House prices rising in uk

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Icemanuk AND Neo72 spouting the same discredited hpc memes on a single thread.....

Betting there must be a link up from the madhouse.

Oh yes, here it is....

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=171545

rumbaba

It's pointless getting agitated - properties always ALWAYS rise (especially if there's been a blip - then they rise even MORE afterwards) You just need to accept it and get on with your life.

Wishing they would fall in value just so you yourself can buy one is not only selfish - it ain't gonna happen. Insteaas, work on what you have got and what's realistically within your reach.

NEO72

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Icemanuk AND Neo72 spouting the same discredited hpc memes on a single thread.....

Betting there must be a link up from the madhouse.

Is that the same 'madhouse' you used to frequent before they kicked you off?

Funny you should mention memes:House prices only ever go up, renting is dead money - sound familiar?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

NEO72 wrote: »

It seems you spend a lot of time here trying to convince people that now is a great time to buy - its almost as if you're trying to do your bit to boost sentiment or something....

Hmmm, not as much time as you and Rant spend over on EA-Today trying to convince Estate Agents to drop prices.....;)

But anyway, as for whether today is a good time to buy, the answer remains the same as it always has been.

People should buy a house when they need one and can afford it. And the earlier the better, in terms of reducing lifetime housing costs.

Waiting around for a crash or trying to time the markets is a mugs game, there's enough "woe is me" threads over on hpc from people waiting since 2004 to prove that point very well.

I see you've zoomed in on a single month's rise from a single index. Lets look at this shall we? Firstly, NW has approx an 8% share of the mortgage market and almost half of transactions are cash, ergo these figures represent circa 4% of all transactions. Secondly, I'm sure that if the figures were negative, you'd be the first one proclaiming that single month's figures can't give you any meaningful insight - just statistical 'noise' if you like. Finally, as we've discussed NW figures are more representative of the London market than anwhere else (feel free to compare the London Land Reg figures with NW if you don't believe me). So the sample on which this is based is very small and biased towards London - I wouldn't be reading an awful lot into it and all other indices are showing a downward year-on-year trend (and that's with record low interest rates and flattered by the effect of London prices).

Epic rant..... Really very good.

Of course, it's not the NW figures we're discussing in this thread but rather the Halifax ones.

So that sort of makes the entire thing a bit redundant...;)

But I did very much enjoy it anyway.:D

Oh, and while we're at it, the Halifax YoY decline has halved in the last couple of months, whilst Nationwide has gone year on year positive. Give it another couple of months and land reg will catch up.

There's now almost no chance of any of the indices showing falls outside the margin of error this year, and certainly not big enough falls to overcome the difference between rents and mortgage costs, on average.

Average mortgage rate is currently 3.5%, and best deals available are more like 2%.

Average rental yield is currently 5.5%.

You renters need annual falls of between 2% and 3.5% just to keep up with homeowners that bought today. A fair bit more to keep up with homeowners who bought pre-crash on the old, better, mortgage deals.

Whereas here we are, 4 years into the crash, and prices are just 10% or so below peak (Nationwide). And still far above the levels they were when many of you crashaholics joined hpc.;)

I see you also mention rents being at record highs. They were also at 'record highs' in 2008 until the a glut of 'accidental landlords' drove rents back down. Now these accidental landlords are having another bash at selling - I'm sure you know the amount of unsold stock is also at 'record highs' - but I'm sure when the penny drops and they can't achieve their fantasy valuation they'll be letting them out again = lower rents.

You may be sure of that, but reality presents a rather different picture.

The rents of today have exceeded 2008 rent levels, despite the number of houses in private rented accommodation increasing since then.

The levels of stock per agent are not at record highs at all, not even at pre-crash levels, despite there being significantly less agencies still in business today than there were in 2007. However the level of buyer enquiries has just reached the highest level in 4 years.:)

Also of note, the number of houses in private rental today is 3.5 million, an increase of 1.5 million since 2006. Funnily enough, that's what happens when the mortgage famine forces a generation into enriching landlords instead of buying for themselves.

And of course, the only category of mortgage lending still in growth is BTL lending, and with the banks stating a preference for lending to landlords over FTB-s, this doesn't look like changing.

Finally, the reason why you're just plain wrong is simple.

At the moment we are adding over 400,000 people a year, forming 250,000+ additional households a year, and building just over 100,000 new houses. And that's on top of the existing housing shortage, estimated at nearly a million properties.

With every year that passes, the capacity of this country to house it's people decreases. Thanks to your beloved crash, house building has reached the lowest levels since 1923, whilst we need to be building 270,000 houses a year just to keep up with current levels of demand.

That is why we withdrew 70% of mortgage funding but prices are now just 10% below peak.

That is why rents have soared to new record highs.

That is why rental void periods have fallen to an all time low of just 11 days on average.

And that is why there are 5 registered tenants seeking every available rental house that comes on the market today.

Of course in the meantime, the Local Housing Allowance which has underpinned rental prices is being cut drastically, although the full effects of this won't be felt until next year (much to the bemusement of all those 'savvy investors' pilling in now and wondering why they can't find a tenant for their overpriced 'investment').

It applied to new tenants since the start of this year.

New tenants have had to pay the lower rate all this year already, yet rent prices have soared to new highs anyway despite that restriction being in place.

We tried to warn you that with most tenants unaffected and even those who are by an average shortfall of just £11 a week, it would make no difference. And it has indeed made no difference. (Other than a bit of social cleansing from central London, of course)

And you talk about now being a good time to buy compared to renting. You forgot to mention that a hefty deposit (average is around 25%) is required to make it comparable. You also don't seem to take into account what the effect will be on prices when this finite pool of 'cash rich' buyers runs out - how many potential buyers do you know with 40K knocking around?.

