MSE News: House prices fell in July

ShAnE

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

Oh, and did I mention competition from investors and the emergence of BTL, population growth of 250,00 per year and ever lower house building levels? Didn't have those factors 30 years ago either did we.

You're first two arguments help prove my point. So thank you.

Anyway two incomes aren't the "norm" they are the requirement because the housing market is over inflated.

If muggings go up, because of a global crash leaving many unable to afford basic supplies. Would you consider it the norm to be mugged every time you go outside? Or would you consider it a consequence of a bigger problem?

DRP

ShAnE wrote: »

My parents bought their first house 20 years ago. At the time my father was working as a bin man and my mother wasn't working.

These days I am 2 years older than my parents were when they bought their first place. I am earning almost 4 times what todays waste disposal technicians earn, yet it'll take me another 3-4 years to afford a 1 bedroom flat.

But the housing market is the same as it always was right?

Shared-ownership schemes alone should render any argument invalid, as I don't recall my parents, or grandparents ever talking about buying a % of a home, because it was so unaffordable for the normal run of the mill household.
The fact these schemes exist prove that Brit talks some sense and the housing bubble is over inflated.

Of course I never implied nor stated that the housing market was the same. Clearly it isn't.

Same things apply though - it never was easy to buy and it still isn't. If we keep saving our shiny pennies then we can eventually attain what we aspire to.

Merlinpixie

We have been trying to sell our house for six months with a reasonable number of viewings and some silly offers but no proper offer. Because we 'need' to move due to other half's new job to cut down on commuting (cost and wasted time) plus wanting to be much closer to family due to our young son (for baby sitting etc) we cannot hang around and wait to sell.

Therefore we have been able to just about get the money together to get two mortgages and let our house out (yes we have a BTL mortgage). We were able to let our house out within a week of it being on the market to let.

The point I want to make is that we have no crystal ball and if I had been waiting to buy a house until a huge crash I would not be able to get on with my life, there could be one next week or in Five years.

The other thing is that if I had been paying out rent for the last 5 years I have been in my current house then I would have wasted about £75k approx as we have let our house for £1325.

I don't think it is as ever as straightforward as waiting for the best time as this will never happen and you need to get on with your life as best it suits you and your family.

Turnbull2000

Merlinpixie wrote: »

We have been trying to sell our house for six months with a reasonable number of viewings and some silly offers but no proper offer.

Can I ask what a "silly offer" was?

note_2

its always been difficult to get on the property ladder, my parents bought in the 1980's when interest rates were 15%.......

they paid £40k and now the property is worth £160k. so although its always been difficult to buy property if you are a ftb, its more difficult now than it was then.

luckily my parents stretched themselves in the late 90's to buy our house, over doubled in value to around £500k now so alot of equity to give me a chance

ukcarper

ShAnE wrote: »

My parents bought their first house 20 years ago. At the time my father was working as a bin man and my mother wasn't working.

These days I am 2 years older than my parents were when they bought their first place. I am earning almost 4 times what todays waste disposal technicians earn, yet it'll take me another 3-4 years to afford a 1 bedroom flat.

But the housing market is the same as it always was right?

Shared-ownership schemes alone should render any argument invalid, as I don't recall my parents, or grandparents ever talking about buying a % of a home, because it was so unaffordable for the normal run of the mill household.
The fact these schemes exist prove that Brit talks some sense and the housing bubble is over inflated.

Between 16 and 20 years ago property prices in relation to earning were the lowest they have been since 1950. So although prices are now high they have been higher in the past and now are about 10% above long term average.

Merlinpixie

A silly offer was 50k below asking. House on for £300k, they offered £250k to get below stamp duty. You could say a house is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it but since we paid above stamp to get a better house (there seems to be a difference above and below stamp) we are not prepared to give it away with a big loss. We would have taken £285k.

The house we are buying is 270k and we are prepared to pay that bit more for a better house.

rickbonar

RenovationMan wrote: »

Indeed, but getting back to your statement;why do you feel that BOE rates should rise?

I was trying to say that the notion of returning to ever increasing houseprices is mistaken as they are already way over the saturated limit now. In fact well out of the reach of new buyers unless they have a wage of one third and half of the selling price.

Every month Halifax and Nationwide talk up the housing markets with silly comments about being stable, spikes and recovery and then lacks direction. Laughable attempts to try and fool the public.

If the house prices are so stable and "bouncing upward" and whilst owners are "waiting for the market to pick up"

All the usual estate agent cliches... had to laugh... the recent funny weather was offered as an explanation to why the "market hasn't picked up as expected"

If this is the case then they won't mind the rates increasing will they?

Raising the interest rates would benefit savers and would benefit banks too with house prices being corrected more easily with repossessions ... the banks could even rent back the properties to the newly repossessed too.

It was a game of chance with everyone piling in with a view to make money,someone somewhere has to lose. If you bought late then tough, your house price is going into negative equity and won't ever come out of it.

The bankers who set all this up used house buyers to make their money... and they couldn't care less about what was going to happen in 5 or 10 years time...

They were and still only worried about what money they are personally making today with their guaranteed millions and their own personal pension pots. -Just look at the likes of Bob Diamond and Fred Goodwin!

I think the sooner the Mervin King wakes up and realises this the better. Up the rates and get on with it rather than kid the public that it's all going to sort out OK ... up rates and let markets sort it out.

Bank regulations too and only performance related bonuses.

Everyones a winner! then in the long run.

Phreaky

Merlinpixie wrote: »

A silly offer was 50k below asking. House on for £300k, they offered £250k to get below stamp duty. You could say a house is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it but since we paid above stamp to get a better house (there seems to be a difference above and below stamp) we are not prepared to give it away with a big loss. We would have taken £285k.

The house we are buying is 270k and we are prepared to pay that bit more for a better house.

So the absolute lowest you would go is 5% under asking? No wonder it hasn't sold, jesus christ.

Merlinpixie

Well at the peak in Dec 2007 the previous owner paid £296, 6 months later he sold to us due to divorce for £271, we have spent £20k on conservatory and landscaping garden which I appreciate we wouldn't get all back, but why would I sell for a huge loss? Whilst I need to move I would not if I can help it make a loss on the house.