House prices to fall 5% in 2013

wotsthat

shortchanged wrote: »

Yes of course build more houses. Everyone knows this will help the problem.
Unfortunately there are too many VI's either in high places or have the ear of those in high places for it to happen.

Unfortunately moaning about it on this forum isn't going to help and, as far as I can see, isn't making you feel better about it either.

Do something if you're really that bothered.

shortchanged_2

wotsthat wrote: »

Unfortunately moaning about it on this forum isn't going to help and, as far as I can see, isn't making you feel better about it either.

Do something if you're really that bothered.

Can you suggest anything wotsthat?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

shortchanged wrote: »

The thing is Hamish the figures don't really add up do they.

Yes they do.

We know house prices rose by around 200% in some places.

Sure, and they rose far less in others.

Supply and demand.

So for example pre boom a FTB who earned £20K a year buys a £100K house with a 20K deposit and a has a 4 times income mortgage.

Now a couple of years later that same house is now selling for £200K. So that same person would then need a 40K deposit and would need to be earning £40K a year to get a 4 times income mortgage.

No, that's wrong.

1. House prices didn't rise by 200% in "a couple of years"

2. House prices in the 90's, at the trough of the last crash, were far below the long term average and no more the "right price" than 2007, or today for that matter.

3. The stats don't lie. The reality is that in 2007 twice as many FTB-s could buy as can today, despite rates and prices being far higher.

So question is Hamish. Do you honestly believe that earnings rose by that much in a couple of years?

Well prices didn't rise that much "in a couple of years" so why would earnings?

If your point is that price rose more than earnings over the last 15 years, sure, I'll agree.

But mortgage costs fell by even more than prices rose.

So even at 5.75% base rates a buyer in 2007 was paying far less of their income for a house than a buyer in 1990.

That's what made higher prices affordable. The fact that the days of 17% base rates are well and truly gone. And a structural shortage of housing did the rest.

Now, you can argue all you like that average prices should be 3 times income or whatever they were when base rates were 17%, but there is no reason for that to be so.

You may as well argue that all houses should come with a bomb shelter in the garden as they did in WW2. What was right and normal then, is not necessarily right and normal today.

wotsthat

shortchanged wrote: »

Can you suggest anything wotsthat?

- Start up your own company, tout for capital and build new houses - apparently massive margins.

- who's your MP? Write them a letter. Keep writing them letters. Turn up to talk to them.

- turn up with placards in support of housing developments just as the NIMBY's are crying to camera about 3-legged Newts

- organise a group of like minded people and campaign against anything you think is causing the problem

No good moaning about the VI's scuppering your plans because up to now you've done precisely nothing.

Can't do it for you

shortchanged_2

wotsthat wrote: »

- Start up your own company, tout for capital and build new houses - apparently massive margins.

- who's your MP? Write them a letter. Keep writing them letters. Turn up to talk to them.

- turn up with placards in support of housing developments just as the NIMBY's are crying to camera about 3-legged Newts

- organise a group of like minded people and campaign against anything you think is causing the problem

No good moaning about the VI's scuppering your plans because up to now you've done precisely nothing.

Can't do it for you

Thanks wotsthat some cracking ideas there.

Conrad

shortchanged wrote: »

Thanks wotsthat some cracking ideas there.

People did just those things and bought about all sorts of change.

Funnily enough I mentioned lobbying my MP about overly tight mortgage regulation and folk here rightly pointed out I was probably dillusional, however, after several emails and letters which got standard uninterested replies, the bugggar only sent me a nice hand written letter over Xmas, advising me he was now going to meet with the FSA and raise my concerns!

Things is, now it's come to the cruch I'm having second thoughts because to be frank I earn well in this market.......do I really want to potentially bring about relaxed rules making me less valuable............:rotfl::eek:

Mallotum_X

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

FTB prices rose by 3% last year.

But 12% more FTB-s were able to buy.

You are still getting muddled up over these figures.

The selection properties bought by FTB were on average higher than a different selection of property bought by those classed as FTB the year before. However there is not a category of housing either by size or geography that is an "FTB property".

It may well be that a typical FTB generally buys say a 2 bed flat or house. But so do BTL, downsizers, etc etc. You are once again mixing up a section of buyers as being the same as a section of property the two are not the same.

wotsthat

shortchanged wrote: »

Thanks wotsthat some cracking ideas there.

Nice pithy one liner.

So to date the sum of your efforts is to moan about this on a hidden internet forum. I guess your action plan is to do more of the same - you need to expand your horizons and try mumsnet.

Shortchanged Junior: "Daddy, daddy; you know that massive housing crisis early in the century you keep going on and on about"

Shortchanged: "yes dear - it was hell; all the VI's conspired to condemn hard working families to rent for life under the leadership of evil Hamish from off the internet. Why what about it?"

Shortchanged Junior: "it sounds terrible daddy - what did you do about it"

Shortchanged: "errr, well, I did use people's names in sentences in quite a patronising way and, err, I did say 'well you would say that' lots of times and, err, isn't it bedtime?"

Shortchanged Junior: "you showed them didn't you daddy"

ess0two

wotsthat wrote: »

nice pithy one liner.

So to date the sum of your efforts is to moan about this on a hidden internet forum. I guess your action plan is to do more of the same - you need to expand your horizons and try mumsnet.

Shortchanged junior: "daddy, daddy; you know that massive housing crisis early in the century you keep going on and on about"

shortchanged: "yes dear - it was hell; all the vi's conspired to condemn hard working families to rent for life under the leadership of evil hamish from off the internet. Why what about it?"

shortchanged junior: "it sounds terrible daddy - what did you do about it"

shortchanged: "errr, well, i did use people's names in sentences in quite a patronising way and, err, i did say 'well you would say that' lots of times and, err, isn't it bedtime?"

shortchanged junior: "you showed them didn't you daddy"

pmsl........

IveSeenTheLight

shortchanged wrote: »

Very little unfortunately apart from be able to rant and rave about things.

There are things the government can do but instead they put all their efforts and schemes in place in order to prop up prices as much as they can.

Your efforts in ranting and raving........., how valuable / efficient is it?

If you feel strongly that the government should be doing something differently, why not canvass your local MP, create a movement / group and escalate your point through the political system.

If there are enough like minded people, the government would need to sit up and take notice.