U.K. Home Prices Decline as Outlook Worsens, Hometrack Says

shortchanged_2

ukcarper wrote: »

Did I say masses I said quite a few do you think demand wouldn’t increase if mortgages became easier to get.

Maybe. But then I don't think mortgages should be easier to get.

We should stick to the pre boom lending criteria.

ukcarper

shortchanged wrote: »

Maybe. But then I don't think mortgages should be easier to get.

We should stick to the pre boom lending criteria.

At the moment things are not at pre boom criteria and I personally think it would be better if they were. 95% mortgages have been available a long time and I personally don’t see anything wrong with them or even 100% in certain circumstances. I personally think affordability should be the main concern and the relaxing of that was the main problem not LTV rates.

MrRee_2

There ARE huge numbers of people who would buy tomorrow if the lending criteria were as they were pre 2007 - of that there is no doubt at all.

5% of a property value of £165,000 is only £8,250. This figure is attainable for nearly every person who would like to buy with a 95% LTV. And I can tell you now that they would.

There is a massive pent up demand. Mainly from those forced to rent - renting isn't pleasant, buying someone else's property for them? Nah, not nice .......

Property prices are doing nothing but vary a tiny fraction - a crash has not happened .... a mortgage famine has happened - that's all.

doire_2

MrRee wrote: »

There is a massive pent up demand. Mainly from those forced to rent - renting isn't pleasant, buying someone else's property for them? Nah, not nice .......

.

Well if they hate it so much why dont they save and get out of it. Or find somewhere decent.

Not all renters hate it. And not all renters rent because they have no choice.

geneer

RenovationMan wrote: »

Whether something is a boom, crash or soft-landing all depends on individual circumstances.

Someone buying a 3 bed house in 1995 for £60k and seeing 350% HPI until 2007 would see an increase of £210,000 in their home. A subsequent fall of 20% would see their home reduced by £54000. A net gain of £156,000. I'd assume that this person would view the 'crash' as a 'soft landing'.

Someone buying a 3 bed house in 2007 for £210,000 and seeing a subsequent fall of 20% would see their home reduced by £42000 and would see this as a major crash.

All other definitions fall between these two extremes.

I guess this is why I have no real interest in house prices because I bought my first house in 1995 and feel we have had a soft landing.

What a bunch of pseudo-logical nonsense.
Its a crash for either party.
One may be less effected by the crash, having bought at an earlier time, but it remains a crash.

Yet another "argument" based on weazling efforts to redefine the argument.
Its tedious efforts like the above that give the House Price community, and bulls in particular, a bad name.

joguest

doire wrote: »

Well if they hate it so much why dont they save and get out of it. Or find somewhere decent.

Not all renters hate it. And not all renters rent because they have no choice.

Quite. I know quite a few people who are renting as a matter of choice as they don't see current house prices as being value for money. They have very large deposits available, so it's not a lack of finance holding them back.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

geneer wrote: »

Though as nominal UK average falls are pretty much the same as the 90s crash, then it is really a crash isn't it?

No they aren't.

Nationwide is around half.

Halifax is closer, but still not as large.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

joguest wrote: »

I know quite a few people who are renting as a matter of choice as they don't see current house prices as being value for money. They have very large deposits available, so it's not a lack of finance holding them back.

A couple of dozen fantasists on hpc with imaginary 6 figure deposits doesn't really count as "quite a few people".

Back in the real world however, there are a million or so FTB-s who have been forced to rent by the current absurd mortgage rationing since 2007.

At some point either lending will relax, or a large number will have saved up a big enough deposit, and then the floodgates of pent-up demand will open.

There is only one inevitable result, and it ain't falling house prices.;)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

And I think you are kidding yourself if you think there are masses of people queuing up to buy overpriced property.

Well seeing as how property isn't overpriced today, that shouldn't be a problem then.:D

RenovationMan

RenovationMan wrote: »

Whether something is a boom, crash or soft-landing all depends on individual circumstances.

Someone buying a 3 bed house in 1995 for £60k and seeing 350% HPI until 2007 would see an increase of £210,000 in their home. A subsequent fall of 20% would see their home reduced by £54000. A net gain of £156,000. I'd assume that this person would view the 'crash' as a 'soft landing'.

Someone buying a 3 bed house in 2007 for £210,000 and seeing a subsequent fall of 20% would see their home reduced by £42000 and would see this as a major crash.

All other definitions fall between these two extremes.

I guess this is why I have no real interest in house prices because I bought my first house in 1995 and feel we have had a soft landing.

Just to add, the reason that the person with a net gain of £156,000 would view a 20% correction as a soft landing is because he has not 'lost' anything. His house may have been worth more as one point in time when he wasn't looking to sell it than at another point in time when he wasn't looking to sell it but he won't care because he's not looking to sell it. The £54k wasn't really there to 'lose'.

The person who bought in 2007 could have put down a 20% deposit that he saved up over a number of years and which perhaps involved a lot of hard grafting, overtime and doing without. To see that hard work effectively 'lost' would definitely be viewed by this person as a 'crash'.

To summarise, both individuals have seen a 20% reduction. One has lost cold, hard cash and the other has lost nothing because he never 'had it' in the first place. This is why both of these two would have a different perspective on a market correction.