'We've reached a tipping point' Signs of house price weakness

wotsthat

Blooloo wrote: »

yet you insist that others take on the leveraged position as the only and right course.

You've asserted that even though it does work for most people for most of the time that's down to luck and if/when it all goes t*ts up that's entirely to be expected. You've hinted at your own bankruptcy and even traded on friends suicides as if these are the inevitable result of buying with a mortgage. You've suggested there's little point doing calculations because we can't see into the future.

..and you've got the nerve to then build a straw man about me insisting that others take on a leveraged position as the one true path.

I've said nothing of the sort. I've asserted for most people, most of the time, and if they have a choice, buying will be cheaper than renting. Even if it means taking on a scary leveraged position via a mundane mortgage.

Blooloo

wotsthat wrote: »

You've asserted that even though it does work for most people for most of the time that's down to luck and if/when it all goes t*ts up that's entirely to be expected. You've hinted at your own bankruptcy and even traded on friends suicides as if these are the inevitable result of buying with a mortgage. You've suggested there's little point doing calculations because we can't see into the future.

..and you've got the nerve to then build a straw man about me insisting that others take on a leveraged position as the one true path.

I've said nothing of the sort. I've asserted for most people, most of the time, and if they have a choice, buying will be cheaper than renting. Even if it means taking on a scary leveraged position via a mundane mortgage.

but most people today, in todays market, dont have a choice.

Thats what HPC is all about. It is not about slagging off BTL landlords. It too, wont tolerate smug idiots telling all and sundry how flippin clever they have been. They add nothing to the debate, and are part of the problem of keeping prices out of reach, almost as much as the bankers who support them.

and to be totally honest, most people dont give a flying frig for what you guys did lst year, 2008, 1988 or whenever, because it isnt relevent now, and its not relevent tomorrow.

But hundreds of thousands still stuck at home when there are 800,000 properties for sale on just one website, even with Government handing out temporary loans ( quite a small take up of those) it is quite sickening to read of you guys and your amazing success...you really do seem to lack any moral fibre. I really hope you dont lose out in the future because I fear some of you wont be able to cope with the shame.

In fact, the reality some posters are exhibiting have a patina of perfection, of hedonism, of narcissism and self-delusion.

Blooloo

observingthedebate wrote: »

Just asking a stupid question, as I am reading through.

How do you define being over-leveraged? I mean this surely captures a wide range of positions surely?

10x main income might be a guide.maybe its 3. at 18% its probably 2.

But as Warren Buffet points out, you dont know who has been swimming naked until the tide goes out.

Bankers, the principle crutch of all financialised markets were certainly overleveraged, but nobody knew in public until Bear Stearns, then the debacle of the monoline insurers and the outlawing of off balance sheet "vehicles", which hid the issue from scrutiny.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Blooloo wrote: »

But hundreds of thousands still stuck at home when there are 800,000 properties for sale on just one website, .

How many of those 800,000 are empty?

The number of houses for sale tells you nothing about the housing shortage... As most people sell and then buy again. Having 800,000 people trading houses with each other does nothing to increase supply to those 'stuck at home'.

And you'll find that there's far more than a few hundred thousand 'stuck at home, it's many millions of people 'stuck at home', or sharing accommodation, or living in HMO's, and another million or two living in overcrowded conditions.

Hence why prices are high.

AndyGuil

June 2014.
London +1.4% MoM +19.3% YoY.
UK +1.1% MoM +10.2% YoY.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_373873.pdf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Blooloo wrote: »

If I could buy the place, I would.

I dont have that choice.

I wouldnt buy a tiny tiny newbuild with much the same in repayments.

Where in the country do you live that such a choice is the only one?

In most of the UK, rent is more expensive than mortgage payments.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

AndyGuil wrote: »

June 2014.
London +1.4% MoM +19.3% YoY.
UK +1.1% MoM +10.2% YoY.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_373873.pdf

Damn those pesky 'sold price' indices.

If only we could just rely on 'asking price' ones instead, maybe all our fantasies of an hpc would come true.....

Rinoa

Blooloo wrote: »

10x main income might be a guide.maybe its 3. at 18% its probably 2.

But as Warren Buffet points out, you dont know who has been swimming naked until the tide goes out.

Bankers, the principle crutch of all financialised markets were certainly overleveraged, but nobody knew in public until Bear Stearns, then the debacle of the monoline insurers and the outlawing of off balance sheet "vehicles", which hid the issue from scrutiny.

Thanks Blooloo.

It's all perfectly clear now.

mystic_trev

Blooloo wrote: »

But as Warren Buffet points out, you dont know who has been swimming naked until the tide goes out.

The Tides been out on the HPC Cult for many a year, and they haven't got a pair of budgie smugglers between them.

Bubble_and_Squeak

AndyGuil wrote: »

June 2014.
London +1.4% MoM +19.3% YoY.
UK +1.1% MoM +10.2% YoY.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_373873.pdf

who wants yesterdays papers?
who wants yesterdays girl?

how many months behind the curve is this data?