House prices: inflation wipes thousands off property values - YAY BULLS WIN!

Cleaver

Sibley wrote: »

At the end of the day I dont really care about prices,just so long as Geneer is priced out and renting.

There are some people on this forum with deep rooted psychological problems. You're one of them.

Rinoa

Aberdeenangarse wrote: »

Well they seem to have on HPC. I wonder how much rent they've paid in the last 10 years?

Geneer would know precisely, though I doubt he'd be willing to share that information with the forum.

julieq

geneer wrote: »

You forget JulieQ that real price falls benefit those who intent to buy as well as those who have already bought.

Of course the real fun begins when we start making comparisons between the start of 2008 and now, doesn't it.
As the article says.."rampant inflation means that most people who bought a property after 2006"

I know you guys like to connect arbitrary convenient points on a time line and pretend they are meaningful.
But the real world doesn't work like that.

Hey, here is the really interesting bit.


Good news for future FTBS I think.



:rotfl: JulieQ >>>>>>>>Dummy

I've read this three times, and I still haven't the faintest idea what you're on about.

First off, the contention of your original post, that the article suggests there had been a 17% reduction in prices due to inflation is nonsense. The article doesn't say that, and it's not true anyway. In fact in the period under revew the article suggests prices had risen nominally 11% against wage inflation of 15%. During that period the article claims there was 17% inflation and extremely low mortgage rates.

That's stagnation, not loss. If there's any negative effect at all it's marginal.

Anyone choosing to rent rather than buy over that period has paid rental increases over inflation, has lost interest on savings due to low rates, and still has 25 years to go on their mortgage of which none at all are going to be at the historic lows of the last 3 years or so. Difficult to win under those circumstances.

It may be possible to cherry pick a date from which you might come out marginally ahead, but you're really scrabbling for comfort because that simply isn't true for the vast majority of homeowners. And when exactly was it that you chose not to buy? At peak, or well before it?

You're a loser. You lost your big bet. And all you do about it is to hang out on bulletin boards trying to persuade yourself you've won but the result hasn't been declared yet. What do you think is going to happen? Convince a couple more people here you're right and all the pain and loss is going to disappear?

I love the witless irony of the juxtaposition of the "fun really starts if we pick 2008" with the comment on arbitrarily choosing two points on a graph too. You really couldn't invent that.

ukcarper

geneer wrote: »

And someone renting for 5 years has been able to save up a tasty deposit (and we know that deposit points make prizes) and has seen house prices plummet since 2008.

This renting vs buying chat has become a debating ghetto. A dull bullish fall back position with little bearing in reality.

Mortgages last 25 years. 0.5% base rates will not.
Deposits take time to save.
The renters on this board do not intend to rent forever.

As rents are very similar to mortgage repayments where are the renters getting all the extra money to save.

Thrugelmir

ukcarper wrote: »

As rents are very similar to mortgage repayments where are the renters getting all the extra money to save.

Trapped.........

geneer

Aberdeenangarse wrote: »

Well they seem to have on HPC. I wonder how much rent they've paid in the last 10 years?

What does the last ten years have to do with anything?

geneer

Rinoa wrote: »

Geneer would know precisely, though I doubt he'd be willing to share that information with the forum.

Cos house prices have increased since 2001 right?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Deary me.

robmatic

julieq wrote: »

I've read this three times, and I still haven't the faintest idea what you're on about.

First off, the contention of your original post, that the article suggests there had been a 17% reduction in prices due to inflation is nonsense. The article doesn't say that, and it's not true anyway. In fact in the period under revew the article suggests prices had risen nominally 11% against wage inflation of 15%. During that period the article claims there was 17% inflation and extremely low mortgage rates.

That's stagnation, not loss. If there's any negative effect at all it's marginal.

Anyone choosing to rent rather than buy over that period has paid rental increases over inflation, has lost interest on savings due to low rates, and still has 25 years to go on their mortgage of which none at all are going to be at the historic lows of the last 3 years or so. Difficult to win under those circumstances.

It may be possible to cherry pick a date from which you might come out marginally ahead, but you're really scrabbling for comfort because that simply isn't true for the vast majority of homeowners. And when exactly was it that you chose not to buy? At peak, or well before it?

You're a loser. You lost your big bet. And all you do about it is to hang out on bulletin boards trying to persuade yourself you've won but the result hasn't been declared yet. What do you think is going to happen? Convince a couple more people here you're right and all the pain and loss is going to disappear?

I love the witless irony of the juxtaposition of the "fun really starts if we pick 2008" with the comment on arbitrarily choosing two points on a graph too. You really couldn't invent that.

I suspect that you won't get a coherent response to this, but there will be a slew of fatuous posts and some tedious chat about 'bulls' and 'bears' and who's 'winning' and who's 'losing'.

StevieJ

geneer wrote: »

Cos house prices have increased since 2001 right?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Deary me.

Then again you could have paid half your mortgage off at pretty low rates.

geneer

julieq wrote: »

I've read this three times, and I still haven't the faintest idea what you're on about.

Whats new sweetie.

julieq wrote: »

First off, the contention of your original post, that the article suggests there had been a 17% reduction in prices due to inflation is nonsense. The article doesn't say that, and it's not true anyway.

What contention in my original post?
I simply linked an article.
Been on the pimms Jules

julieq wrote: »

In fact in the period under revew the article suggests prices had risen nominally 11% against wage inflation of 15%. During that period the article claims there was 17% inflation and extremely low mortgage rates.
That's stagnation, not loss. If there's any negative effect at all it's marginal.

Actually no, thats a real term 6% loss in value. On average. Which means it will be much better for some, much worse for others. And only if you bought at exactly the start of the time period under consideration.
Again, as the article suggests, and I've pointed out, the scope of the analysis includes purchases at any point in time up to and including recently. Meaning it gets progressively worse from the initial point onwards.
Naturally, you would rather not talk about that.

julieq wrote: »

.
Anyone choosing to rent rather than buy over that period has paid rental increases over inflation, has lost interest on savings due to low rates, and still has 25 years to go on their mortgage of which none at all are going to be at the historic lows of the last 3 years or so. Difficult to win under those circumstances.

Yawn. The rent vs buying argument has been done to death.

julieq wrote: »

.
It may be possible to cherry pick a date from which you might come out marginally ahead, but you're really scrabbling for comfort because that simply isn't true for the vast majority of homeowners. And when exactly was it that you chose not to buy? At peak, or well before it?

I chose not to buy at the point I chose to rent. When I left home to go to university at the age of 17.
Was a pretty easy choice as it happens. Now I've not done a lot of research on it, but I do believe its pretty conventional to rent right up until the point that you don't.


Pow. What a magic bullet you pulled out of the bag there Jules. Earth shattering stuff. :T

julieq wrote: »

.
You're a loser. You lost your big bet. And all you do about it is to hang out on bulletin boards trying to persuade yourself you've won but the result hasn't been declared yet. What do you think is going to happen? Convince a couple more people here you're right and all the pain and loss is going to disappear?

Nought to mental in just two posts Jules?
Oh dear. Someone needs a hug.

julieq wrote: »

I love the witless irony of the juxtaposition of the "fun really starts if we pick 2008" with the comment on arbitrarily choosing two points on a graph too. You really couldn't invent that.

Thats a fairly witless attempt at turning things back at me Jules. But readily discredited due to the fact that I stated that the “fun really starts after 2008”, which would suggest that I'm not discounting the time period before nor the time period after.