Land Registry -0.3% MoM, -2.6% YoY

joguest

ukcarper wrote: »

So you got a house worth £100k it drops to £10k you are covering say a 5% mortgage on the 40% you own rent £166 a month. Mortgage on house £10k at 5% = £59 a month over 25 years or at 10% £92 a month I’m sure you will get lots of takers.

You're responding to the straw man argument created by Really2, not anything I've said. I didn't say prices were likely to fall 90% - that's clearly absurd.

Rinoa

Really2 wrote: »

So you think if house prices fell 90% rents would not fall much!!!:eek:

Jo's a scientist, I'm sure he's correct.

joguest

Rinoa wrote: »

Jo's a scientist, I'm sure he's correct.

Do you realise how childish you make yourself sound?

ukcarper

joguest wrote: »

You're responding to the straw man argument created by Really2, not anything I've said. I didn't say prices were likely to fall 90% - that's clearly absurd.

You said you would be happy if prices dropped 90% I doubt it as you would end up with house you are renting out that is worth a quarter of mortgage on it and it would be impossible to get enough rent to cover that mortgage.

adwat

phd, are you really as supercilious in real life? Or is it just the way you post on here? I bet you're one of those people who are quite "brave" on the phone until confronted face to face. Oh well, things to do...

Pimperne1

joguest wrote: »

The only thing better than presenting a straw man argument is to field an antire field of straw men, it seems.

1. The 90% thing was related to a specific argument, in which I would be able to withstand a 90% fall in prices and still be able to buy a much better house. I didn't say I was expecting prices to fall 90%.

2. Why would house price falls lead to job losses? Have you got any evidence or reasoning for this strange assertion?

3. I've just demonstrated that rental yields go up and down with house price booms/busts (the nationwide usually put this data in their press release every month - you'd do well to have a look) whilst rents stay the say. So why the funny blue creature? Are you actually capable of engaging in reasoned debate?

4. "Your NE around 30% on house 2." As I said - the mortgage more than covers the repayments and maintenance - did you not read that bit? Also, the minimum payment is around 2% of our net income. It doesn't matter if we're in NE on that house as the payments are next to nothing compared to our income - and any NE wouldn't last long.

I think you might have that "rents stay the same" thing wrong (if that's what you meant). I know of an area where rents have dropped by 18% in the past couple of months.

Graham_Devon

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Except for the ones who stood to inherit the equity in their parent's house.

Well thats a new low.

How many are actually worried as to how much they will receive when their parents die?

I'd rather receive nothing at all, and have them around for a year longer, enjoying everything they have worked for.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't understand how prices can be reducing. After all aren't we told on this forum by a number of posters that the government will do simply anything to stop house prices falling? There are meant to be multiple props to keep bulls (those with a house or wanting to buy one) in clover. Have some of the props gone or could the falls be explained by simple economics?

Are we not told by another particular forum member that the only way for house prices to fall is to build more?

They appear to be falling. -2.6% in a year. Yet house building is at it's lowest since 405BC.

Lets face it, houses are overpriced, and no one can acurately state anything. I don't think you can deny that stimulus is at play in the housing market.

Road_Hog

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well thats a new low.

How many are actually worried as to how much they will receive when their parents die?

Graham I just think that you're being over sensitive.



John Smith Advert Old People's Home

Rinoa

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well thats a new low.

How many are actually worried as to how much they will receive when their parents die?

I'd rather receive nothing at all, and have them around for a year longer, enjoying everything they have worked for.

Sometimes I'm convinced you deliberately misinterpret posts just to make a cheap jibe.