Attitudes [to house prices] are changing

chucky

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

That can't possibly be?

I'm so shocked, I need a drink.

Sun having gone down over the yardarm, I shall go and have a very large gin & tonic and try to get over this revelation.

Let's see if he admits he was wrong. If he's not wrong he has been educated. It's one of the two.

IveSeenTheLight

chucky wrote: »

So Graham got it wrong (again), what a shock,

To be fair, this is a different quarters poll, which delves more detail into the demographics which I was highlighting affects the polls.

It's a bit like asking supporters at the KOP end which team they support.
You'll get a different set of results if you stand at Old Trafford.

Poll's may be an indication but need to be understood and taken with a large pinch of salt.

System

More interesting than what people appear to be saying is why they are saying it.

If you are a renter hoping to buy a house, do you really want the asset you are hoping to buy to have an unstable value which might fall again?

If you are an owner hoping to sell, do you really want prices to rocket so that no-one can afford to buy your house?

Dividing responders into renters/owners is not the fundamental distinction.
The real divisions are
1) renters with no hopes of buying, so they might as well tick the "house price crash" box.
2) owners who don't want to move, who might as well tick "go through the roof".
3) Everyone else in the middle, renter or owner, who just wants a reasonably stable and affordable price for the biggest investment of their life.

CLAPTON

it doesn't really matter what people say about house prices; what matters is how they behave

the actual selling price of a property is that agreed by an individual seller and an individual buyer; if a sufficient number of such deals are done at a higher price than last year then prices are said to have increased.

there is no way sellers (in general) can fall to sell if they reduce their prices sufficiently.

IveSeenTheLight

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

If you are an owner hoping to sell, do you really want prices to rocket so that no-one can afford to buy your house?

I know this may depend on the local market, but is it essentially the case.

Where I have a good grasp of the market, well maintained and looked after properties are a premium, meaning that there are usually sufficient demand which drives up the price.

If the demand is reduced, then it will cure the HPI to those who invariably can afford the most.

If prices are too high and there are no effective demand then prices will fall.

IveSeenTheLight

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

If you are an owner hoping to sell, do you really want prices to rocket so that no-one can afford to buy your house?

On another point, HPI shortened the time it took me to move up the ladder.
Yes the price was greater, but the monthly payments were affordable and the increased HPI allowed me to have a larger deposit for the upsize.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I's interesting as it also shows the political bias and when you consider the largest percentage of the population are homeowners and the demographics of homeowners are more likely to vote, you can see why the government supports house prices.

The age divide may well show the generation that are going to have to sell their property in order to settle their interest only mortgages. Whilst new borrowers are almost without exception on repayment mortgages.

Loughton_Monkey

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The age divide may well show the generation that are going to have to sell their property in order to settle their interest only mortgages. Whilst new borrowers are almost without exception on repayment mortgages.

The Telegraph were bleating about this last month.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/10290781/Banks-squeeze-interest-only-mortgage-borrowers.html

A typical piece of 'sensationalism' by journalists, since most of the article is bemoaning the fact that lenders are toughening up substantially on IO mortgages, but at the same time, the article quotes:

Estimates suggest there are between 2.5 million and four million interest-only mortgages, with around 150,000 maturing annually. Half of these face a shortfall of about £71,000, while one in 10 of all interest-only borrowers had no repayment plan in place.

That's just like writing an article saying that supermarkets are finding a mammouth increase in shoplifting of, say, £2 million a week and then moaning because supermarkets are putting more tags on items or installing more guards and CCTV....

Conrad

I've yet to meet a home owner that doesn't want the best price they can get regardless how wealthy they are.

This survey minds me of those where people claim they would happily vote to pay more tax but I've yet to meet a single person that volunteers an extra cheque to HMRC.

Turnbull2000

Conrad wrote: »

I've yet to meet a home owner that doesn't want the best price they can get regardless how wealthy they are.

This survey minds me of those where people claim they would happily vote to pay more tax but I've yet to meet a single person that volunteers an extra cheque to HMRC.

I've also met plenty home-owners who believe this country badly needs more housing. But just not anywhere near their own property (or BTL). And as new housing needs will almost always be near to existing stock, the majority of those in favour are as a collective fiercely opposed. This won't change.