House prices hit all time record

chucknorris

chucky wrote: »

I'm sure if you drilled down into those areas you would find price increases/decreases in the different types of properties - flats, houses etc away from those price decreases.

The City of London numbers are probably due to low volume distorting the numbers, definitely not right!

Yes I did take that 0.4% with a pinch of salt as far as it being an indication of our property price rise, rather than just the borough average.

I did wonder if low sales numbers In the City of London had possibly distorted the percentage reported, due to probably a much higher proportion of commercial rather than residential units. But I still think that 68.4% could be a rogue figure.

CLAPTON

the city of London has only 7,000 residents and is only 1.12 square miles

chucknorris

CLAPTON wrote: »

the city of London has only 7,000 residents and is only 1.12 square miles

That probably explains it then. So really it is (in population terms) the equivalent of a very small town.

CLAPTON

chucknorris wrote: »

That probably explains it then. So really it is (in population terms) the equivalent of a very small town.

large village really

although not many villages have a day time working population of over 300,000

nickj_2

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

A time for celebration, surely?

who for? people buying having to borrow even more money they can't afford to borrow. for people who have already got a house it makes no difference, if your house is going up then so is everywhere else , so the only people who wil benefit will be the banks, whilst things are going well, wait til interst rates start rising ,

Loughton_Monkey

nickj wrote: »

who for? people buying having to borrow even more money they can't afford to borrow. for people who have already got a house it makes no difference, if your house is going up then so is everywhere else , so the only people who wil benefit will be the banks, whilst things are going well, wait til interst rates start rising ,

I agree that a first time buyer would find the increase in prices irritating at a time they are ready to buy. But surely even these people would prefer to buy in the knowledge that house prices will generally rise in the long term.

Then there are existing owners. Higher prices give an opportunity (if required) to raise money later in life through downsizing and/or a lifetime mortgage.

But mostly all other house owners need healthy rises in order to 'progress'. If you bought £100K house on a £90K mortgage without any house price change, how would you buy that £180K house without finding another £8K or more for extra deposit and expenses? Whereas a rise of 10% would create £20K equity - probably enough to buy that £180K house after all.

This form of 'leveraging' is well known and understood by people of my generation. It is how we progressed up the housing scale, despite mortgage rates always in the order of 6% to 15%. The 'downside' of this strategy involves buying one's first house early, and cheaply. In other words getting on the housing ladder in, say, a 2-bed terrace rather than the 3-bed detached in a decent area.

And certainly it involves not falling into the trap of choosing to surround oneself with draconian expenses of children and rent (for a decent house) - not an insignificant overhead - before deciding that one would want to buy a house, for which a sensible deposit is required.

It was a choice many of us made. A very lucrative choice as it happens. But a choice today's younger generation seem very unwilling to take. This is their right, but one that confounds me entirely.

chewmylegoff

CLAPTON wrote: »

the city of London has only 7,000 residents and is only 1.12 square miles

And nearly 2,000 of them are council tenants:

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/housing-and-council-tax/council-housing/Pages/default.aspx

So if the 7,000 figure is right, only 5,000 are owner occupiers (including nearly 1,000 who have bought former council houses).

BBC data (i think from land registry) suggests only 52 sales in the first quarter of this year...

Sibley

Things on the up now.

nickj_2

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I agree that a first time buyer would find the increase in prices irritating at a time they are ready to buy. But surely even these people would prefer to buy in the knowledge that house prices will generally rise in the long term.

Then there are existing owners. Higher prices give an opportunity (if required) to raise money later in life through downsizing and/or a lifetime mortgage.

But mostly all other house owners need healthy rises in order to 'progress'. If you bought £100K house on a £90K mortgage without any house price change, how would you buy that £180K house without finding another £8K or more for extra deposit and expenses? Whereas a rise of 10% would create £20K equity - probably enough to buy that £180K house after all.

This form of 'leveraging' is well known and understood by people of my generation. It is how we progressed up the housing scale, despite mortgage rates always in the order of 6% to 15%. The 'downside' of this strategy involves buying one's first house early, and cheaply. In other words getting on the housing ladder in, say, a 2-bed terrace rather than the 3-bed detached in a decent area.

And certainly it involves not falling into the trap of choosing to surround oneself with draconian expenses of children and rent (for a decent house) - not an insignificant overhead - before deciding that one would want to buy a house, for which a sensible deposit is required.

It was a choice many of us made. A very lucrative choice as it happens. But a choice today's younger generation seem very unwilling to take. This is their right, but one that confounds me entirely.

i paid £57k for my house 20 years ago , put down a £17k deposit and have paid off mortgage , today if i wanted to buy the same house i would have to pay £1/4 million for it , so it's no wonder the younger generation don't or can't afford it, you don't have to be a genius to work out that continuous rising house prices are unsustainable

Graham_Devon

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

It was a choice many of us made. A very lucrative choice as it happens. But a choice today's younger generation seem very unwilling to take. This is their right, but one that confounds me entirely.

I can never quite figure out if your posts are tounge in cheek or not, but it seems this one isn't. It probably confounds you completely as it seems you do not have a clue.

It's hardly all "choices" people are making. Where do you assume these childless people should live? What do you think they should eat? Should they be able to drive and have such an expense?

Once you figure out you had it relatively good compared to thos eyou put down you might start figuring it out.