Nationwide Nov: +0.6% MoM + 6.5% YoY

Sibley

Pull the ladder up Jack. We've made it

nickj_2

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

People buy houses with a mortgage.

Normally, a reasonable cash deposit is put down, and a monthly repayment mortgage is (usually) the largest-ticket item in most people's budgets. Some of that is paying the capital. Most of it is the monthly Interest.

So what we have here is:

(a) a propensity to invest. Something so much needed in UK. Investing is one's own property is an extremely good "investment" irrespective of price. [just monthly costs for 25 years v equivalent rent forever is a brilliant investment].

(b) the very substantial "spending" consisting of the mortgage interest. Isn't spending to (primarily) British owned businesses just as good as spending on (say) imported goods?

Any HPI is a bonus, and a welcome one at that.

Nobody, including me, will maintain that houses never go down. They can and do 'crash' every so often, but always bounce back. Or they can stay level-ish....

But to believe they are overpriced by any huge degree is a fallacy. If you think they are, just ask any builder about the pure cost of building [which by definition is done according to British wages, employment legislation, planning legislation, building regs....]. Are they making double digit profit per house? I think not.

If you think house owners are 'struggling' to pay their mortgage at the lowest rates in history, then I can only say that's not true of my area. I see people struggling to pay rents, which are generally higher than an equivalent mortgage would be.

On the other hand, most people have cottoned on to the fact that if they want a car (and not everyone can afford one, I agree) then most choose to buy rather than take one on contract hire. Because that's not good use of money.

so what will happen to all those people who are working and struggling to pay rents now , one thing is for certain , they won't be able to afford it when they retire unless they have a significant pension , which most probably won't have

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

You might want to put a little more tonic in the next one!

Funny post though.

I thought it was beastly and mean.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I thought it was beastly and mean.

Even the hair shirts all round line?

Oh well, takes all sorts I guess.

ess0two

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I would normally say "wonderful", Hamish. "Large gin & tonics all round", but there are some gurus around here that are contradicting this....

Apparently, we are reminded of a 70% imminent fall by the reputable "70% Club", and our Graham is [STRIKE]apparently [/STRIKE]'delighted' about the withdrawal of FFL.

Can you get any more reputable sources than these?

[STRIKE]I would imagine that[/STRIKE] Graham must, by now, be in a hypnotic trance - has fallen from his tiny little wooden stool - foaming at the mouth - hyperventilating - predicting a fall of 3% every month throughout the whole of 2014, as Carney (in a vindictive and personal vendetta against Osborne) strangles the lifeblood of mortage funds and restricts mortgages to 0.5 X Salary, with a maximum LTV of 10%, at an interest rate of 33.7%....

We're all dooooooooooommmmmmmmmmed....

.... outsized hair shirts all round.....

Its stuff like this that makes this forum worth visiting,it'd be dull and cumbersome otherwise



G+T on me

Loughton_Monkey

nickj wrote: »

so what will happen to all those people who are working and struggling to pay rents now , one thing is for certain , they won't be able to afford it when they retire unless they have a significant pension , which most probably won't have

I don't recall when things were any different? Hasn't it always been that house buyers retire and live in their houses 'free' while renters have to pay rents?

The traditional way of solving this was always to contribute to one's pension throughout working life. That's what my father did, and you get very few lower paid than he was.