House prices down 0.9% Nationwide report out

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The bear side, just let the bull side get on with it and do that themselves

Self confessed bear here. I don't see the need to push my opinion zealously. Half the reason I still check this forum and HPC is to see both sides make themselves look bad :rotfl:

N1AK

Sibley wrote: »

Whatever happens give it 5 years and average prices will be over £175k.

Something I entirely agree with. What I don't understand is why you see the fact house prices will improve by 1% pa over 5 years as a sign of strength in the market.

I've got my deposit in savings accounts averaging 3.2% (after tax). I could buy easily, but why would I when I can buy bigger later.

Sibley wrote: »

Whats that on a £200k house? £2000????

£4k in mortgages to the typical FTB. Even suggesting that £2000 is inconsequential doesn't make you look wealthy. It makes you look arrogant.

boomerangs

These stats remove all doubt as to which way house prices are heading. And it certainly ain't up.

Thrugelmir

nembot wrote: »

To be fair, small rises or falls over a period of a couple of months from either perspective is little more than noise. Unified results between data sources is the catalyst in which real trends are defined. At the moment with opposing numbers nobody, even the biggest players don't know what the next twelve or even six months will bring.

Net mortgage lending at £86 million in August. Could we see the first monthly net repayment of mortgage debt in the coming 12 months?

Houses on market up for sale increased by 41% from 12 months ago.

Yet transactions bobbling around 1% up.

Sellers market. So buyers waiting to snap up the envitable bargains as prices are reduced.

IveSeenTheLight

boomerangs wrote: »

These stats remove all doubt as to which way house prices are heading. And it certainly ain't up.

When prices were rising, many on here were predicting they would fall and result in a stagnant market for the year.

2 consecutive months falls (total of 3 out of 8) is hardly firmed up long term direction.

Pimperne1

N1AK wrote: »

Something I entirely agree with. What I don't understand is why you see the fact house prices will improve by 1% pa over 5 years as a sign of strength in the market.

I've got my deposit in savings accounts averaging 3.2% (after tax). I could buy easily, but why would I when I can buy bigger later.



£4k in mortgages to the typical FTB. Even suggesting that £2000 is inconsequential doesn't make you look wealthy. It makes you look arrogant.

You've got, say £50k, deposit attracting a 3.2% (pretty good actually) and the average homeowner has got an asset worth £175k attracting 1% (after tax). Unless you've got a bigger deposit than that you won't be buying anything too much bigger (but don't tell me how much you've got I don't want you to appear arrogant).

Sibley

£4k in mortgages to the typical FTB. Even suggesting that £2000 is inconsequential doesn't make you look wealthy. It makes you look arrogant.

I'm sorry I did need mean to come across as arrogant.

The fact is £2000 on a 25 year mortgage of say £150,000 wouldn't make a great deal of difference to monthly payments.

N1AK

Pimperne1 wrote: »

You've got, say £50k, deposit attracting a 3.2% (pretty good actually) and the average homeowner has got an asset worth £175k attracting 1% (after tax). Unless you've got a bigger deposit than that you won't be buying anything too much bigger (but don't tell me how much you've got I don't want you to appear arrogant).

To stick with your figures, over a year:
£50k earning 3.2% = £1600
£175k property increasing in value by 1% = £1750
So you've made £150... except if I recall correctly the bank is probably going to want some interest on that £125k loan..

Let's assume we could get the mortgage at a bargain basement 2%, that's an additional: £2500. So I'd be £2350 worse off one year in.

IveSeenTheLight

N1AK wrote: »

To stick with your figures, over a year:
£50k earning 3.2% = £1600
£175k property increasing in value by 1% = £1750
So you've made £150... except if I recall correctly the bank is probably going to want some interest on that £125k loan..

Let's assume we could get the mortgage at a bargain basement 2%, that's an additional: £2500. So I'd be £2350 worse off one year in.

You've factored in the mortgage interest but it appears you have not factored in the rent

N1AK

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You've factored in the mortgage interest but it appears you have not factored in the rent

:rotfl: You're right, my oversight. Obviously that considerably changes the financials of this theoretical example. If you could get the mortgage and were certain you'd see the houses value 1% YoY it would be better than renting.

I have to admit the figures did seem a little more favourable than I expected. If I didn't think house prices were going to drop enough to be worth waiting I'd be buying already.