MSE News: Nationwide: house prices continue to drop

JonnyBravo

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In all honesty, it's only worth it if she's on a very good salary, or if she's happy to go to work purely to pay for childcare.

This is one of the big problems with offering 4,5,6x mortgages to a couple who are likely to have kids.

True short term "thinking" at it's finest.
How about trying to go back to work after a 5 year break? A bit harder you think?
How about the missed opportunities for promotion?

Aberdeenangarse

Batchy wrote: »

My gf, wants to continue working when we have kids

Mate, If I were your GF I'd be asking for double shifts

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In all honesty, it's only worth it if she's on a very good salary, or if she's happy to go to work purely to pay for childcare.

Tosh, child care is £28- £30 day in most places (outside london). My wife went down to 3 days to spend more time with the little one but still have contact with the outside world and talk to some one older than 1 year old.

So as long as you earn more than £30 a day (which would be below the minimum wage) you are better off.

Even better if your work does child care vouchers , as you can pay out of your pre-tax wages.

Then at 3 years old you get 15 hours free child care a week.

You would have to have the worlds worst job miles away from your carer for it to be just covering the costs.

AD9898_2

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Sorry Ad but thats rot. There are plenty of people who cant cope with 2.5x joint and plenty of people who can afford 4x joint.

Fair point, but I still believe a lower house price base, then gradually increasing with wage inflation is the best way for a sustainable future.

If this were to happen everyone wins, people who sell up to downsize at retirement would still be sitting on a tidy profit, BUT FTBrs would also be fine as house prices that are bought into line with wage inflation would mean they paid no more in real terms than the generation that went before them.

Aberdeenangarse

Really2 wrote: »

My wife went down to 3 days to spend more time with the little one but still have contact with the outside world and talk to some one older than 1 year old.

You saying she's getting fed up with you? :rotfl:

michaels

Four random thoughts:
1) Are the indexes underplaying price falls because of the removal of supply effect Hamish likes to bang on about?

Imagine prices for all property types are fairly stagnant. Then suppose that buyers of one class of property can no longer access mortgages - in this instance first time buyers. Initially first time buyer property prices should fall - but may be sellers just refuse to accept lower prices and so actually sales fall. The house price indices will now be skewed towards the prices achieved by larger non first time buyer properties that are not yet falling in price and will thus be excessively positive.

2) Less money in property?

angrypirate wrote: »

Hmm, interesting to note in the report

Surely the last thing this country needs is more money tied up in things like property. The idea of cutting interest rates wasn't so that people could invest in property - it was to encourage people to spend on the high street.

Imagine savers have some money. They can put it in the bank but because the banks are no longer lending to risky property buyers returns are poor so they need to look elsewhere for the higher returns they used to get from the banks. Given a shortage of housing rental returns remain strong so property is a tempting home for the savers money. The money has not just disappeared so some of it will still fund property by one route or another.

3) North-South divide?

Generali wrote: »

Some thoughts:
- Interesting to note that Nationwide's seasonally adjusted number is massively different from Halifax's. 80% lower in fact. Halifax has more Northern lending, areas where more GDP comes from Government spending. Nationwide more Southern. North-South divide anyone?

I would have thought both indexes adjust for the mix and volume of properties in each area. Eg if in the North 5 of 5 million properties sold for an average price of 100k and in the South 5 of 10 million properties sold for an average price of 200k the national average would be 167k not 150k.


4) Price expectations:

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Sure, but its equally important to talk about sentiment and it's pretty clear where that is headed at the moment.

100% agree - when prices are increasing the imperative is to 'buy now before being priced out', when they are falling the smart thing to do is sit on your hands and buy better for less in the future. As Hamish always points out when prices are rising, there is no way you can save fast enough to compensate so when they are falling any losses from paying rent are more than compensated by falling prices.

FTBFun

Really2 wrote: »

Massive fall on LR.:eek:

-0.2%, 5.2% annual rise still mind. This was in September - I guess the -3.6% of Halifax wasn't exactly on target.

http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/houseprices/

London is still in a world of its own mind! 0.3% up in my borough, YOY of.....15.1% :eek:

Really2

Aberdeenangarse wrote: »

You saying she's getting fed up with you? :rotfl:

Well if that is the case I am good on a computer for a one year old.
That would make me very advanced for my years.
Were as you are in your 20-30s and acting like a 3 year old.:)

Wookster

What is quite amazing is that in spite of good, strong growth, house prices are still falling.

The outlook cannot be for increases bearing this in mind.

Really2

Wookster wrote: »

What is quite amazing is that in spite of good, strong growth, house prices are still falling.

The outlook cannot be for increases bearing this in mind.

Last year was more amazing prices were rising in a recession.

Perhaps it points to the two not having a tight link and one being a lagging indicator of the economy (house prices) just like jobs being a lagging indicator also.