"What’ll happen to house prices?" poll discussion

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Money Saving Polls
37 replies 7.2K views
13

Replies

  • jayphejayphe Forumite
    36 Posts
    ...

    And that's before the biggest generation of FTB age people in history, bigger even than the baby boomers, starts reaching the age to buy from 2012/2013 onwards. This generation will peak in size by around 2020 at almost a million a year versus 680,000 a year at present, and it will be 2028 before there are as few FTB age people in the UK again as there are today.
    ...

    I'm not sure you're correct with this assertion for England and Wales, the population pyramid:

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/populationestimates/flash_pyramid/default.htm

    9saq8o.gif

    While there is a bulge in the 20-30 age range, it's not the largest bulge in the chart and it's followed by a pronounced thinning.

    People in the 20-30 age range need to be very careful about the price they pay as there look like there will be fewer buyers of the houses they buy today when it's time for them to move on.

    The employment prospects of those future buyers also look much weaker than in previous generations.

    This would suggest that it's more important than ever to purchase a house as a long-term home, rather than use a ladder type approach to move to a suitable long-term home.

    This is likely to lead to stronger relative demand for houses with 3+ beds in liveable areas.

    The thinning of the population at <18 years is most likely to initially manifest itself in weakened rental growth / increased voids for shared/smaller homes, though that is weakening from a very strong position today.
  • HAMISH_MCTAVISHHAMISH_MCTAVISH Forumite
    28.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    jayphe wrote: »
    wibble wibble wibble.

    It'd help if you used the right data......:rotfl:

    Or learned how to read the chart.... ;)

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/populationestimates/flash_pyramid/EW-pyramid/pyramid6_30.html

    2011, number of 34 year olds (average FTB age), 665,000 per year.

    This increases steadily every year until 2025, when almost 900,000 per year are reaching FTB age.

    Oh, and I was wrong about one thing earlier...... It's 2035 before there are as few FTB age people as there are today in 2011.... I thought it was sooner.

    And yes, this generation IS bigger than the boomers, and it's about to crash into a decade of underbuilding, capped off by the current lowest level of housebuilding in a century.

    Quite frankly, anyone that doesn't understand the next boom is now inevitable needs their head examined. The fall in housebuilding as a result of the last crash absolutely guarantees the next boom will be a monster.
    “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”
  • HAMISH_MCTAVISHHAMISH_MCTAVISH Forumite
    28.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    NEO72 wrote: »
    London is the only region of England where more surveyors are seeing rising rather than falling prices.

    And more still are seeing prices stable.

    No matter which way you cut it, prices are only falling in a small minority of the country.

    Finally you seem to claim that prices are stagnant. Well it depends which indices you cherry pick to back up your claims I suppose. For example, you could use the Nationwide figures released today which only cover around 10% of mortgages (the number of which has dropped massively) so is statistically speaking not a particularly reliable indicator due to the small sample size.

    Funny, you hpc-ers seem very keen to post about it when prices were falling.;)

    Alternatively, you could use the Land registry figures which cover ALL completed sales, including the large proportion of cash buyers, and are far more reliable due to the much larger sample size.

    Agreed, so far.

    Now looking at the Land Registry figures, it seems prices have fallen 6 out of the last 7 months (down 3.5% in total) and in fact the rate of falls mirrors very closely what was happening in the first half of 2008 (the REALLY big falls didn't begin until the summer).

    And everyone knows Land Registry lags by 3-4 months...... So it's currently showing the same position Nationwide did in January.

    When you time adjust the series, Nationwide and Land Registry show a high degree of correlation.l
    So in my opinion it would be very foolish to bet against further drops, especially considering interest rates can not go any lower and the government doesn't have the will or the spare cash to continue propping up the market as the last government, desperate to buy votes did.

    Zzzzzz, not that tired discredited old bear meme again....:rotfl:

    They clearly don't need to prop up the market.... It's stagnating just fine by itself.

    I mean let's be honest here, unemployment today massively higher than 2007, 70% of mortgage funding withdrawn, the worst global financial crisis in history, deepest recession in a century, and yet here we are with house prices just 10% or so below peak. Not what you expected, is it?

    Admit it, you lot got it completely wrong.