Ah, the fallacy of static systems...... Shame. Thought you were a bit brighter than that.:(

You make the mistake of assuming there is a static pool of people, and that once "cash rich buyers" are depleted, there will be no more.

So consider this.....

How many FTB-s have had to start saving up since 2007?

Ever stop to consider that at some point they'll have saved up that deposit, and then more will have, and then some more as well?

How many people will retire this year, releasing a cash limp sum to help their kids on the ladder?

How many people will die this year, leaving an inheritance to kids or grandkids?

There is no "finite pool", just a never ending cycle of people accumulating wealth and houses, then dying and leaving that wealth and housing to the younger generations.

And of course all that is before we get into the demographic influences about to come into play as we move out of the current trough between two large generational bulges of FTB age people.

Did you know that it will some time around 2035 before there are as few FTB age people for you to compete with as there are today? And that by 2020 or so the number of FTB age people will have increased by nearly 50% from today's levels?

Did you also know that the number of FTB age people increases steadily from next year? Just in time to crash into a decade of the lowest house building in history with only one possible result.... And it ain't falling prices.;)

Oh and as for those who bought in 2007 having done so well - forums such as this are filled with stories of families forced to stay in their overpriced homes because they cannot sell for less than they paid.

That may be, prices can fall as well as rise in the short term. But it doesn't change the fact that for the vast majority who do not need to sell, and who are taking advantage of record low rates, the savings on mortgage payments have now exceeded the falls in house prices. On average of course....

Also, many of these are unable to remortgage to take advantage of these great rates you talk about as they have too little equity (if they have any at all).

And many more (like all of Nationwide, Lloyds and C&G pre-crash customers) have reverted to those great capped SVR's of base plus 2% comparable to the best trackers available today.

Horses for courses.

Oh and since we're on MSE, I feel I should mention the fact that the extra anyone paid buying at peak prices will effectively be doubled over the life of the mortgage when taking interest into account.

Only at 6% interest.... Many people will have paid that extra off already given the ultra low rates they're enjoying.

And of course renters will need to add in several percent a year in additional costs versus buyers to their calculations.

It's now at the point where there's no benefit, based on national averages, to having delayed purchase and rented a comparable property since.

In some areas of course, like Northern Ireland or the North of England, it does make sense to have waited. In my own area, a renter of the average house would be around £50,000 worse off than a buyer on a tracker since 2007.

But most people come in between those two extremes.

Always remember, time is the enemy of housing bears....;) And the longer this goes, the harder it gets to make waiting pay off.

I eagerly await your response (and if past form is anything to go by, you will make a feeble attempt to counter one or two points whilst conveniently ignoring the others).

Well I think that covers it all.:cool:

NEO72

rumbaba wrote: »

It's pointless getting agitated - properties always ALWAYS rise (especially if there's been a blip - then they rise even MORE afterwards) You just need to accept it and get on with your life.

Wishing they would fall in value just so you yourself can buy one is not only selfish - it ain't gonna happen. Insteaas, work on what you have got and what's realistically within your reach.

Can you name anything that actually costs less than it did 50 years ago? No thought not - and that highlights what a ridiculous argument this is. Its all about relative value and currently houses do not offer anything like good value.

As a home owner, house prices dropping would mean I'd have made a paper loss but as I bought when prices were reasonable, I don't really care. What I do care about though is that one day my kids will be able to buy a place and will have money to spend on things other than mortgage repayments. And if the price of that is a few numpties who bought when prices were clearly in a bubble being in neg equity for a few years then so be it....

By the way, wishing prices stay high is what exactly if not selfish?

NEO72

I can't be bothered going through this as I do have better things to do with my time and I'm pretty sure it's your usually combination of unfounded supposition and cherry-picked 'facts'. BTW Did you put your standard argument in there - using the one year in the past 10 where population growth actually did exceed house building - to illustrate your 'not enough supply' meme?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

NEO72 wrote: »

I can't be bothered going through this as I do have better things to do with my time and I'm pretty sure it's your usually combination of unfounded supposition and cherry-picked 'facts'.

Translation:

"I just had my argument demolished"

" BTW Did you put your standard argument in there - using the one year in the past 10 where population growth actually did exceed house building - to illustrate your 'not enough supply' meme?

Translation:

"OK, I did read it, but I'm going to make an unfounded supposition as a parting shot and hope nobody else notices I just had my argument demolished".

shortchanged_2

Jesus Hamish, do you really expect people to read all that sh*t?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

Jesus Hamish, do you really expect people to read all that sh*t?

Only if they want an understanding of the housing market that extends beyond the over simplistic and entirely discredited one-liner memes of the type you find on hpc nowadays.

NEO72

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

"OK, I did read it, but I'm going to make an unfounded supposition as a parting shot and hope nobody else notices I just had my argument demolished".

OK I'll take the bait...

In 2009 there were an estimated 61.8 million people resident in the UK. That's an increase of 2.7 million since 2001

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/LivingintheUK/DG_10012517


Average household size = 2.32
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1172133.pdf
(Page 3)

So 1.16 million homes required


And:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/housebuilding/livetables/
(Table 241)

Tells us that 1.58 million homes were built in the UK over that very same period.


If I could be bothered, I'd happily pull apart your other arguments but as I said, I've got better things to do so will just use this one to demonstrate your selective use of facts. But please feel free to keep peddling your 'now is a great time to buy' mantra - when no-one is around to provide actual facts then I'm sure others will believe you.

As an aside, I wonder why someone who is so clearly happy with home ownership would spend so much time trying to convince others its the right thing to do. Perhaps you're just a natural altruist and not as has been said, just someone with far too much time on their hands trying to justify to themselves and others why buying at peak prices really was a good idea. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: