More bad news for house prices

Flight2quality

MacMickster wrote: »

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.

As more of any commodity is mined or produced does not make it worth less, everything comes down to supply and demand. Look at gold almost all is added to stockpiles and the price keeps going up, silver 50% is consumed, so for me silver is a better bet, but each to his own.

I nearly went for a 1 oz Platinum bar for just over a grand. The price has come down so much that Platinum is cheaper than gold at the mo :eek: But I went for another grands worth of silver instead

If I was going to buy gold I would buy Platinum instead. Platinum is more rare than gold, but so is silver.

Amazing that the platinum 1 oz bar looked just like the silver 1 oz bars I bought. They look the same they weigh the same, but I bought 50 silver bars for the same price as 1 platinum bar. To me its obvious which is the most undervalued.

Just out of interest does anyone remember any other time when Platinum was cheaper than gold?

Really2

Flight2quality wrote: »

Platinum is more rare than gold, but so is silver.

are you mad?
In 2010, total global mine production of silver was approximately 735 million troy ounces
Around 22,800 metric tons.

Around 2500 metric tones of gold was mined?

How is silver rare than gold?

With that kind of logic how could you lose.:eek:

robmatic

Really2 wrote: »

With that kind of logic how could you lose.:eek:

Personally I don't follow the logic that states that as silver has all that industrial demand, it's price will obviously go up as we enter another few years of global recession.

Realmoney_2

ruggedtoast wrote: »

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

From now on they will be sold at up to 50% their present market value.

That is a lot of discount and a lot of extra houses being added to the market that were not ever going to be on the market before.

But after someone buys it for 50% isnt there some rule they can not sell it for another 2 years or something like that? Maybe in 2 years when all these ex council houses start flooding the market, they will only be able to get 50% of todays over priced valuations any way.

So no point being jelous of those buying their council houses at 50% today, they will probably be repossessed when the buyers realise that these ultra low interest rates could not last forever.

LisbonLaura

Flight2quality wrote: »

1 existing house is rental only, they

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

Anyone who has spent his time bashing out over 9,000 posts attempting to justify the wisdom of buying property in 2007 wont be in the mood to want to 'know what you mean'.

cotleigh

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.

I had a look on "HPC". I can see that "the clue is in the name" but do they only allow posts from people who state that they believe that there will be a big "crash" then?

And actually bar anyone who posts articles saying that they don't think this will happen?

That must make for a pretty dull discussion, surely?

Like trying to discuss the pros and cons of religion with fundamentalists who just shout "Allahu Akhbar" at everything anyone else says?

robmatic

cotleigh wrote: »

I had a look on "HPC". I can see that "the clue is in the name" but do they only allow posts from people who state that they believe that there will be a big "crash" then?

And actually bar anyone who posts articles saying that they don't think this will happen?

That must make for a pretty dull discussion, surely?

Like trying to discuss the pros and cons of religion with fundamentalists who just shout "Allahu Akhbar" at everything anyone else says?

That's a pretty accurate summation.

IveSeenTheLight

47thElement wrote: »

I think it will be a long drawn out crash, property is now in a bear market but it will take years to reach bottom. So I am firmly a bear.

Would you like to speculate when you think the bottom will be reached?

P.S. I predicted falls this year, long term however I am bullish

IveSeenTheLight

47thElement wrote: »

To answer your question I think the bear market for property could last between 3 and 8 years.

Thanks and for clarity, is this from now or from 2008?

Personally, I predicted drops in 2011 (-1.5% to be specific) and can see a continuing small reduction in prices in 2012.
I think from then house prices will recover again.

I can't see that there is any significan't downturn in prices, given all the factors in place.

47thElement wrote: »

How long will they keep interest rates so low etc etc.

There are many economists out their who keep pushing the date out to the right.
Of course many link it to when the economy is expected to provide sustained sufficient growth, something not expected for "several" years

IveSeenTheLight

47thElement wrote: »

I was saying another 3 to 8 years. You may be right, but I dont think so, this would be a fundamental change to the cycles that have preceeded this cycle.

Would it?
Historically it showed that falls (according to HBOS (All monthly Non Seasonally Adjusted) who show data going back to 1983) happened over a 5 1/2 year period.
The peak to trough drop was -14.1%

The same data shows that this time the peak was Aug 07 whilst the trough was Mar 09 representing a -21.89% drop.

Clearly we can see that this correction represented a greater nominal and percentile drop than in the 90's and also that the correction happened over a quicker period than last time

47thElement wrote: »

I cant see how you could be right that in a few years we will be in boom territory again.

Just out of interest then where and when do you think will be the bottom for house prices?

I've have not stipulated that we are on the precipice of a boom period.
I think we are very near the bottom and likelyhood is another few years of stagnation before prices start to rise sustainably again