We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
FTB's "Missing Deal Of A Lifetime"
Comments
-
Oh dear - we live in a market economy. That is not likely to change in the short/medium term future. So you have to live by its rules.
The way it works is that prices are determined by negotiation between the buyer who wants minimum price but wants to buy and seller looking for maximum price but still wants to sell.
If the resource is in plentiful supply the buyer can always buy elsewhere and so has the advantage. If not the seller has the advantage.
It's not a matter of "jacking up", it's an automatic effect of the mechanism outlined above.
"jacking up" was a term used by Hamish McTavish, I was simply replying to his post.....
"Mortgage Rationing.
Banks are rationing a limited supply of funding by jacking up the price of retail mortgage money to record levels of margin above funding costs. "30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
if you feel that strongly about house prices - why don't you sell your house for 3 times average earnings for your local area?I do, all but a tiny mortgage.
it would make sense because as you say it's good for you but bad for those who demand.
by not selling it at 3 times average income for the local area - you are "jacking up" prices and are one of those "property bulls".Lack of supply is a good thing for the person/organisation with some supply, bad news for the those who demand.
According to property bulls, there`s nothing wrong with jacking up the asking price of a limited resource.
0 -
Oh dear - we live in a market economy. That is not likely to change in the short/medium term future. So you have to live by its rules.
The way it works is that prices are determined by negotiation between the buyer who wants minimum price but wants to buy and seller looking for maximum price but still wants to sell.
If the resource is in plentiful supply the buyer can always buy elsewhere and so has the advantage. If not the seller has the advantage.
It's not a matter of "jacking up", it's an automatic effect of the mechanism outlined above.
I understand this. What is of interest to me is the way the property market works. Unlike most other items that the general public purchase, buying a property involves a relatively large amount of borrowed money. The value of a property is determined not simply by the availabilty of similar properties, but purchaser`s spending power (ability to obatin borrowed funds in many cases). Therefore, even if you own a lovely property in a perfect location, the price you ask/get for it will be largely dependant upon availability of credit. There`s also a lot of psychology at play. Should the media regularly repeat the message "HPI = good", "property prices to go up", "there is a shortgage of property", people will expect to pay the asking price, if not a little more.
In any asset bubble, people tend to lose sense of perspective, and just get drawn into "buy now or miss out". The .com boom was a very good example. It is different with property, I know, but the same forces do come into play.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
if you feel that strongly about house prices - why don't you sell your house for 3 times average earnings for your local area?
it would make sense because as you say it's good for you but bad for those who demand.
by not selling it at 3 times average income for the local area - you are "jacking up" prices and are one of those "property bulls".
Good point. This is an "argument" you haven't yet used on Derv.0 -
it's one that you have been unable and failed to answer too...Graham_Devon wrote: »Good point. This is an "argument" you haven't yet used on Derv.
along with Post 133......0 -
if you feel that strongly about house prices - why don't you sell your house for 3 times average earnings for your local area?
it would make sense because as you say it's good for you but bad for those who demand.
by not selling it at 3 times average income for the local area - you are "jacking up" prices and are one of those "property bulls".
I still want to live here, but even so I couldn`t afford to move at the moment. It`s a place I can afford to live. If and when I decide to move, I hope that I can afford to sell it for 3x local income, and be able to buy my next home for 3x local income.
Sadly, to do this at the moment would not be possible. Local properties are put of for sale around 5-6x local income (if not a little more), and where I`m likely to want to move to would mean me having to pay something like 10x my income.
Yes I feel strongly about house prices. I managed to buy this place on a modest income, with a 15% deposit and a 3.5 x income mortgage. I couldn`t do that today, and I feel there`s a problem with the property market in this country. Does that mean I should sell up ? :think:30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »Good point. This is an "argument" you haven't yet used on Derv.
A strange one, if you ask me.
A bit like saying to a green party member "if you feel so strongly about the environment, why don`t you go and live in the middle of a forest and be self-sufficient ?".
Yes, I bought a house to live in. Yes it has increased in value. Yes, I am not entirely confortable with that fact, just like I`m not entirely comfortable that my car kicks out Co2, or that the items that I buy may have been the product of cheap labour.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
A strange one, if you ask me.
A bit like saying to a green party member "if you feel so strongly about the environment, why don`t you go and live in the middle of a forest and be self-sufficient ?".
It's been asked to death.
The answer is always the same as you answered. Often descends into "you are greedy, you hypocrite".
It will be asked again in another house price thread, probably in the next week
Wait until the "The house at 200k is actually cheaper than the one at 150k" argument pops along. That's always ammusing.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards