Halifax HPI +0.5% MoM, +0.8% QoQ, -0.1% YoY

Legacy_user

http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media/pdfs/halifax/2012/0606_HPI.pdf

Commence arguing.

ruggedtoast

This +0.5% is a shot in the arm for worried home-owners labouring under a mortgage, but another forced slice of misery pizza for the diners of Forced Rental Restaurant.

DpchMd

More stagnation, just the way I like it.

This has to be one of the best periods in history to be a home owner.

Graham_Devon

DpchMd wrote: »

More stagnation, just the way I like it.

This has to be one of the best periods in history to be a home owner.

You are probably right.

And one of the worst not to be. It's that divide that many of us take objection too.

abaxas

Peak buying season has flat lined.

Two options

1) market is bumbling along with no real direction, but would expect some drop at tail end of year.
2) some markets are going up, others dropping, some booming, some crashing like a crashy thing.

My money is on 2.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are probably right.

And one of the worst not to be. It's that divide that many of us take objection too.

Given how obvious this divide has become it surprises me just how much retail sales have held up. I'd be doing everything I could to get out of rental and into ownership.

Just shows that despite the obvious benefit to personal finances many many people still decide to prioritise spending over saving.

There's no helping some people.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Given how obvious this divide has become it surprises me just how much retail sales have held up. I'd be doing everything I could to get out of rental and into ownership.

Just shows that despite the obvious benefit to personal finances many many people still decide to prioritise spending over saving.

There's no helping some people.

I would talk about how many hundreds of thousands simply live month to month, but I expect it to fall on deaf ears in all honesty.

Most normal working people could put by £50-100 a month. I feel that's a fair amount.

It would only take 160 months to save up the 16k required for a 10% deposit on todays average price.

That's 13 years. Theres not some magic wand available that if families cut back a bit they will be able to save a deposit within a year. If they cut back to the bone, they may be able to wipe 3 years off the saving target, leaving only 10 years....woop.

THAT's the problem. And no, it's not deposits per se that are the issue, it's the price that creates the deposit in the first place.

Expecting people to just cut back in order to save theses sorts of sums is beyond disillusioned.

DpchMd

wotsthat wrote: »

Given how obvious this divide has become it surprises me just how much retail sales have held up. I'd be doing everything I could to get out of rental and into ownership.

Just shows that despite the obvious benefit to personal finances many many people still decide to prioritise spending over saving.

There's no helping some people.

The fact is many people will never earn enough to save the required deposit for a mortgage. It's a real shame because many of these people could 'afford' the mortgage repayments if they were able to obtain a decent rate mortgage, but they are prevented from doing so because of the deposit requirements.

This naturally leads to a rich vs poor divide, and I can't see this changing in my lifetime.

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's 13 years. Theres not some magic wand available that if families cut back a bit they will be able to save a deposit within a year. If they cut back to the bone, they may be able to wipe 3 years off the saving target, leaving only 10 years....woop.

If house prices drop 20% nominally, they may be able to wipe 3 years off the saving target, leaving only 10 years....woop.

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

If house prices drop 20% nominally, they may be able to wipe 3 years off the saving target, leaving only 10 years....woop.

And if they do what wotsthat is suggesting, and cut back at the same time, it's 6 years off the saving target.....woop!

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I would talk about how many hundreds of thousands simply live month to month, but I expect it to fall on deaf ears in all honesty.

Most normal working people could put by £50-100 a month. I feel that's a fair amount.

It would only take 160 months to save up the 16k required for a 10% deposit on todays average price.

That's 13 years. Theres not some magic wand available that if families cut back a bit they will be able to save a deposit within a year. If they cut back to the bone, they may be able to wipe 3 years off the saving target, leaving only 10 years....woop.

THAT's the problem. And no, it's not deposits per se that are the issue, it's the price that creates the deposit in the first place.

Expecting people to just cut back in order to save theses sorts of sums is beyond disillusioned.

Some people will never be home owners - that's a given. i.e. those who can only save £50/ month towards a deposit.

There are plenty of people struggling - that's a given.

There are still plenty of people who can manage to save a deposit in less than 13 years (lol) but are choosing to spend instead. It's beyond disillusioned to pretend they don't exist.

What's a laugh is that even if house prices fell by 50% then based on what you think is a reasonable savings plan it would still take 6.5 years for a normal working person to save an £8k deposit.