    So stop trying to desperately make excuses and just accept reality.
    “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”
  • jayphejayphe Forumite
    36 Posts
    It'd help if you used the right data......:rotfl:

    Or learned how to read the chart.... ;)

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/populationestimates/flash_pyramid/EW-pyramid/pyramid6_30.html

    2011, number of 34 year olds (average FTB age), 665,000 per year.

    This increases steadily every year until 2025, when almost 900,000 per year are reaching FTB age.

    Oh, and I was wrong about one thing earlier...... It's 2035 before there are as few FTB age people as there are today in 2011.... I thought it was sooner.

    And yes, this generation IS bigger than the boomers, and it's about to crash into a decade of underbuilding, capped off by the current lowest level of housebuilding in a century.

    Quite frankly, anyone that doesn't understand the next boom is now inevitable needs their head examined. The fall in housebuilding as a result of the last crash absolutely guarantees the next boom will be a monster.

    I understand the data very clearly, as do you, as you've been able to spin it as much as is possible.

    You picked a very specifc age range covering a single year (that happens to be the trough in the population pyramid) and set that to represent the current profile of FTBs.

    If you had suggested using an average of a 10-year range with age 34 in the middle to represent the profile of current FTBs I would agree, but that would make the change in profile over time much less prounounced than you need to tell the particular story you want to tell.

    What is very telling about the animated version you linked to is that the ONS expects a very large growth in each age band when they reach 18+ years of age, this is estimated immigration. Although this is the current best estimate for the ONS, for current home buyers to base their decisions on immigration which is estimated to happen in 10+ years time is very unwise unless they are in a position to take on that kind of risk.

    If you feel comfortable advising people on very large life decisions based on this kind of information, fine, but personally I would be very uncomfortable and other people should be made aware of your calculation methods.
  • HAMISH_MCTAVISHHAMISH_MCTAVISH Forumite
    28.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    jayphe wrote: »
    You picked a very specifc age range covering a single year (that happens to be the trough in the population pyramid) and set that to represent the current profile of FTBs.

    No.

    I used the current average age of FTB-s, in the current year.

    And monitored what happens to the population of average FTB age people for the next couple of decades.

    It's really quite simple. The numbers of people in that age group are about to explode.

    So a 34 year old in 10-15 years time will have almost 50% more competitors for housing as a 34 year old today. And it will be 2035 before the number of average age FTB-ers is as low again as it is today.

    Those are the facts, plain and simple.

    We ARE in a demographic trough at the moment.

    The absolute trough of the lowest number of FTB age persons between two much bigger generations..... Not to be repeated for another 25 years or so.
    “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”
  • NEO72NEO72 Forumite
    69 Posts
    No matter which way you cut it, prices are only falling in a small minority of the country.
    Over a fifth of the country? Small minority? Oooookay..
    Funny, you hpc-ers seem very keen to post about it when prices were falling.;)
    Nah, I've always gone by Land Registry figures - feel free to check my posts on HPC if you don't believe me.
    And everyone knows Land Registry lags by 3-4 months...... So it's currently showing the same position Nationwide did in January.
    Wrong again - Nationwide was 0% in Jan, the most recent Land Registry figure was -1.1%
    When you time adjust the series, Nationwide and Land Registry show a high degree of correlation.
    You did read what I wrote about the Nationwide sample being increasingly unreliable didn't you? Therefore fair to say if there was a correlation it would have broken down by now (which as the sentence above proves is the case).
    I mean let's be honest here, unemployment today massively higher than 2007, 70% of mortgage funding withdrawn, the worst global financial crisis in history, deepest recession in a century, and yet here we are with house prices just 10% or so below peak. Not what you expected, is it?
    So let's see, 3 sets of data: Land Registry (Largest sample, very reliable) shows a 12% fall from peak, Halifax (Next largest sample, twice the size of the NW) shows a 20% fall from peak and then there's Nationwide (smallest sample) with a 10% fall from peak. Which one does Hamish cherry pick to attempt to make a point?
    So stop trying to desperately make excuses and just accept reality.
    :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:Pot, kettle.
  • edited 28 May 2011 at 9:13AM
    HAMISH_MCTAVISHHAMISH_MCTAVISH Forumite
    28.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 28 May 2011 at 9:13AM
    NEO72 wrote: »
    So let's see, 3 sets of data: Land Registry (Largest sample, very reliable) shows a 12% fall from peak, Halifax (Next largest sample, twice the size of the NW) shows a 20% fall from peak and then there's Nationwide (smallest sample) with a 10% fall from peak. Which one does Hamish cherry pick to attempt to make a point?
    .

