Own a house - you're working for nothing.

des_cartes

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You have to ask yourself why these failed STR gamblers are allowed on forums such as this. Losing such huge sums by such a risky behaviour as STR-ing and having it backfire spectacularly is not very MSE at all.

And then we realise exactly why you're allowed to stay.

It's to serve as a warning to anyone else thinking about such a terminally stupid course of action. :cool:

Failed str gamblers? Not in my case. Prices in my target areas are already 10-15% below when I cashed in and I am confident of getting another 10-15% off in the current market. That would get me pretty close to my target 30% saving, in fact I might just do a bit of window shopping before chistmas just for fun, or I might hang on untill 2011 when tax rises, job cuts and forced selling knock another 10% off.:)

toocan

your arguing like anything you say on an internet forum could affect the real world. Its interesting to discuss facts, figures and how these play within your own opinions but some of the comments read - at least to me - that if its posted/argued enough if it will come true

des_cartes

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Very well if you own a house.

Not to mention higher prices will save millions of people a lot of money on their mortgages as they drop into a lower LTV bracket and get better rates.

And cost them more if they want to trade up.

des_cartes

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And can you explain how that refutes even a single one of the points raised in my post?

By pointing out the politics that helped to restrict demand in 2008 is not the politics of 2010. You have already seen cuts to housing benefit and smi and theres more to come. Brown created an economy based on house prices. The coalition want an economy based on producing stuff.

ukcarper

des_cartes wrote: »

By pointing out the politics that helped to restrict demand in 2008 is not the politics of 2010. You have already seen cuts to housing benefit and smi and theres more to come. Brown created an economy based on house prices. The coalition want an economy based on producing stuff.

So what are they doing to encourage it?

Hemichromis

des_cartes wrote: »

phil_b wrote: »

Some of your facts sound a lot like personal opinion and assumption to me (with some bias and wishful thinking thrown in for good measure).

QUOTE]

The difference between my personal opinion and yours is that I am able to back mine up with evidence. House prices falling by 30% would return them to the long term multiples of earnings. What gives you reason to believe they will remain higher now that the funny money that pushed prices up is no longer available?

because people are willing to pay it! the only way house prices will go up is either

Large interest rate rise
bank lending criteria tightened even more

this coalition has shown that they are keen on keeping the base rate low as they recognise that decreasing house prices stop developers bulding houses and make people less likely to buy.

bank lending criteria was tightened immediately following the crash and is being relaxed now, i just dont see it happening again.

most likely result is house prices stagnating untill people start to believe they are not going to plunge in value. and then going up slowly as people trust they will not get thrown into negative equity.

PasturesNew

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You have to ask yourself why these failed STR gamblers are allowed on forums such as this. Losing such huge sums by such a risky behaviour as STR-ing and having it backfire spectacularly is not very MSE at all.

And then we realise exactly why you're allowed to stay.

It's to serve as a warning to anyone else thinking about such a terminally stupid course of action. :cool:

This STR gambler's still ahead mathematically.

Not paying for house/maintentance/insurance, some interest from money added to the pot, renting cheaper (bedsit) than the house (big). And - no responsibilities... that's the best bit. When you own a house and leave it, there's some anxiety about floods/fire. When you rent, it's not your problem any more

I didn't like/want my house, so I'd have been down-sizing anyway.

It's great being completely free and irresponsible. I can recommend it. It's all like one big long holiday

PasturesNew

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

According to Halifax, the long term average house price is 4.0 times male mean full time earnings. And the current average house price is somewhere around 4.8 times male mean full time earnings.

So it would only require a drop of around 15% to 20% to match their long term average.

However the Halifax long term average only goes back to the 1970's, and is therefore skewed by the three decades of the highest interest rates in the 300+ year history of the BOE.

In other words, 4 times salary was designed when interest rates were mostly at 10% plus, and reached 17% at one stage.

As there is pretty much zero prospect of base rates reaching those levels again in our lifetime, with the BOE stating the new neutrality point for rates is more like 3%, then your argument for returning to those levels falls down at the first hurdle.

Gosh, do you think the shortage of a million houses might have something to do with it?

The Halifax figures aren't the "average house price", they use a hedonic regression method to calculate a "typical house price". It's also seasonally adjusted and weighted. It's also based on mortgages only - and so no cash deals are part of the mix. It also only uses figures from its own customers, who tend to be in the north.

So, they might as well use a big hat.

Where I live, they reckon the average house is £195,371, for the region the male mean full time earnings are £31,756.

House price: http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media/pdfs/research/Q3-2010/UKOverviewQ32010.pdf
Male mean earnings: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2009/tab7_7a.xls

So, in the South West, on those figures, it's 6.15x the bloke's income "round my way". Although, having said that, the SW region is a huge/long area.

In my town, say, the male mean full-time wage is less, putting the SW average house price at 7x the male mean full-time wage. I don't know if the Halifax produces figures broken down into smaller areas, all I could quickly find was regions or the whole of the UK.

phil_b_2

PasturesNew wrote: »

And - no responsibilities... that's the best bit. When you own a house and leave it, there's some anxiety about floods/fire. When you rent, it's not your problem any more

I didn't like/want my house, so I'd have been down-sizing anyway.

It's great being completely free and irresponsible. I can recommend it. It's all like one big long holiday

I never felt any of that for the several years I was renting, definitely an opposite experience. I tended to be in reasonably sized rentals too rather than bedsits.

Owning the house I'm now in is infinitely better in every way for me. Must be horses for courses!

poppycod

des_cartes wrote: »

I've made it clear why I am here. What are you here for?

Hamish can only be here to spread propaganda and lies or to troll.

or maybe both...