We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Who'd vote for lower house prices? Not many...
Comments
-
Not if the price of my house fell by 100k which seems to be what the thread is about
Whichever way you try to spin it you can't logically argue that it is not better to have 150k equity than 50k.
It might have nothing to do with downsizing, you might have to move to a different area, if so, how much equity would you prefer to put down as a deposit on your new house 150k or 50k?Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
chucknorris wrote: »Whichever way you try to spin it you can't logically argue that it is not better to have 150k equity than 50k.
It might have nothing to do with downsizing, you might have to move to a different area, if so, how much equity would you prefer to put down as a deposit on your new house 150k or 50k?
If you are moving house, then having a larger amount of equity for a deposit (due to high HPI) is almost cetainly going to be more expensive for you than having a lower amount of equity (due to lower HPI).30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
chucknorris wrote: »Whichever way you try to spin it you can't logically argue that it is not better to have 150k equity than 50k.
It might have nothing to do with downsizing, you might have to move to a different area, if so, how much equity would you prefer to put down as a deposit on your new house 150k or 50k?
I'm not trying to spin anything. As I say the vast majorty do not down size etc and if buy again and houses have fallen by 30% then bigger house will be cheaper.
Also it will be cheaper for my kids to buy. Therefore its more than logical that it would be better for me for prices to lower and I suspect a fair few more. People of course like to feel they are wealthy regardless of whether they really are or not
At the same time for me its not best for the economy so stables prices are best for me.0 -
If you are moving house, then having a larger amount of equity for a deposit (due to high HPI) is almost cetainly going to be more expensive for you than having a lower amount of equity (due to lower HPI).
You might want to rethink that. For example (lets stick with the previous figures used) you have to sell up this month and move to Bath for a new job, selling a 500k house in Surrey and buying a 500k house in Bath. How would having a 350k mortgage (from 150k equity released) on the new property be more expensive than having a 450k mortage (from only 50k equity released)?
Prices in Bath and Surrey are what they are, there is no 'assuming' that they have dropped or risen by 30% or whatever, we are talking real time here, you can either have 150k equity or 50k equity. This is the value on the 'net worth' that we have been talking about.Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
I'm not trying to spin anything. As I say the vast majorty do not down size etc and if buy again and houses have fallen by 30% then bigger house will be cheaper.
Also it will be cheaper for my kids to buy. Therefore its more than logical that it would be better for me for prices to lower and I suspect a fair few more. People of course like to feel they are wealthy regardless of whether they really are or not
At the same time for me its not best for the economy so stables prices are best for me.
I can only argue with logic, but it's good that some people would prefer 50k over 150k, it means more money for some of us and quite good that those taking 50k are happy too.Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
chucknorris wrote: »I can only argue with logic, but it's good that some people would prefer 50k over 150k, it means more money for some of us and quite good that those taking 50k are happy too.
The logic is simple in that the mortgage on the new house is cheaper if prices fall as it for the kids. As it likely I will die without down sizing the equity will never be realised. Taking into account the saving on the lower mortgage for me and the kids we will all be better off in the long run.
I don't though expect someone who owns lots of houses rather than just the one to understand that though.0 -
The logic is simple in that the mortgage on the new house is cheaper if prices fall as it for the kids. As it likely I will die without down sizing the equity will never be realised. Taking into account the saving on the lower mortgage for me and the kids we will all be better off in the long run.
I don't though expect someone who owns lots of houses rather than just the one to understand that though.
You don't have to downsize, you (or others) may simply move house. But lets end this now, honestly I can't go on trying to explain that it is better to have 150k than 50k any longer (there are only so many ways you can say it). I don't see the point in going on (and on and on and on).Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
300k house 150K equity. 150 mortgage. Want to buy 400k house if prices stay the same need 250K mortgage if they fall by 30% £220k mortgage.chucknorris wrote: »You don't have to downsize, you (or others) may simply move house. But lets end this now, honestly I can't go on trying to explain that it is better to have 150k than 50k any longer (there are only so many ways you can say it). I don't see the point in going on (and on and on and on).
If I have a couple of kids then FTB price 150k 30% fall 105K
As a family we are better off by at least 20k on the face of it and that does no include all the extra interest.
No surprised your out now.0 -
300k house 150K equity. 150 mortgage. Want to buy 400k house if prices stay the same need 250K mortgage if they fall by 30% £220k mortgage.
If I have a couple of kids then FTB price 150k 30% fall 105K
As a family we are better off by at least 20k on the face of it and that does no include all the extra interest.
No surprised your out now.
You wouldn't let it lie (with Vic Reeves accent) would you. Ok then, lets go on forever with this. There is no 'if prices stay the same or fall' comaparison, we are living in real time so we have to deal in real time. If you have to move in the next few months you are far better off having 150k equity than 50k. If you can't see that there is no hope for you.
I'm off to the bowls club now no doubt we will continue this pointless debate when I get back and see your pointless response.Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
i'm sure this debate has been covered fairly amply in previous discussions.
for current homeowners:
the most obvious case of an owner who'd benefit hugely from house price falls is someone who:
1 - has low LTV outstanding on their current home;
2 - is a prospective upsizer;
3 - has a large number of children & cares about their welfare; and
4 - owns one home only.
the most obvious case of an owner who'd benefit hugely from HPI are:
1 - someone who's a multiple homeowner;
2 - has high LTV on their current home;
3 - is a prospective downsizer or seller-upper; and
4 - has no kids, or else kids whose welfare they're uninterested in.
most other cases fall somewhere between these very polar extremes. the interests of plenty of middling cases might be so much inbetween that flat prices would serve their interests best.
a) any landlord who owns multiple houses will benefit greatly from HPI, regardless of other considerations;
b) almost any prospective upsizer who has low LTV willl benefit from house price falls;
c) almost any low LTV owner with lots of kids & who values their own & their kids' net worth equally will benefit from house price falls;
d) almost any prospective downsizer or seller-upper who isn't worrying about offspring will benefit from HPI.FACT.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards