Halifax Hpi September 2010 -3.6%

des_cartes

FTBFun wrote: »

I don't agree with this i'm afraid - I believe there are long term trends in the UK for HPI (albeit more moderately than before the sub-prime fallout) due to an ongoing lack of supply and increased demand from population increases and greater single occupancy.

I expect this year to be fairly stagnant however.

What do you think house prices would be today if interest rates were higher, reposessions were higher, less was paid in mortgage interest payments to the unemployed, housing benefit was lower, new rules on lending were in place and the cuts to government spending coming in October had happened 2 years ago? Given that all of the above are going to happen over the next few years what do you think that means for house prices going forward? The op's point was that house prices would have been lower now if all the things that are now going to happen over the next few years had already taken place. House prices will revert to levels compatable with long term growth before the factors that distorted them (now being removed). Once this has occurred then you will see growth in values due to the factors you mention but this will be from a much lower base than 2010 values (30-40% lower).

Graham_Devon

On a more serious level....

If we are getting falls registered like this...whether they are a trend or not...with base rates this low (and I know mortgage rates are higher, but the liklihood is if IR's rise, so will mortgage rates)...

Seriously, how on earth can the housing market survive going forward?

Falls like this....or even if I said volitile conditions such as this at one of the most favourable times for the housing market (houses cheaper than they were, and cost of debt cheapest for a long time)...how can the market grow going forward?

Heyman_2

AD9898 wrote: »

Yeh, yourself and chucky I tend to think of as moderate posters. It's always difficult to post in threads like this if your opposite view point is too extreme.

It's entertaining more than anything, to see the euphoria that gets caused one way or the other - the funny thing is, no-one's going to buy or sell their house based on one month's data

Really2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Can't be inflation, that would lead to a bigger fall not a rise

The figures are in real terms, so perhaps they have taken it on nominal for sept-sept. So nominally they are up but in real terms they have fallen?

Might be wrong but only thing I could think of.

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

On a more serious level....

If we are getting falls registered like this...whether they are a trend or not...with base rates this low (and I know mortgage rates are higher, but the liklihood is if IR's rise, so will mortgage rates)...

Seriously, how on earth can the housing market survive going forward?

Falls like this....or even if I said volitile conditions such as this at one of the most favourable times for the housing market (houses cheaper than they were, and cost of debt cheapest for a long time)...how can the market grow going forward?

Constant increases in prices is not necessary for a thriving market.
Many sectors expand with constantly falling prices (As in electronics).

blueboy43

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

[/CENTER]


I'm relatively confused by their year on year figures.

It says on their document that the average price in Sept. 09 was 163,294, and in Sept 10 162,096. That looks like a small fall to me, not a 2.6% rise.

Pretty sure what they quote are the non-seasonal adjusted figures -Allmon(NSA) on the spreadsheet.

FTBFun

des_cartes wrote: »

What do you think house prices would be today if interest rates were higher, reposessions were higher, less was paid in mortgage interest payments to the unemployed, housing benefit was lower, new rules on lending were in place and the cuts to government spending coming in October had happened 2 years ago? Given that all of the above are going to happen over the next few years what do you think that means for house prices going forward? The op's point was that house prices would have been lower now if all the things that are now going to happen over the next few years had already taken place. House prices will revert to levels compatable with long term growth before the factors that distorted them (now being removed). Once this has occurred then you will see growth in values due to the factors you mention but this will be from a much lower base than 2010 values (30-40% lower).

Its anyone's guess really, i'm just saying what I think is the case over time. Perhaps you can justify your "40% down" figure, which appears to have been plucked out of thin air?

ILW

Heyman wrote: »

It's entertaining more than anything, to see the euphoria that gets caused one way or the other - the funny thing is, no-one's going to buy or sell their house based on one month's data

I think a few may pull out of current deals, or try a bit of guzundering. It may also hit surveyor valuations a little.

DVardysShadow

wherediditallgothen wrote: »

That's nothing. In 15 months, the owners will give YOU money as well as the house

Oh, even better, so you will have money left over when you give your house and all your savings from the previous 14 months to a FTB

Orpheo

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

[/CENTER]


I'm relatively confused by their year on year figures.

It says on their document that the average price in Sept. 09 was 163,294, and in Sept 10 162,096. That looks like a small fall to me, not a 2.6% rise.

You must trust in the banksters' figures. They are very talented and never get their calculations wrong.

Not to derail the thread but:

(I have a young friend who shares a hobby of mine, he is an A* a-level maths student and a first class graduate who is training to be an accountant. A situation recently arose where he did not know how to draw an accurate pentagon.)