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!
Rightmove April +1.7%
Comments
-
-
SLUMDOG_GHUOLS wrote: »Oh dear +1.7% RISES in just ONE single month. This FEAR stage is really kicking in now.
What's a 'ghuol'?0 -
I miss Carol as well. I can't think of many times when I agreed with her, but I miss her passionate debates.
She clearly isn't Jimmy. Carol came across as very intelligent, whereas Jimmy, well... doesn't.
maybe its because im a bit sh*t at the whole economics thing or maybe it was because i was branded thick as sh*t for basing my house purchase decision on asking prices in my area, or one of the other reasons i have given for not buying an over priced house or maybe its because i work on a building site so really i should stay away from superior people like you, but saying all that i cant be that stupid as i didnt buy an overpriced house during the boom due to me deciding it would be a very silly idea, lots of people around my area did, they have letters after their name so must know what they are doing i suppose.
i am very sorry i dont meet your standards.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Sure......:D
There aren't enough buyers to buy all the houses, even if they all dropped by 10%, or 15%, or 20%.
Mortgage lending is at 35% or so of peak levels. The banks are rationing mortgages quite simply because they don't have the money to lend.
Example:
In Cleavertown, there are 10 houses for sale, and 2 buyers with access to a mortgage.
Changing the price on all the houses by 10% makes no difference. There will still only be 2 buyers with access to a mortgage, and 80% will remain unsold.
Now you could argue the case that if you drop the prices far enough, then nobody will need a mortgage, and all the houses will sell. This is true. But mental.
You could also argue the case that reducing prices will allow more people to get a mortgage as their deposit will increase. This is also true, but utterly insignificant within the bounds of reality. A 10% decrease in price turns a 10% deposit into an 11.1% deposit. And almost nobody would be daft enough to drop by the 30% or 40% required to make a difference in that regard, when by doing so they'd almost certainly be allowing a speculator to jump in and get a 7% to 10% rental yield in most places. Better to rent it out themselves, which is what we're seeing when people realise they can't sell.
Only if you think everybody is stupid is this true.
I have the finance to buy a nicer house than I need, but I refuse to do so untill prices drop.I am not a financial expert, and the post above is merely my opinion.:j0 -
I miss Carol as well. I can't think of many times when I agreed with her, but I miss her passionate debates.
I don't miss carol or the legion of sockpuppets she used to agree with herself.
I don't even miss arguing with her/them.... They were so badly wrong, so very often, it was like shooting fish in a barrel by the end.
Much like arguing with Brit now. He's just so discredited, it's almost pointless.She clearly isn't Jimmy. Carol came across as very intelligent, whereas Jimmy, well... doesn't.
Carol also made a habit of creating stupid acting sockies.... Dirk Rambo being the prime example.
And surely to god the Jimmy31 character can't be a real person...... Nobody could be that dense in real life, could they?
It has to be a Forrest Gump like caricature..... Surely?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
do these kind of people like Fox exist in the real world - i really hope they don't...What complete and utter rubbish, is there anything you ever post factual or true full. In the 90's along with my two sisters and friends, and the majority of my many cousins we all purchased our first and even second homes in our 20's, some even a third house.
Not only were FTB's in there 20's common, it was the norm.
but anyway, yes it is true and it is factful and here are the average ages of FTBs for the last 21 years...Table 537 Housing market: distribution of borrowers' ages, by new/other dwellings and type of buyer, United Kingdom, from 1990 Average age First time buyers 1990 33 1991 31 1992 32 1993 32 1994 32 1995 31 1996 31 1997 32 1998 32 1999 32 2000 33 2001 34 2002 33 2003 31 2004 33 2005 32 2006 31 2007 31 2008 32 [B]2009 32[/B]http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/xls/141293.xls
you got that straight now???0 -
-
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »A pair of London lawyers on 6 figure incomes........ each.
Yes, I'd rather imagine it does.
But given that even you had issues getting a mortgage from some providers, imagine how difficult it must be for mere mortals....
We aren't on 6 figure incomes each.
First Direct wasn't keen on our self-employed statuses. Lloyds were quite happy....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
do these kind of people like Fox exist in the real world - i really hope they don't...
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/xls/141293.xls
you got that straight now???Percentage of all mortgages Age of borrower (sole or first named applicant): years Under 25 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 or over Average First time buyers 1990 30.0 40.6 14.5 7.0 7.9 33 1991 29.6 44.4 14.6 5.5 5.4 31 1992 26.8 46.0 15.1 6.3 5.7 32 1993 24.6 47.7 16.0 7.1 4.5 32 1994 22.7 48.5 16.6 7.4 4.8 32 1995 23.7 51.3 15.4 6.3 3.3 31 1996 22.1 52.7 16.0 6.3 2.8 31 1997 18.8 52.4 17.1 6.6 3.4 32 1998 18.2 52.0 17.8 6.7 3.2 32 1999 16.0 52.8 20.1 8.1 3.1 32 2000 16.6 50.5 19.6 7.7 5.6 33 2001 17.0 48.3 19.2 7.2 8.3 34 2002 16.4 49.3 22.5 7.8 4.0 33 2003 15.9 45.4 22.0 9.1 7.6 31 2004 17.8 48.2 21.2 8.6 4.2 33 2005 18.8 53.2 19.1 6.4 2.5 32 2006 17.4 55.7 18.6 6.1 2.2 31 2007 18.3 55.5 17.8 6.1 2.3 31 2008 17.6 53.0 18.9 7.6 2.9 32 2009 15.9 56.2 18.5 7.0 2.4 32 2010 13.8 57.7 19.5 7.0 2.1 32
Your figures, without context, are meaningless; so I thought I would add the who set of numbers for a bit of clarity. It is interesting how a under 25s have dropped by more than 50% in that time period, and 25s to 34s have increase by almost 50%, yet the "mean average" actually shows a decrease in average age.
The figures, I can only assume, are skewed heavily by the decrease in the over 55s category, which has decreased by 80% over the same time period.
Which ever way you look at it, the under 25s category has decreased dramatically, and the 25s to 34s increased. Less younger people are buying, and this cannot be disputed.
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.0 -
here's exactly what what was said previously
so i reply and say it wasn't the case and now you're now replying to my post with another different point.What complete and utter rubbish, is there anything you ever post factual or true full. In the 90's along with my two sisters and friends, and the majority of my many cousins we all purchased our first and even second homes in our 20's, some even a third house.
Not only were FTB's in there 20's common, it was the norm.
but at least you've completely smashed the Fox's argument - well done
so let me get this right either under 25s was the norm or their decreasing because you've just ripped up the Fox's argument completely.the.ciscokid wrote: »Which ever way you look at it, the under 25s category has decreased dramatically, and the 25s to 34s increased. Less younger people are buying, and this cannot be disputed.
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
yes quite... they always seem to be skewed when they go against the usual suspects viewpoints...the.ciscokid wrote: »The figures, I can only assume, are skewed heavily
never say die, that's the spirit...0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards