House prices heading down not up

pop_gun

the real house prices are the ones people can afford to pay. it's no good saying house prices are rising (even if they are), when no one can afford them. a few years back it took seller an average of 9 months to sell their property. now some people (on this forum at least) can't get viewer, let alone offers.

so in finishing, house prices can double or quadruple in price, nbut if no one is prepared to buy it then it's essentially worthless (at least at the tendered price).

IveSeenTheLight

chucky wrote: »

that's the attitude - never say die

Sean Connery once said 'never' and we know how that story turned out.

IveSeenTheLight

pop_gun wrote: »

so in finishing, house prices can double or quadruple in price, nbut if no one is prepared to buy it then it's essentially worthless (at least at the tendered price).

The house price indexes would not show rises or falls if property was not being bought or sold.

Hence if prices were to double or quadruple as you say, it would be because there was sufficient people buying properties in relation to the supply of properties.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They are stagnating.

They are also rising.

They are rising in real terms. They are not falling.

A house that costs more is actually cheaper than the same house that costs less.

The falls are just noise. You have to look at the trend. The trend by the way starts when house prices started to rise and doesnt include any falls. That's just the way it is. Everything starts in feb 09, and thats just fact, shutup, you don't get it.

Debt IS wealth, don't ask me why, you won't understand.

House prices are rising, will rise forever more. It's the best time to buy, for you, not me.

Oh, yes, I predicted falls in 2010, and stagnation and rises, so I'm correct. But they are rising, I'm telling you, they are rising.

I missed this gem yesterday. It's a masterpiece of confusion and misrepresentation.

Graham, to clarify:

Real terms stagnation means rises in absolute value at or around the rate of inflation. This is the broad consensus, despite the assertion at the start of this thread.

You can't infer a trend from noise level fluctuations. You have to average over a longer period. Imagine ripples on the tide when the tide is coming in. At any moment the water level may be below or above the last measurement, but the tide is still coming in.

Houses that cost more can be more affordable. I know that may sound on the face of it contradictory, but all that has to happen to make that so is for rises to be less than average wage inflation. And of course it can also be true if interest rates are, well, historically low and likely to stay that way for a while. But obviously that would never happen.

It's just sulky obfustication to claim that anyone is saying that the trend only started in Feb 09. Normally we look at trends using rolling averages, 6 months would be normal but they can be less or more. If you generate a trend back to the peak then a rolling average would show a fall and then a rising trend, which is now slowing.

I don't think anyone on the "bull" side has ever said debt is wealth. Some of the bears rabbit on about it *not* being wealth: the truth is that the conventional way of buying a home (or BTL property) is via low cost long term loans, and so it does form part of the cost/benefit analysis.

But on the debt is wealth point, most successful businesses are founded on loans from their shareholders, and they do generate wealth. A bank is in debt to its account holders, but it generates wealth from the deposits. The idea that debt is necessarily bad is absolutist nonsense, it depends on the context. It certainly can generate wealth. You're certainly less likely to become wealthy if you take dogmatic lines on anything instead of examining any given situation on its merits and evaluating risk/reward. If you really delve into the bear psyche, it's about bitterness that playing safe doesn't bring the rewards that go to people who don't play by their rules on avoidance of risk.

There is the point here that all of this has been explained to you clearly very many times. You're either choosing not to understand it, or you're not capable of understanding it. Not sure which but I fear the latter.

chucky

julieq wrote: »

There is the point here that all of this has been explained to you clearly very many times. You're either choosing not to understand it, or you're not capable of understanding it. Not sure which but I fear the latter.

ouch... be gentle Julie, he's only little

ruggedtoast

julieq wrote: »

I missed this gem yesterday. It's a masterpiece of confusion and misrepresentation.

Graham, to clarify:

Real terms stagnation means rises in absolute value at or around the rate of inflation. This is the broad consensus, despite the assertion at the start of this thread.

