MSE News: House prices fell in July

brit1234

James I put it to you again. Would you like to tell me what demand that is?

Or are you trying to change the subject.

James_N

The stats speak for themselves. I could chose any year, 2010 is the latest available:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/housingplanningstatistics2010

(this may not format well)

There were 21.5 million households in England in 2008-09: 14.6 million owner-occupiers; 3.8 million social renters; and 3.1 million private renters.
Net additions to the stock (new build plus conversions and change of use, less demolitions) rose from 132,000 net additions per annum in 2000-01, to a peak of 207,370 in 2007-08 before falling to 128,680 in 2009-10.
Between 2008 and 2009, new build completions decreased by 17 per cent, from 143,000 to 118,000.
In England during 2009 the lower quartile house price was 6.28 times the lower quartile full-time individual earnings.
The number of households in England is projected to rise by 5.8 million from 2008 to 2033, an increase of 232,000 per year on average reaching 27.5 million in 2033.
Between 1998-99 and 2008-09, average local authority housing rents in England increased from £42 to £64 per week. Between 2000 and 2010, average housing association housing rents in England increased from £53 to £78 per week.
During 2009-10, local authorities made 89,120 decisions on eligible applications for housing assistance under homelessness legislation. Nearly half of these - 40,020 - were accepted as owed a main homelessness duty, 70 per cent lower than the peak in 2003-04.
The overall rate of overcrowding in England in 2008-09 was 3.0 per cent, with an estimated 656,000 households living in overcrowded conditions.
There were an estimated 8,510 total social housing sales to sitting tenants in England in 2009-10, an increase of 16 per cent on 2008-09. However there was a 20 per cent decrease in Right to Buy sales from 2008-09.
A total of 57,730 gross additional affordable homes were supplied in England in 2009-10. This is an increase of 4 per cent on 2008-09.
There was a steady decline in the percentage of homes in the least energy efficient Band G, from 9 per cent in 1996 to less than 4 per cent in 2008.
In 2009, on a provisional estimate, 80 per cent of dwellings (including conversions) were built on previously-developed land, unchanged from 2008.
In the year ending June 2010, authorities that undertake district level planning received around 475,000 applications, compared to around 1,600 for those authorities responsible for 'county matters' applications.

SPELLING it out for Brit (who may otherwise have trouble): demand comes from the 232,000 per year increase in households year on year to 2033. They are not all going to live with mummy and daddy. Other stats back up / compound this. It's all above.

Graham_Devon

When people (should I say, the invested) are so confident the price of a commodity won't fall....you can guarentee a fall.

brit1234

James_N wrote: »

SPELLING it out for Brit (who may otherwise have trouble): demand comes from the 232,000 per year increase in households year on year to 2033. They are not all going to live with mummy and daddy. Other stats back up / compound this. It's all above.

So will all those people have the wages to buy, the deposit saved and the mortgage offer i8n place.

It doesn't matter how many people there are but the number of people in a position to buy at a given price. If the price is too high then sellers won't get a buyer.

The inflated prices of today are down to too low interest rates, irresponsible lending and mass fraud not immigration. We have had property bubbles all over the world for the same reasons.

Now we have interest rates at 0.5% (possibly 0.25% shortly) and lots of QE are trying their best to keep the housing bubble inflated. If your false argument about mythical demand was true this wouldn't be needed however the truth is people simply borrowed more than they could afford and are struggling even at these rates not to get repossessed.

sinbad182

I think the proof will be in the pudding, and that pudding will be Brit1234 posting the same hopeful nonsense in 5 years time about an impending price crash, and 'first time buyer strike' garbage, whilst quoting flawed stats and hypothesis from whatever source backs him up that week.

When questioned why he is still doing this after nearly ten years and 5 million posts he will inevitably claim it's on the verge of happening, and accuse anyone who disagrees of being a) the sock puppet of some long since departed message board member he doesn't like, b) a buy to let investor, or c) an abusive poster who he will now place on his ignore list.

Pincher

spunko2010 wrote: »

Load of !!!!!!!! - not everyone who buys is looking to flip for a profit in a few years time. God forbid, some people actually just want to buy a house to live in. I am one of those people and I'm not alone!

Oh really? Buy a house for £400k, and then sell it for £360k ten years later.

James_N

Pincher wrote: »

Oh really? Buy a house for £400k, and then sell it for £360k ten years later.

In respect of a HOME to LIVE in, if I was personally renting / living at home with my parents / splitting up from my partner at present, then YES, I would be ready to look at spending money for no gain / small gains / a loss in order to have MY OWN home to live in.

Your "own place" changes pure economic decisions into feelings and expectations. Additionally, if you are already renting, you are already paying out money you will never see again - for a situation that some people obviously find hard to tolerate - look at all the "my LL is a monster" posts you see.

jimpix12

Pincher wrote: »

Oh really? Buy a house for £400k, and then sell it for £360k ten years later.

Makes no odds if my house price goes up or down, all other houses move by the same % anyway. It'll be better for the economy and everyone (maybe except nollag?) if house prices go down anyway, I'll gladly take a "hit" if it means others on lower incomes can buy a place to call their own.

DRP

spunko2010 wrote: »

Makes no odds if my house price goes up or down, all other houses move by the same % anyway. It'll be better for the economy and everyone (maybe except nollag?) if house prices go down anyway, I'll gladly take a "hit" if it means others on lower incomes can buy a place to call their own.

presumably the best situation overall is for house prices to stay stable or slightly underplaced relative to inflation .

Least harm to current homeowners and over time will make houses more affordable

jimpix12

DRP wrote: »

presumably the best situation overall is for house prices to stay stable or slightly underplaced relative to inflation .

Least harm to current homeowners and over time will make houses more affordable

Not sure it's the best strategy but it seems to be the one the government wants....