MSE News: House prices down 1.2% over year, says Halifax

The_Earl_of_Streatham

A factor of 1.5 over 15 years gives a simple annual increase of 10%, let's halve that to take into account the compounding effect and call it 5% annually. This is less than purchase price inflation, and more than this year's increase.

That things have changed this year, flat prices and rising rents doesn't change the demographic argument. The population has not risen 4% since January.

Could it be that landlords are waking up to the fact that they're not going to make their pot through capital appreciation?

The_Earl_of_Streatham

FTBFun wrote: »

I'm in Southwark and house prices are still rising YOY - this is the borough that contains Bermondsey and Peckham btw - hardly prime property areas.

That'll be a .3% annual rise with an average selling price of £390k (see my link to the Land Registry figures elsewhere in this thread). Average price across all the boroughs £374K, which includes the expensive areas. I'm guessing that Bermondsey and Peckham aren't contributing much to Southwark's figure. To be higher than the average of the boroughs it must have been pulled up by higher priced properties or a lack of turnover in lower priced properties.

MobileSaver

The_Earl_of_Streatham wrote: »

Why, I believe it was you.

Um, no I didn't, I actually said the exact opposite.

MobileSaver wrote: »

Of course it isn't only about supply and demand

It never ceases to amaze me the depths people will stoop to in order to support their ridiculous HPC theories.

ukcarper

The_Earl_of_Streatham wrote: »

That'll be a .3% annual rise with an average selling price of £390k (see my link to the Land Registry figures elsewhere in this thread). Average price across all the boroughs £374K, which includes the expensive areas. I'm guessing that Bermondsey and Peckham aren't contributing much to Southwark's figure. To be higher than the average of the boroughs it must have been pulled up by higher priced properties or a lack of turnover in lower priced properties.

Your link shows Southwark up 5.5% annual.

By the way I'm am not arguing that Londons price will carry on increasing personally I don't know all I am saying they are at the moment and I'm not sure why peoplle try to denie it.

FTBFun

The_Earl_of_Streatham wrote: »

That'll be a .3% annual rise with an average selling price of £390k (see my link to the Land Registry figures elsewhere in this thread). Average price across all the boroughs £374K, which includes the expensive areas. I'm guessing that Bermondsey and Peckham aren't contributing much to Southwark's figure. To be higher than the average of the boroughs it must have been pulled up by higher priced properties or a lack of turnover in lower priced properties.

Might be a good idea if you didn't use made up figures to prove your point. As ukcarper says from your now removed link (wonder why), its 5.5% YOY.

You're only guessing on the "expensive" areas btw. I can only think of the area around London Bridge as being one of those.

breadlinebetty

Shun_di wrote: »

Nor is it good for ordinary British people living in London trying to buy a home.
Rises in London are caused by foreign investors escaping the eurozone crisis.

The fact that you celebrate high house prices benefiting rich foreign investors on a BRITISH MONEY SAVING website baffles me.

Would you celebrate high food and fuel prices? No of course not. Housing/shelter is a basic human right just like food is.

We are currently in the process of buying a house and thankfully were we live house prices have dropped considerably, however once we have bought a house I will still celebrate drops in house prices because it means that my children and grand children won't be priced out of finding somewhere to live.

I have announced my vested interests (affordable shelter for my self and future generations) perhaps you should mention yours (I assume some kind of property portfolio).

And don't give me that clap trap of supply and demand/immigration, more houses have been built in the last 10 years than we have had than the immigration figures.

Perhaps you should watch this video about high house prices and why they mostly benefit banks rather than the ordinary people in Britain.

www>youtube>com/watch?v=Y4WmDoYJhnk
(replace > with .)

Ask yourself, how will your children and grand children afford a house in the future?

Housing/shelter is a basic right, of course it is. But that doesn't mean to say people who don't have enough money should INSIST that house prices come down to suit THEIR requirements! There's plenty of inexpensive properties aound the country......so why not buy there?

The vultures would love properties to fall - they couldn't give a flying fig about the poor families with young children who may end up in negative equity with debts on top - just swoop in when the price dops to the level YOU can afford - and watch as the young families are slung out into B&B!!:(

Meanwhile, the vultures wuill then be praying every night that the property will start to rise!

Hypocrites and vultures!!:mad:

breadlinebetty

The_Earl_of_Streatham wrote: »

A factor of 1.5 over 15 years gives a simple annual increase of 10%, let's halve that to take into account the compounding effect and call it 5% annually. This is less than purchase price inflation, and more than this year's increase.

That things have changed this year, flat prices and rising rents doesn't change the demographic argument. The population has not risen 4% since January.

Could it be that landlords are waking up to the fact that they're not going to make their pot through capital appreciation?

Ah, but the population IS rising - and will continue to do so!!

And in, let's say, a whole 10 years from now (which goes very fast!) properties will be much moe expensive than they are now. There's always been ups and downs throughout history....booms, then drops....then another boom, dop etc......usually every decade it happens.:money:

BUT, when drop does occur - that property NEVER drops to what its worth was 10 years previously! So your argument about capital appreciation is stupid and you have no foresight.

But let's suppose there WAS no capital appreciation and property just stagnated. The difference between those buying and renters like you is that the buyers - if they decide to sell - will walk away with a big wad of money in their bank - while you will walk away with not a single bean...rent is dead money and everyone knows that.

The_Earl_of_Streatham

You haven't quoted yourself in full, have you? You say elsewhere

MobileSaver wrote: »

As ukcarper pointed out, they broadly have!

Of course it isn't only about supply and demand but I have never understood why those fixated on HPC cannot see the obvious. There simply are not enough houses to supply demand - what do you think that will inevitably do to prices?

So, help me out, do you or do you not think it's about supply and demand?

The_Earl_of_Streatham

FTBFun wrote: »

Might be a good idea if you didn't use made up figures to prove your point. As ukcarper says from your now removed link (wonder why), its 5.5% YOY.

You're only guessing on the "expensive" areas btw. I can only think of the area around London Bridge as being one of those.

None of my links have been removed, the one that supports my point is in post 13.

The_Earl_of_Streatham

Breadlinebetty, there is never capital appreciation in property, there is just more money to buy it. In recent times that has come from easy credit at other times inflation driven by genuine prosperity reflected in rising incomes.

As far as an economy is concerned money invested in property is a dead loss, it does nothing. If it went into reequipping factories, doing research or updating infrastructure then that might lead to capital appreciation, houses not so much. Quite the opposite, they need maintenance if they're to retain their attractiveness to lure in the next fool with a line of credit.

Certainly property never falls back to it's original price after a boom, because of inflation, what it does fall back to is a fixed multiple of the average wage, historically about four.

The population has indeed been increasing, in 1997 it was 58.3M and in 2011 it was 62.6M, that's just over 7% in 14 years, a tad less than the increase in property prices over that period.

http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=uk+population

People who live singly have less to spend on housing than people living together and nobody ever got richer by divorcing, but there may be some effect. Not enough to account for the remaining 293% rise we've seen since 1997, that's come from easy credit, no less an authority than the Bank of England says so

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/workingpapers/wp379.pdf.

There's a nice graph on page 9. People, however many of them there are only live in houses, money buys them and their price reflects far more closely the supply of money than the supply of people.