on a large level CANNOT happen. My piece has now been said

when nobody can get a mortgage for a prolonged period of time then we may have those kind of house price drops.
you're looking at economic and social Armageddon way before then.

to be fair, if there were those kind of house price drops i'd worry more about my families personal security and social unrest than a house price.

Blacklight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What I will say however, is looking at that second graph, how many would have been laughed at, and told it would be impossible for prices to tripple in 10 years?

I agree that such a fall is extremely unlikely to happen. BUT, I would argue that that rise from 1995-2005 was also, just as extremely unlikely to anyone looking at prices in 1995. The surge happened...howcome the opposite can't?

How many would have been laughed at? Depends on who's doing the laughing. The last 60 years of data would suggest there have been plenty of times in the past where prices have tripled in such a short space of time. I predict therefore that in ten years time prices will be on their way up again and will triple again.

There are however, no such occurrences of prices falling by 70%. Houses are also homes, not a commodity that investors jump in and out of. People are always eager to get in, not so eager to liquidate and live on the streets even when it makes good business sense.