House prices have fallen 20% in 5 years

John_Pierpoint

A market is not just a matter of price - what about the turnover?

Property prices are propped up by low interest rates and owners staying put.

The really worrying thing is that in spite of rising employment output is falling, in an economy where the government is printing billions.

Are the GDP figures adjusted for inflation ?
or
Is the decline in value added even worse than it appears based on the bald figures?

When it becomes obvious that the UK economy is in a seriously dangerous situation and propped up by hot foreign money, it could go "pop" in a very nasty way.

chewmylegoff

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

I have yet to hear and argument yet where buying property since 2005 in general has been a good investment(homemaking is another story before some kick off)

no need to thank me...

homelessskilledworker

chewmylegoff wrote: »

no need to thank me...

For what?? .................

chewmylegoff

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

For what?? .................

providing you with evidence that it is perfectly possible to have invested in property in 2005 and made decent money out of it.

DannyRadclif

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

The average home in Britain is worth nearly £40,000 less than it was five years ago.


Prices peaked at £200,000 in August 2007, but the same home is now worth only £161,000, according to figures published yesterday by the Halifax bank.


The drop of almost 20 per cent has left millions of families in homes worth less than they paid for them – and there are strong


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2184694/House-prices-fallen-20-past-5-years-leaving-millions-homes-worth-paid-them.html#ixzz22qOtJ31s

Real terms its over 30% and falling faster.

homelessskilledworker

chewmylegoff wrote: »

providing you with evidence that it is perfectly possible to have invested in property in 2005 and made decent money out of it.

I don't know how many times I have to say that London is an exception, but hey ho.
Just as I would not use NI as an example, as it is not the norm.

chewmylegoff

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

I don't know how many times I have to say that London is an exception, but hey ho.
Just as I would not use NI as an example, as it is not the norm.

well, the south east is the same, although the increase since 2005 is not as much. given that they covers 25% of the population, it's a pretty big exception to the whatever the rule is supposed to be. further, the rise in capital value ignores the income that the asset will have generated during that period.

homelessskilledworker

chewmylegoff wrote: »

well, the south east is the same, although the increase since 2005 is not as much. given that they covers 25% of the population, it's a pretty big exception to the whatever the rule is supposed to be. further, the rise in capital value ignores the income that the asset will have generated during that period.

The South east is the same as London, Mmmm, I am sure it is not, I am pretty certain the vast majority of property in the UK is around the 2005 level, on the whole/in general/roughly speaking/averaged out.

But I will eagerly await your exceptions to the rule

chewmylegoff

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

The South east is the same as London, Mmmm, I am sure it is not, I am pretty certain the vast majority of property in the UK is around the 2005 level, on the whole/in general/roughly speaking/averaged out.

But I will eagerly await your exceptions to the rule

here you go...

homelessskilledworker

chewmylegoff wrote: »

here you go...

Thats not the whole of the UK

I was going to also start one of those "is the graph real or nominal prices" or is....
And then do you know what, I thought zzzzzzzzzz I cannot be arsed:)

With you anyway