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!
You aint seen nothing yet: Why house prices could fall another 20%
Comments
-
Wages go up, house prices stay stagnant = Real term.
Either that or he likes people disagreeing with him to back up his argument?
Good job you saved 1%, the last crash as refered to in the article (and many times on here) the nominal falls happened in the first 18-24 months. From 1992-1996 they hardly moved nominally, if you look on the nationwide real term graph you will see half of the fall happened.
20% rise in wages?
Sorry.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
What kind of time period you applying to this one?
Come on now, seriously. If he was suggesting prices will stay flat, he wouldn't say fall 20% would he.
If you need another straw, let me know.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »20% rise in wages?
Sorry.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
What kind of time period you applying to this one?
Nominal fall of 5-7% and 15-13% inflation over 5 years is not exactly stretching things GD.
The ROLF just shows how much you fail to see this (and you are losing the debate).
Remember what you asked?Graham_Devon wrote: »Please keep arguing to a minimum...
Please explain why in his article he uses quotes saying they do not expect a crash to back him up????????????????0 -
Nominal fall of 5-7% and 15-13% inflation over 5 years is not exactly stretching things GD.
You said flat, not nominal falls. Mind. Make it up!The ROLF just shows how much you fail to see this (and you are losing the debate).
I fail to see it as you specifically stated prices stay flat and wages rise.
Anyway, I haven't seen ROLF either. Not since children in need anyway.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »You said flat, not nominal falls. Mind. Make it up!
I fail to see it as you specifically stated prices stay flat and wages rise.
Anyway, I haven't seen ROLF either. Not since children in need anyway.
Oh god not again.
That was an example of how prices could fall in real terms (quoting from the article that falls did not have to be nominal.
If you read I said before thatThe majority of the last "crash" was in real terms and I expect that this time.
So stop acting like a petulant child again because someone is having a logical debate with you.
But you could answer why non of his back up writers are saying prices are likely to crash/big nominal falls, only the 3rd time of asking now.0 -
I'm not acting like anything. You are just getting annoyed.
No one in the real world, says "looks like it will fall 20%" and actually mean prices will stay flat.
It's just absolutely desperate to try and spin in that way because you simply despise the idea of falls.
It's neccesary sometimes to stop trying to spin things and look at, and take things, for what they are. And when a writer states "fall by another 20%" he means in nominal terms. The price tag term. Not some smoke and mirror term you wish to apply. If he meant that, he'd just say it, instead of expecting telegraph readers to second guess every word.
Not once have I EVER seen you suggest that any article talking about price rises, is talking about "real term" rises. You have ALWAYS taken it at face value, because you are happy with a rise and therefore feel absolutely no need to try a desperately spin it.0 -
In real terms over several years assuming moderate salary inflation and the credit taps don't re-open, then yes. If you're thinking nominal falls, not a prayer. Ultra low rates and intervention to prevent repossessions will prevent this.
I'm afraid that many missed their chance in late 2008. You gambled and lost.Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
Just say you cant explain why the people he quotes are not saying prices will crash /or fall large nominal amounts.
It reads to me as real terms or he just likes to try and prove himself wrong by quoting people who disagree with him.
I just remembered why I (and many others) don't use the site much.
Do I really sound angry? You seem the angry one with your tone and use of smilies to try and belittle me?0 -
Just say you cant explain why the people he quotes are not saying prices will crash /or fall large nominal amounts.
It reads to me as real terms or he just likes to try and prove himself wrong by quoting people who disagree with him.
I just remembered why I (and many others) don't use the site much.
Do I really sound angry? You seem the angry one with your tone and use of smilies to try and belittle me?
No, it's just this absolute desperation lately to focus everything on real terms, simply because people are talking about falls.
The biggest hint he's talking nominal terms and nothing else, and it's quite clear he's talking that, but bulls cannot stand it, is here, in the very first paragraph...House prices would have to fall by more than a fifth from their current level to revert to their long-term average affordability of four years’ average earnings. Even after the modest reductions announced by Nationwide Building Society today, the typical house price equals more than five years’ earnings.
He uses the fall, from todays nationwide figures, and you are still doing all you can to try and spin it other ways. How you can honestly sit there and suggest he's talking real terms after the use of todays nominal fall is beyond me.
No need to blame me for your lack of use of the forum. If you want to just state whatever you like and spin it the way you like without someone questioning you, then you are in the wrong place...a debate forum.0 -
How much of an authority is he the nationwide economist he quotes doesn’t agree with him if he means nominal.0
-
You simply cant understand real terms can you, I gave you an example earlier how prices do not fall much but prices get closer to the long term average.
That sentence does not indicate nominal falls at all?
Prices can meet the wage multiple in nominal or real terms, but the rest of the people he quotes do not indicate large nominal falls.
One sentence that does not even stress the type of falls is not the whole article IMHO.
Next paragraph,But Nationwide economist Martin Gahbauer said there are significant differences between the current situation and the past: “Although the house price to earnings ratio is currently above its long-run average, it is possible that the equilibrium level of the house price to earnings ratio is higher than the long-run average level would suggest.
“Factors that could argue in favour of a higher equilibrium level are a much lower level of real interest rates than in the past, and a higher proportion of households with more than one earner. If one assumes that the long-run average is the equilibrium and that the ratio will eventually revert to its mean, this would imply house prices rising by less than average earnings over a period of time. It does not mean that house prices need to fall abruptly.”
why put this in your article if you mean nominal?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards