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

Rota

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Most people are not "paying" for property, they are "borrowing" for property. It is a simple distinction, I was just pointing it out.

Yes they are, they use a product called a mortgage to do this. Once the mortgage (loan) is paid back the property becomes theirs.

Most people find it almost impossible to save the money required to buy a house outright so this is why they borrow.

What's so hard to understand about that? You need to borrow money to make it.

Jason74

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'm not ignoring it at all.

But the fact remains that young couples looking for their first home are not going to be buying in Mayfair, Notting Hill, or Kensington, even if the handful of rich foreigners sold up to another handful of rich people.

These are a vanishingly small percentage of the market.

They may be disproportionately of concern to you, living and working there, but they are just of no relevance whatsoever when compared against the million house shortage we're looking at today....

To be fair, I think you kind of miss the point in terms of the impact that the relatively recent upswing in foreign investment in London's most expensive areas has on the market in London as a whole. Now you would be right in thinking that the potential owner occupier who can't buy in Chelsea because rich foreigners have bought everything up and left them empty (an OTT cliche, but you know what I mean) isn't going to suddenly go and buy a place in Croydon, but that doesn't mean that what goes on in Chelsea doesn't have an impact that far down the food chain.

Effectively, it works like this. The person priced out of Chelsea still needs to buy somwhere, so he buys a nice house in Barnes. That pushes up prices in Barnes, so the people who would previously bought those houses in Barnes can't afford them any more. So they buy in Wandsworth. All the way down to the person who can no longer afford the house in Crystal Palace, and buys something in Croydon instead, thereby pricing the person who would previously have bought in Croydon out of the London market altogether.

Now you're right that the impact of this is secondary relative to the overall lack of London Housing. You're also right that this process wouldn't happen but for that shortage. But, in a London context at least, to say that it's "just of no relevance whatsoever" trivialises what is an important aggravating factor compounding the problems of the obvious shortageof homes in the capital.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Crashy_Time wrote: »

18,000 posts Hamish, and each one with less impact than the last. You are like a Hollywood A-Lister from the 80`s advertising shampoo. How many posts did you make on HPC, was it 25,000 or something? Which builder do you troll for again? At the very least you must have lots of money in builders shares, I can`t think of any other reason for the Lending UP, building UP mantra.

I'm marking this as SPAM, because you've posted this so many times and you've been responded to on several occasions via several different posters :shhh:

khards

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

:hello:

Welcome.

Hi Hamish, nice to meet you. :j

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Jason74 wrote: »

Effectively, it works like this. The person priced out of Chelsea still needs to buy somwhere, so he buys a nice house in Barnes. That pushes up prices in Barnes, so the people who would previously bought those houses in Barnes can't afford them any more. So they buy in Wandsworth. All the way down to the person who can no longer afford the house in Crystal Palace, and buys something in Croydon instead, thereby pricing the person who would previously have bought in Croydon out of the London market altogether.

Yes I understand how you think it works, but I'm not sure you're correct....

The central London super-prime areas are a vanishingly small number of houses in the big scheme of things.

Lets say 1000 people sell up in central London, then that 1000 people buy in middle London, then that 1000 people from middle London buy in outer London.....

At each stage of the ripple they make up a smaller and smaller percentage of the market.

By the time they get to outer London, it's probably 1% that is able to pay more as a result of someone 3 links up the chain paying more.

The other 99% have to buy with the same sources of income they always did.....

Now you're right that the impact of this is secondary relative to the overall lack of London Housing.

Yes.

You're also right that this process wouldn't happen but for that shortage.

And yes again.

But, in a London context at least, to say that it's "just of no relevance whatsoever" trivialises what is an important aggravating factor compounding the problems of the obvious shortageof homes in the capital.

We'll agree to disagree on that part....

Crashy_Time

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Awwww..... Bless.

It'd be even cuter if you could spell.

Now here's what the credible people have to say about a shortage....

The country faces a large and accumulating shortfall between the homes we need and the houses we are building – of approximately 100,000 to 150,000 homes a year. If we remain building at current levels, we build a million fewer homes than we need every seven years.
~ Shelter.

Britain is heading for a property shortage of more than a million homes by 2022 unless the current rate of housebuilding is dramatically increased.
~ Joseph Rowntree Foundation

The spelling is a fair point, but that doesn`t matter now, I teased some posters about their spelling and grammar earlier, just to establish that they are not Supermen because they signed up to pay a bankers bonus, but the real debate will start from now on, hopefully to the backdrop of falling property prices across the UK. So much of what you post Hamish is complete tripe that if just a few HPC posters come over here I can see you looking for a new forum (again)

Crashy_Time

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

I'm marking this as SPAM, because you've posted this so many times and you've been responded to on several occasions via several different posters :shhh:

I think you live in Spam Valley, so it is good that you can spell the first line of your address.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

khards wrote: »

Hi Hamish, nice to meet you. :j

You too old bean.

Shame Ireland didn't work out for you.... Guess cheaper house prices aren't much use when you can't keep a job because the economy sucks.... A point we repeatedly warn the crashaholics about over here.

Welcome to MSE anyway though....

Jason74

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

I'm marking this as SPAM, because you've posted this so many times and you've been responded to on several occasions via several different posters :shhh:

I've joined you on that. I disagree with Hamish on many things (see my last post on this thread as exibit A), but I don't doubt that he's a genuine poster, and while his views (and others to be fair) may be influenced by their positions in the market (although of course, there's an element of chicken and egg here, as people could equally act in the market precisely because they hold a certain view), they are clearly his own views. Accusing someone of being "on the payroll" to promote a view is beyond the pail imho, especially when the notion has been so clearly demolished as nonsense.

Crashy_Time

wotsthat wrote: »

Those years were absolutely normal, run of the mill and don't stand out as out of the ordinary in any way whatsoever. Good point and welcome.

Why did prices fall if there is a shortage of housing?