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

Crashy_Time

ukcarper wrote: »

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Where is that this is the kind of rubbish that defeats your argument. I first bought in the 70s and I was earning a lot more than a post man. I had to move well out of London to buy a terrace house and that house is worth no where need three quarters of a million.

Where did you learn to write, the Guinness factory?

hpc_troll

wotsthat wrote: »

AKA the Scooby Doo defence "if it hadn't been for pesky x, y or z then I would have gotten away with it"

Defence against what? It does seem to me that there is this completely imaginary hpc strawman that you think you are instructing, but honestly, I do not understand where you are coming from. I've read the thread from the beginning and posted my views, but you seem to be arguing with someone else about something else.

Crashy_Time

CLAPTON wrote: »

so basically you are saying you wrote a loan of rubbish and now are withdrawing it and now proposing a new load of rubbish?
good thinking

Freudian slip, but you are getting there. The truth in your subconscious mind wants to assert itself.

wotsthat

hpc_troll wrote: »

OK - I thought you were joking. I'm still reading a lot of hostility - and I don't understand where it is coming from. I understand that you might feel that I'm pretentious - not so sure about precocious - I think you might want to google that before you use it as an insult again. I'm not up past my bedtime. You may feel that I'm an intellectual infant, but I'm not actually 12. Anyway, even if I am pretentious, how does it advance matters to point it out? It comes off as rude, FWIW.

I think the idea that you can do the maths is part of the fallacy - unless you believe that the structure of the mortgage market doesn't matter, or that the future path of interest rates is mapped by the yield curve on the 30 yr gilt. Understanding the sensitivities of a mathematical model to its parameters is not philosophy - it's maths.

By the way - "the lowest cost way to provide secure and safe accommodation for [our] family" is for house prices to be lower than they are - surely that much is obvious? And if that is what you want for your family, why don't you want it for everybody else?

Definitely precocious - I have Violet Elizabeth Bott in mind.

Interesting you can do the maths and talk about 30 year gilts to prove it. Still no numbers though. Hmm.

I'm on record as saying (multiple times) that the sweet spot would be increasing nominal prices and falling real prices. Can we clamber to the moral high ground together?

ukcarper

Crashy_Time wrote: »

ukcarper wrote: »

Where did you learn to write, the Guinness factory?

You really are an idiot instead of snipping why don't you respond to some of the things I have said. I have not seen one reasoned post from you. The trouble you face is that people on this site can use mathematics you obviously can't .

hpc_troll

Joeskeppi wrote: »

If I was 16 I'd be taking the advice of people who got it right. Not clinging onto the hope that someone who has been terminally wrong for 6 years might fluke it.

Got what right? Are you working on the assumption that nothing is wrong with the economy and that we don't have some very indebted households struggling under some very heavy debt burdens? What does getting it right even mean? Again, if you set up some fictitious house price troll and assign to that troll a bunch of beliefs and argue with those beliefs, that's your choice. But you don't need me for that.

System

I'm getting a sudden urge to sell my house for 50% what I paid for it and start renting something half the size for twice the price.

saguk1234

The reality is that there will be hardly anyone left to buy. Then there will be HTB3 or similar and then mortgage terms will be 40+years as a minimum and so on.

ukcarper

hpc_troll wrote: »

Agree 100%. The market doesn't care what I want. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.



Even if you believe that in some markets the prices of some house prices need to correct, as you appear to, and I certainly do, calling the size and timings of corrections is a mug's game IMO, as recent events have demonstrated. Perhaps some people really did anticipate that if we hit a bump in the road bad enough the government would end up with 80% of RBS, 43% of Lloyds (Lloyds having swallowed HBOS), Northern Rock would end up in UK Asset Resolution, along with Bradford and Bingley and the Dunfermline. That the base rate would be pulled down to 0.5% and stay there for five years, that Funding For Lending would pull the cost of the banks for retail deposits below 2% before admin costs, that the government would offer equity loans of 20% at an initial interest rate of 0% for 5 years, and extend that by offering mortgage guarantees for remortgaging on 95% LTV loans up to £600k.

But you have to ask yourself - if this is what is needed to be at these prices - are they really market prices? And if they are not market prices, can the government fight the market and win?

When the government hands weighs too heavily on a fragile market, the prices may be fickle.

Do you think all those things happened solely to protect house prices and what do you think would have happened if those banks had been allowed to fail.

saguk1234

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I'm getting a sudden urge to sell my house for 50% what I paid for it and start renting something half the size for twice the price.

Still overpriced then.