House prices need to drop 40% to be affordable discussion

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

How about "homes are only for living in" (C)property bulls 2008.

Now I recognise that one, although I think we have been saying that all along. They are either lived in by owners or they are lived in by tenants.

JonnyBravo

RenovationMan wrote: »

Sorry thrugelmir, I'm at a loss again with your maths.

I also don't understand your meaning with costs and expenses. As I have already said, these costs (stamp duty, legal costs, searches, estate agent costs) would also be borne by someone buying with a repayment mortgage. The only difference is the greater amount of interest paid, though as I said this depends on what the person with an IO mortgage does with the repayment portion that he is not paying to the mortgage provider.

I wonder if maths is "a strong point" of his? I'm beginning to have my doubts with his previous attempts on this and other threads.

Can anyone else whose maths is a "strong point" help us out?

:rotfl:

Anyone? "Strong point" anyone?

nembot

"House prices need to drop 40% to be affordable discussion"

You know that's the most sensible thing you've ever said on here ISTL?

IveSeenTheLight

nembot wrote: »

"House prices need to drop 40% to be affordable discussion"

You know that's the most sensible thing you've ever said on here ISTL?

Do you have a point on the discussion?

nembot

Yes, houses are around 30/40% more expensive than they should be with only historically low IR and support from the government keeping prices artifically high (the goverment who technically should of regulated the money giveaway at the time this is).

Only those with something to gain (i.e. landlords) or those with something to lose (new purchasers) would suggest falling prices are a bad thing.

Am I right?

ukcarper

nembot wrote: »

Yes, houses are around 30/40% more expensive than they should be with only historically low IR and support from the government keeping prices artifically high (the goverment who technically should of regulated the money giveaway at the time this is).

Only those with something to gain (i.e. landlords) or those with something to lose (new purchasers) would suggest falling prices are a bad thing.

Am I right?

How do you get at that 40% figure

nembot

Looking at historical HPI and the noughties increases, which in some years were over 10% per year driven by easy lending practices and look where we are now...

You have a point?
.
.
.
.
.
.

Apparently not and neither do your thankers, what a surprise

ukcarper

nembot wrote: »

Looking at historical HPI and the noughties increases, which in some years were over 10% per year driven by easy lending practices and look where we are now...

You have a point?

According to Nationwide the long-term average is 4x average full time male salary and it is now just over 5 so a drop of 20% would get it back to long terms average. A drop of 40% would take property down to 3x, which only occurred, at the bottom of the 90s crash.

JonnyBravo

nembot wrote: »

Apparently not and neither do your thankers, what a surprise

Some people have the temerity to disagree with your point of view?

tut.

RenovationMan

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Some people have the temerity to disagree with your point of view?

tut.

I thanked ukcarper because he asked a question I was interested in knowing the answer to. I didn't necessarily disagree with nembot, I just wanted to know where he got his data from.

This board gets worse, that's the second time in as many days that I've been attacked for 'Thanking'. Has the delimitation between bulls and bears got to the point that even thanking a person from one 'side' or the other aligns you with that faction?

Deary me.