You can't infer a trend from noise level fluctuations. You have to average over a longer period. Imagine ripples on the tide when the tide is coming in. At any moment the water level may be below or above the last measurement, but the tide is still coming in.

Houses that cost more can be more affordable. I know that may sound on the face of it contradictory, but all that has to happen to make that so is for rises to be less than average wage inflation. And of course it can also be true if interest rates are, well, historically low and likely to stay that way for a while. But obviously that would never happen.

It's just sulky obfustication to claim that anyone is saying that the trend only started in Feb 09. Normally we look at trends using rolling averages, 6 months would be normal but they can be less or more. If you generate a trend back to the peak then a rolling average would show a fall and then a rising trend, which is now slowing.

I don't think anyone on the "bull" side has ever said debt is wealth. Some of the bears rabbit on about it *not* being wealth: the truth is that the conventional way of buying a home (or BTL property) is via low cost long term loans, and so it does form part of the cost/benefit analysis.

But on the debt is wealth point, most successful businesses are founded on loans from their shareholders, and they do generate wealth. A bank is in debt to its account holders, but it generates wealth from the deposits. The idea that debt is necessarily bad is absolutist nonsense, it depends on the context. It certainly can generate wealth. You're certainly less likely to become wealthy if you take dogmatic lines on anything instead of examining any given situation on its merits and evaluating risk/reward. If you really delve into the bear psyche, it's about bitterness that playing safe doesn't bring the rewards that go to people who don't play by their rules on avoidance of risk.

There is the point here that all of this has been explained to you clearly very many times. You're either choosing not to understand it, or you're not capable of understanding it. Not sure which but I fear the latter.

He's joking Jules.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

waffle....you don't understand...waffle

LOL, not a bad speech for a mere pee take.

I'm off to set you up another circle to jog around

carolt

Rinoa wrote: »

Do house prices have to fall substantially to validate your decision to not to buy?

They have to fall by precisely the same amount you need them to rise to validate your decision to buy.

Child.

JonnyBravo

julieq wrote: »

I missed this gem yesterday. It's a masterpiece of confusion and misrepresentation.

Graham, to clarify:

Real terms stagnation means rises in absolute value at or around the rate of inflation. This is the broad consensus, despite the assertion at the start of this thread.

You can't infer a trend from noise level fluctuations. You have to average over a longer period. Imagine ripples on the tide when the tide is coming in. At any moment the water level may be below or above the last measurement, but the tide is still coming in.

Houses that cost more can be more affordable. I know that may sound on the face of it contradictory, but all that has to happen to make that so is for rises to be less than average wage inflation. And of course it can also be true if interest rates are, well, historically low and likely to stay that way for a while. But obviously that would never happen.

It's just sulky obfustication to claim that anyone is saying that the trend only started in Feb 09. Normally we look at trends using rolling averages, 6 months would be normal but they can be less or more. If you generate a trend back to the peak then a rolling average would show a fall and then a rising trend, which is now slowing.

I don't think anyone on the "bull" side has ever said debt is wealth. Some of the bears rabbit on about it *not* being wealth: the truth is that the conventional way of buying a home (or BTL property) is via low cost long term loans, and so it does form part of the cost/benefit analysis.

But on the debt is wealth point, most successful businesses are founded on loans from their shareholders, and they do generate wealth. A bank is in debt to its account holders, but it generates wealth from the deposits. The idea that debt is necessarily bad is absolutist nonsense, it depends on the context. It certainly can generate wealth. You're certainly less likely to become wealthy if you take dogmatic lines on anything instead of examining any given situation on its merits and evaluating risk/reward. If you really delve into the bear psyche, it's about bitterness that playing safe doesn't bring the rewards that go to people who don't play by their rules on avoidance of risk.

There is the point here that all of this has been explained to you clearly very many times. You're either choosing not to understand it, or you're not capable of understanding it. Not sure which but I fear the latter.

Oh dear julieq.
You seem to have managed to make graham look sensible and yourself rather silly.

Quite an achievement.

MiserlyMartin

Honestly
it's like a children's playground