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

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

hpc_troll wrote: »

I'd suppose that given present restrictions on multiples and the fact that there is no longer any new interest only lending, then these curent CML FTBers can afford to buy, even on the more general definition.

As they're mortgages are repayment then one would have to suppose that if they can service them to term then they'll have 25 years minimum of HPI locked in. Even if they're somewhat squeezed on pension because they are at 4.5x LTI or more, they should end up with enough equity to do some equity release, so it seems a reasonable proposition that present FTBers can afford to buy what they are buying even on the more general definition.

Then we agree on that point.

Those buying houses today can afford to do so.

So do you agree or disagree with the frequent assertion on HPC and by some HPC regulars over here that today's buyers are "over-stretching themselves"?

what I was contesting was your suggestion that I had suggested that these people were on higher incomes. I didn't suggest that, I did not intend to suggest it and I do not believe it to be the case

I did not say they were on higher incomes, I said they were on higher than average incomes.

I suppose to be fair to you, a lot depends on your interpretation of the word "average", but in this instance I'm going to use the median income, full time employed, of male and female.

From memory, the average CML FTB actually earns right around the mean, full time, male income figure, but that's a whole other debate.....

Do you disagree that average actual house buyers have a higher income than the median income of all people?

We tend to take that as a given here, and the data supports it, so I'm surprised you are putting up such resistance to the point?

But apologies if you are somehow offended by the suggestion that you would also think that?

I think asking in a civil way three times is about my limit, especially given the rough treatment that has been meted out so far.

This isn't rough treatment, or rather, it certainly isn't intended to be. We can't of course control how you may perceive it.

This is however robust debate.

Something you may not be used to if you've come from a forum that bans most dissenting voices.....

Crashy_Time

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.

Hey Joeskeppi, shaddupaya face...

Crashy_Time

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Then we agree on that point.

Those buying houses today can afford to do so.

So do you agree or disagree with the frequent assertion on HPC and by some HPC regulars over here that today's buyers are "over-stretching themselves"?



I did not say they were on higher incomes, I said they were on higher than average incomes.

I suppose to be fair to you, a lot depends on your interpretation of the word "average", but in this instance I'm going to use the median income, full time employed, of male and female.

From memory, the average CML FTB actually earns right around the mean, full time, male income figure, but that's a whole other debate.....

Do you disagree that average actual house buyers have a higher income than the median income of all people?

We tend to take that as a given here, and the data supports it, so I'm surprised you are putting up such resistance to the point?

But apologies if you are somehow offended by the suggestion that you would also think that?



This isn't rough treatment, or rather, it certainly isn't intended to be. We can't of course control how you may perceive it.

This is however robust debate.

Something you may not be used to if you've come from a forum that bans most dissenting voices.....

Oh Hamish, shaddupaya face....

saguk1234

Hamish? You mean Sibley?

CLAPTON

Crashy_Time wrote: »

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

Freudian slips are widely discarded.

System

That Hamish/Sibley reference has just given me 4 corners on "I'm wrong at everything" bingo.

Crashy_Time

ukcarper wrote: »

Crashy_Time wrote: »

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 .

Your spelling and grammar are all over the place, that`s why I joked about your drinking. I have said that I think house prices are a function of sentiment and availability of credit. That is why sales volumes have tumbled since `07, and sentiment is starting to slip as well.

wotsthat

Brilliant thread. Makes me hanker after the good old days when the crashers would moonwalk across the forum after YoY prices fell 1.1%.

ukcarper

Crashy_Time wrote: »

ukcarper wrote: »

Your spelling and grammar are all over the place, that`s why I joked about your drinking. I have said that I think house prices are a function of sentiment and availability of credit. That is why sales volumes have tumbled since `07, and sentiment is starting to slip as well.

My spelling might be bad but my maths is good.

What I'd really like from you is a well reasoned post with some figures to back it up instead if the inane drivel you keep posting.

ukcarper

Crashy_Time wrote: »

ukcarper wrote: »

Your spelling and grammar are all over the place, that`s why I joked about your drinking. I have said that I think house prices are a function of sentiment and availability of credit. That is why sales volumes have tumbled since `07, and sentiment is starting to slip as well.

Prices are affected by sentiment and credit availability that is why they fell in 2008 but there are other factors and that is why they didn't fall as much as you hoped.