    Nonsense.

    It is widely accepted that Land Registry (most accurate) and Nationwide correlate strongly with each other, but Halifax has been the odd one out recently.

    5764300332_c943c3991d.jpg

    credit: phdinbubbles

    And this is not a new phenomenon, the following article shows another variance of 10% or so between Halifax and Nationwide..... Back in 2001.

    Strangely enough, also just a few years after the last crash had ended.....;)
    HALIFAX saw the credibility of its respected and widely quoted house price index called into question yesterday when it claimed that the value of bricks and mortar in the UK had barely moved in the last 12 months.

    The bank, which is also Britain's biggest mortgage lender, reported a marginal increase in house prices of 0.1pc in January, which left annual house price inflation at 0.9pc, its lowest for five years.
    The figures contrasted sharply with those from Nationwide last week, which said there had been a 2.5pc leap in prices in January alone, making annual inflation 11.2pc. Housing analysts believe the monthly figures can no longer be trusted, though most felt the Nationwide numbers are closer to the truth at the moment.

    Even Merrill Lynch, the US investment bank that uses the Halifax statistics in its own research, doubted yesterday's findings. Housing analyst Kevin Cammack said: "I would have thought Nationwide is the more plausible of the two on where the market is at the moment." Observers offer several explanations for why the numbers could be misleading.

    Some speculate that Halifax's customer base has shifted downmarket, so that it is no longer picking up on rises at the top end. Nationwide traditionally has a southern bias in its lending and Halifax a northern one, though the institutions claim they adjust for these issues.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/4481008/Halifax-on-rack-over-house-price-claim.html
    “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”
  • NEO72NEO72 Forumite
    69 Posts
    Nonsense.

    It is widely accepted that Land Registry (most accurate) and Nationwide correlate strongly with each other, but Halifax has been the odd one out recently.

    I'm actually starting to feel a little embarrased for you now - here we go:

    Widely accepted by whom? As I said before, Land Reg shows 3.5% falls over the past 7 months. Nationwide are showing prices rising over exactly the same period (Halifax incidentally are also showing falls over that period).

    So, shall we recap on the facts I have had to correct you on so far:

    You claimed 20% of areas are reporting falls - it is actually 29%

    You claimed the Land Reg figures were the same as the Nationwide Jan figures - there was in fact a 1.1% difference.

    You claimed that NW and the LR indices correlate highly and that the Halifax was the odd one out lately - actually the polar opposite is true.

    Now, anyone can feel free to check the facts I have posted, because that is all I have posted - facts.

    Now perhaps you're panicking about prices falling (do you have a lot invested in Buy-to-let perhaps?) but don't you think it's unfair that you're posting factually inaccurate information on a website which people may visit with a reasonable expectation of being given good advice. And frankly it worries me how many people without the ability to verify the tripe you're peddling as facts may have made important financial decisions based on it.
  • HAMISH_MCTAVISHHAMISH_MCTAVISH Forumite
    28.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    NEO72 wrote: »
    You claimed that NW and the LR indices correlate highly and that the Halifax was the odd one out lately - actually the polar opposite is true.
    .

    Once again, for the really slow learners......

    5764300332_c943c3991d.jpg

    So obvious, even an idiot should be able to see the correlation for themselves..;)
    “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”
  • NEO72NEO72 Forumite
    69 Posts
    Once again, for the really slow learners......



    So obvious, even an idiot should be able to see the correlation for themselves..;)

    This is getting tiresome now..

    You can paste your pretty little chart as much as you want - I'm not disputing the fact that in the past the indices have been closely correlated. You stated that "Halifax has been the odd one out recently" - and that is clearly not the case, even going by your little chart.

    Besides this is all rather splitting hairs since you've agreed that the LR is the most comprehensive dataset and according to them, prices have begun falling consistently over the past 6 or 7 months :D
This discussion has been closed.
LATEST NEWS AND GUIDES

Balance transfer credit cards

Shift existing card debt to 0% interest for up to 31 months

MSE Guides