Longest fall in housing market since records began

Hoopie1

chucknorris wrote: »

I'm 54 now (55 in Jan) and I have found that the older I get the more prone I seem to be to injuries, hence the switching to cycling as my main exercise. I ended up being injured 3 months a year, I still jog though (as my dog gets to come with me). It was my calf too (left) where I was injury prone from running.

I suspect that you aren't the real Chuck Norris.

mystic_trev

HOMEOWNERS_ARE_WINNERS wrote: »

So anyone who signed up to the HPC diatribe and site in 2002 will have waited 17 years for their non-existent crash. With such economic genius behind their ears no wonder they rent.

So no one. The domain wasn't registered until the end of 2003.

chucknorris

Thankfully no I am not, I'm afraid that I can't touch MC Hammer. But I am real, despite being accused of not being real on this forum.

Percy1983

chucknorris wrote: »

Thankfully no I am not. But I am real, despite being accused of not being real on this forum.

I get the same sometimes, don't worry about.

chucknorris

Percy1983 wrote: »

I get the same sometimes, don't worry about.

No worries, I find it amusing. I can't remember everyone that I was supposed to be a sockie of (but chucky was one of them).

N1AK

the_flying_pig wrote: »

An obvious thing about rent controls is that they wouldn't, to any appreciable extent, mean fewer houses - only that those houses that do exist would be more likely to be for owner-occupation than renting out. It's not at all clear that this would be a bad thing socially.

To start with a counter, rent control would mean less housing as the value of property would fall and thus production of new housing and renovation of derelict housing would decrease. That said, rent controls could provide enough benefit to outweigh this.

Personally I would prefer to see the government increase the cost of owning unoccupied or low occupancy property first. I'd then like to see the government set up a couple of state/voluntary run letting agencies and get them to compete in the market. Run them as businesses and use them increase competition on the rental market. If they fail then the worst case is the government is left owning a few thousand more houses.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But if it's close to the truth, which it may well be, it could see those intending to hold out for a recovery waiting a hell of a long time.

If people are waiting till house prices recover to the previous peak, then their missing out on opportunities to buy / upsize before they get to that peak.

IveSeenTheLight

Percy1983 wrote: »

Very true, but with houses becoming worse investments there will be less 'investors' coming in and maybe even some dropping out.

All we need now is rent controls and all will be fine.

As an investor, house price fluctuations are irrelevant.
What's important for an investor is the rental yield.

Any HPI is only realised as a bonus when the property is sold.

Percy1983

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As an investor, house price fluctuations are irrelevant.
What's important for an investor is the rental yield.

Any HPI is only realised as a bonus when the property is sold.

This is true hence the need for rent controls.

IveSeenTheLight

Percy1983 wrote: »

This is true hence the need for rent controls.

The government gave this right away when they sold off council houses under the RTB scheme.

Statistically it can be shown that fewer BTL properties were purchased compared to the number of social housing sold off.

This means there are less available rental properties which is driven up through natural market forces by the demand.

The only way to get true rent control is to ensure there is sufficient supply to affect the market in that way.

Otherwise, any government attempts to control rents in an open market could mean the available supply is restricted and lead to the government having to cater for those that need / want to rent again.

This may be good if you want to buy, but does not offer a service for those that need / want to rent.