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

hpc_troll

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I didn't select your username....:)

OK, back to basics.

Do you think house prices are too high? If so, why?

Look, I know that it is a very good tactic to drive the Socratic dialogue rather than be driven by it, and therefore I respect your determination to whip me (metaphorically of course) rather than allow yourself to do my bidding, but as I previously said, fair is fair. Now if you don't want to play fair, then we won't be able to play at all, so what's your choice? Back up and answer my question, or you and I will have to call it a day.

hpc_troll

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes.

However if someone has quoted them the quote in the other persons post will remain.

Thank you, that explains why it remains.

Crashy_Time

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Supply and demand dictates who can afford to buy.

Not everyone can afford to purchase a house. This has always been the case. Are you claiming that the average house buyer is now having to earn more in real terms than previously?

No, they are having to borrow more, and borrowing is restricted, or rationed if you want to think that borrowing is a God given right, so the limit is being reached for who can actually sell their house at peak Ponzi levels. Asking price drops across London are starting to show?

wotsthat

hpc_troll wrote: »

What am I doing wrong - I replied to a post from this delightful fellow wotsthat, but his post is not in the thread. I'm new here - how does that work?

I deleted it. I couldn't be bothered to get into an argument about mewing. It's completely irrelevant when trying to compare the HPC strategy against a buying instead.

More interested in the maths but strangely you and Crashy prefer not to get into the detail. I can see why.

Rota

hpc_troll wrote: »

Rota - Sorry, I didn't get a straight answer - is it actually possible to delete your posts over here?

BTW - I think you misread my post. I was saying that I have posted some complete tosh over the years. After all who would be fool enough to suppose that they were right all the time, especially on a complex topic?

I'm sorry Chairman, I thought you were telling Crashy to delete his posts, as they are utter tosh.

Lets keep this thread as a "historical reference". In 2018 it will be nice to see Crashy still worrying about nationwide Ponzi schemes and imaginary MEW "victims".

Or, we see the world turning over as it always has, a nice little economic upswing on the tail end of 4 years of moderate responsible growth where we haven't seen 30,40,50% drops in house prices.

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

People were encouraged to borrow money to cover declining living standards in the west, bankers realised that if you take something really emotive and necessary (like shelter) and make it seem much more valuable than it actually is, then you could get people to borrow very large sums (at interest) to "buy" it. It had been done before with tulip bulbs, but they didn`t think they could run that scam again, and besides you can`t sit in a tulip bulb and watch Kirsty and Phil?


The little magic money (for the bankers) trick worked a treat, but the politicians wanted in on the game. They said that the little people should be allowed to feel "wealthy" so that they would vote for them, and turn a blind eye to all their scams (often involving their chums the bankers) The bankers said "Ok, lets get them borrowing against the VALUE of their house as well as borrowing to live IN their house. If they don`t pay back we take the house back and sell it on at profit, and we can do this because we have got them all believing that if they don`t borrow for property they will miss their place on The Golden Ladder. Houses always go up in value now because of this so we will get our money back and some.


The bankers also packaged up all this debt into exotic "instruments" that the little people wouldn`t understand and sold it back and forth to each other, making up exotic names for the packages when DogTurd would have been more accurate. They would buy some DogTurd and tell their investors that it was Prime Mortgage Borrowing by people who polished Grouse willies on the Queen`s estates (American "investors" lapped it up) when really it was sub-prime borrowing from people who made toothpaste in the North of England, or worked in a warehouse in Chicago.


One day the little people who had borrowed all the money couldn`t keep up with their payments, and because no one knew where their loans lay in the layers of DogTurd all the bankers panicked in case they got some on their hands, and stopped playing with each other. At this point the Big Government had to step in and wipe the bankers noses with freshly made money because they were crying so hard. The bankers held on to the money this time because they were scared and the little circle jerk of lending/borrowing/passing round the Mulberry Bush came to a halt, and so did Mr and Mrs Daily Mail`s Free Cash Machine (their house) They stopped spending their debt into the economy, and the Big Government thought just making tons of money and giving it to their chums the bankers to make them better would get everything back on track. It didn`t.


So now the only way the banks can make money from property is to get all better again (re-capitalise with their free money from the central bank) and cause a property crash so they can say to more people "Look how cheap property is....you better borrow to buy some". The volume of new lending will make banker man very happy, because after all, if you paid off your mortgage years ago you are not making money for banker man, and he doesn`t really care how much your house is worth any more, his losses are covered. The politicians still need their votes, so they will pretend to be HelpToBuying, but after a while the bad banker man will pull the extra funds away so they can get some lending volumes as outright owners are forced to drop their asking prices.


I am actually surprised they didn`t try tulip bulbs again, the public would probably have gone for it.

Nice story. So given all this why didn't you buy if it was a sure thing?

By my reckoning you need a crash greater than 100% to break even.

Crashy_Time

Rota wrote: »

Brilliant! Even your HPC mates think you are an economic illiterate Crashy.

Don't forget to have a beer when the "ponzi" breaks down. :beer:

I`m having a beer now mate. Just keep sucking on the debt titty, everything will be fine.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

hpc_troll wrote: »

Back up and answer my question,

Oh alright then, if we must...

how you've jumped from the answer I gave to view that you've attributed to me.

You accept that current actual FTB-s can afford to buy houses, based on the CML data showing their income multiples, deposits, etc.

Hence why you wrote....

it seems self-evident to me that the people actually buying houses will be those who can afford to so

So on that basis, I wrote....

"So in essence you accept that people who buy houses have a higher income and/or wealth than the average of the entire population"

Perhaps I should have made it clearer and said "the people who are buying houses today have....".

So do you agree or disagree with the notion that people buying houses today can afford to do so?

And if you agree, then can we move on to more substantive debate?

hpc_troll

wotsthat wrote: »

I deleted it. I couldn't be bothered to get into an argument about mewing. It's completely irrelevant when trying to compare the HPC strategy against a buying instead.

More interested in the maths but strangely you and Crashy prefer not to get into the detail. I can see why.

Now, I think that you are going to think that I am trolling - and I promise you I am not. What do you mean by "hpc strategy"? I did read the thread from the beginning but if there was an earlier reference to this strategy, I missed it.

To show that I am in earnest, I am going to guess at what you mean. Am I right in thinking that you mean Selling to Rent (STR) which is when people suppose that they can the timings of any market moves downwards better than everyone else so sell at what they suppose will be a high level so that they can re-enter once it has moved down to a lower level and in this way benefit from any interruption in the path of the inflation of house prices?

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Crashy_Time wrote: »

No, they are having to borrow more, and borrowing is restricted, or rationed if you want to think that borrowing is a God given right, so the limit is being reached for who can actually sell their house at peak Ponzi levels. Asking price drops across London are starting to show?

It sounds to me like you're saying houses are affordable......

:beer:

GREAT NEWS