More bad news for house prices

Flight2quality

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

:rotfl:

1 existing house + 1 new house does not = 2 new houses added to supply.

1 existing house is rental only, they will all be on the market trying to be sold soon. So it is 2 new houses added to supply.

Its a bit like my argument with lvader about 50% of mined silver is used up in industry and the other 50% goes to satisfy investment demand. Hardly any is added to the stockpile held by central banks along with gold.

Of course lvader says that 50% chased after by investors is added to worldwide stockpiles, but I say its not. Every time someone like me buys another 100 ounces (like I just did) then that is more silver taken off the market.

A little similar to 2 plus houses added to supply, ok only a little similar but you know what I mean.

Graham_Devon

Blacklight wrote: »

Can you please add [moneyweek] to the title so we can ignore these posts in future.

Thanks.

Actually, this might be a good idea. We all know theres a group of 5 or 6 on here, mostly banned from HPC, who wish to ignore certain information, discussion, fact, figures, or articles as they simply do not state what they wish to hear.

If they ignore stated threads, for fear of seeing something they don't wish to see, or hear, maybe the discussion will go a little smoother?

I'll start all my threads with "Moneyweek:" in front of them from now on.

Dan:_4

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Actually, this might be a good idea. We all know theres a group of 5 or 6 on here, mostly banned from HPC, who wish to ignore certain information, discussion, fact, figures, or articles as they simply do not state what they wish to hear.

If they ignore stated threads, for fear of seeing something they don't wish to see, or hear, maybe the discussion will go a little smoother?

If anyone likes to ignore facts and figures, it's the editor of MoneyWeek.

purch

it's the editor of MoneyWeek

There's really an editor :eek:

geneer

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Actually, this might be a good idea. We all know theres a group of 5 or 6 on here, mostly banned from HPC, who wish to ignore certain information, discussion, fact, figures, or articles as they simply do not state what they wish to hear.

If they ignore stated threads, for fear of seeing something they don't wish to see, or hear, maybe the discussion will go a little smoother?

I'll start all my threads with "Moneyweek:" in front of them from now on.

Its even more strange than you suggest.
Its not just a case that they want to ignore articles that don't suit their world view, its that they set out to deride and ignore articles which demonstrably, and by all objective measures, show insight and accuracy worlds about the rest of their prefered pundits.

The absolute nadir of this pattern of behaviour of course being some cross-eyed loon wholeheartedly supporting a prediction made in SEPTEMBER 2007 which stated "house prices are unlikely to crash"

:rotfl:You honestly could not make it up.

ukcarper

Flight2quality wrote: »

1 existing house is rental only, they will all be on the market trying to be sold soon. So it is 2 new houses added to supply.

Its a bit like my argument with lvader about 50% of mined silver is used up in industry and the other 50% goes to satisfy investment demand. Hardly any is added to the stockpile held by central banks along with gold.

Of course lvader says that 50% chased after by investors is added to worldwide stockpiles, but I say its not. Every time someone like me buys another 100 ounces (like I just did) then that is more silver taken off the market.

A little similar to 2 plus houses added to supply, ok only a little similar but you know what I mean.

I’m not sure I follow your argument surely the tenant who buys the house will live in it and the new house will be social housing so no new houses for sale.

Flight2quality

Flight2quality wrote: »

1 existing house is rental only, they will all be on the market trying to be sold soon. So it is 2 new houses added to supply.

Its a bit like my argument with lvader about 50% of mined silver is used up in industry and the other 50% goes to satisfy investment demand. Hardly any is added to the stockpile held by central banks along with gold.

Of course lvader says that 50% chased after by investors is added to worldwide stockpiles, but I say its not. Every time someone like me buys another 100 ounces (like I just did) then that is more silver taken off the market.

A little similar to 2 plus houses added to supply, ok only a little similar but you know what I mean.

ukcarper wrote: »

I’m not sure I follow your argument surely the tenant who buys the house will live in it and the new house will be social housing so no new houses for sale.

We are talking about the number of houses on the market. Rightmove, zoopla, gumtree whatever take your pick. Over the next few years the market could be flooded with these ex council houses bought for 50% of present value.

This is on top of the new houses built, that developers will also be adding to supply. I understood its a build now pay later for developers who will only have to pay for building materials after they have sold the houses into the market.

So it will be 2 new houses added to the market for every one council house sold (which would never have been on the available market until now).

It is a very similar situation to what lvader and I have been talking about with silver. 50% of mined silver gets used up and consumed in industry and the other 50% is taken off the market by people like me buying silver bullion every month.

Every silver investor who takes silver off the market waiting for signs we are near the blow off top before they sell, is doing just that, taking the silver bullion off the available market, until they decide to sell.


These council houses would never show up on rightmove/zoopla etc, until now. The government is adding 2 new houses to the available market, for every one council house they sell to the public.

IronWolf

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

Made me laugh aberdeen lol. Love a bit of whitty rhyming.

I reckon estate agencies on the hight street will eventually become obsolete no matter what happens to the market.
Most people already look to the web for house purchases, eventually the market will start to move again and I reckon one of the big boys or even an outsider will set up an online estate agency-completely online and advertise the hell out of it to push in national. Once something like that becomes the normal way of buying/selling the EA on the high street are screwed.

Ali x

Tesco have already done it

They'll also soon be providing mortgages too, so you wont even have to go into a bank to get your mortgage.

In fact you could buy or sell your house during your weekly food shopping soon

MacMickster

Flight2quality wrote: »

We are talking about the number of houses on the market. Rightmove, zoopla, gumtree whatever take your pick. Over the next few years the market could be flooded with these ex council houses bought for 50% of present value.

This is on top of the new houses built, that developers will also be adding to supply. I understood its a build now pay later for developers who will only have to pay for building materials after they have sold the houses into the market.

So it will be 2 new houses added to the market for every one council house sold (which would never have been on the available market until now).

It is a very similar situation to what lvader and I have been talking about with silver. 50% of mined silver gets used up and consumed in industry and the other 50% is taken off the market by people like me buying silver bullion every month.

Every silver investor who takes silver off the market waiting for signs we are near the blow off top before they sell, is doing just that, taking the silver bullion off the available market, until they decide to sell.


These council houses would never show up on rightmove/zoopla etc, until now. The government is adding 2 new houses to the available market, for every one council house they sell to the public.

I really don't understand the argument about the silver market, and if I don't understand a market then I will continue to steer clear of it. In fact my simplistic view of silver in particular is that
a) As more will continue to be mined it must become intrinsically worth less in the long term.
b) As VAT is charged on its purchase and capital gains tax on sale should a decent gain ever be made with no yield in the interim, it would make a really poor investment anyway for individuals.
As I say, however, I clearly don't understand the market.

From that, you might think that I would agree with the argument that more council houses being sold would eventually increase the supply and drive down prices overall (but again I don't "get" the 2 for 1 argument). With property, however, I still believe the old adage of "location, location, location". Whilst ex-LA houses may eventually become the first step on the ladder for first-time buyers, I don't think that they will have any serious impact on house prices overall.

ruggedtoast

How many council houses are there left to actually sell? And why, for Pete's sake must we keep selling them at all?