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

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Crashy_Time wrote: »

I feel so sorry for you that I am not going to respond to any more of your posts. "Buying" in 2011 was probably the worst mistake you are ever going to make.

Yeah why debate with facts and figures when you can simply use conjecture and assert things (Buying" in 2011 was probably the worst mistake you are ever going to make) without any evidence.......

Goodbye troll. Maybe I'll rent a BTL to you when you're 70 :money:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

khards wrote: »

Please can you linkl to the stats showing FTB's are paying 3.5 x income

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/3953

and the 'new peak' is country wide?

It's an average.

Some regions are up on previous peak, some are still down. But the UK on average is up.

Jason74

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

I think you make a good point Jason, but London is the exception and not the rule.

Yes, I wouldn't argue with that. London is a very different market to the rest of the UK for a whole host of reasons (of which the foreign investment issue is just one). That's demonstrated by the fact that the London market went ballistic at a time when everything else was still very slow, and now appears to be flattening off (or even dropping a tad) at a time when the rest of the country is picking up speed.

I'm very conscious that I post from a London Centric viewpoint, simply because it's the only market I can make a meaningul claim to know anything about, and it's the one that most people I know are impacted by.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

khards wrote: »

Re: Irish house prices, the prices here in Somerset aren't much different from the prices in Ireland in areas you would actually want to live, i.e. commuting distance from work.

Indeed.

Yet Irish prices remain down 50% - ish, and Southern UK prices are near or at an all time peak.

Just goes to show the difference between an actual bubble (Ireland) and a genuine shortage of housing (UK).

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

I feel so sorry for you that I am not going to respond to any more of your posts. "Buying" in 2011 was probably the worst mistake you are ever going to make.

Why don't you take his figures and assume his seller STR'ed in 2011 then compare the two?

Not looking great so far.

Jason74

Crashy_Time wrote: »

I feel so sorry for you that I am not going to respond to any more of your posts. "Buying" in 2011 was probably the worst mistake you are ever going to make.

You know, I'm extremely confident that when Jack looks back at decisions ha's made in 10, 20, 30 years time, he wont see buying in 2011 as a mistake.

saguk1234

Didnt martin say that there was a mortgage ticking time bomb on a chat show regarding property?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Jason74 wrote: »

You know, I'm extremely confident that when Jack looks back at decisions ha's made in 10, 20, 30 years time, he wont see buying in 2011 as a mistake.

He'd probably look at renting for 17 years as a financial disaster though...... :money:

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Jason74 wrote: »

Yes, I wouldn't argue with that. London is a very different market to the rest of the UK for a whole host of reasons (of which the foreign investment issue is just one). That's demonstrated by the fact that the London market went ballistic at a time when everything else was still very slow, and now appears to be flattening off (or even dropping a tad) at a time when the rest of the country is picking up speed.

I'm very conscious that I post from a London Centric viewpoint, simply because it's the only market I can make a meaningul claim to know anything about, and it's the one that most people I know are impacted by.

I find it impossible to keep up with the London market.
Prices seem to have rocketed in the last year and now they seem to be settling again.

In my particular area in the NW, property isn't selling fast but the good areas are selling at peak prices and the poorer areas are selling at -10% peak prices....

I suppose what Hamish is saying re the housing shortage is true, Decent homes in decent areas are rarely up for sale in the NW, it's the less desirable end of the market where there may be some surplus.

Sheep_In_Wolves_Clothing

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

I think I did answer.... but it looks like you've changed your question for the 3rd time...... It's embarrassing now.

Originally Posted by Crashy Time
If someone in your street sells for less than you paid, and the houses are similar, that is the new value of your house, you have no control over the process.

That's what you typed word for word..... So you didn't ask me a question....

Now you're asking a question which is quite different to what you asserted as fact before....

Before you stated If someone in your street sells for less than you paid, and the houses are similar, that is the new value of your house, you have no control

I assume that you realize this is absolutely false and hence why you have changed to has an effect on value.

Quite a difference!!!

To answer ......The value of a house is what someone is willing to pay for it..... Of course a shockingly low price on the same street would cause concerns. But would in no way dictate the price of all similar houses on that street.

Your're simply being pedantic about Crashy Time's using the word 'question', when it's pretty clear they are asking you to address the point he has made numerous times in their posts.


Crashy Time has not changed their point/question but simply made it clearer, not that it needed to be made clearer IMO.


I'll make it clearer for you and other posters:


If the house attached to someone's house which has the same number of bedrooms, the same number of downstairs rooms and bathrooms all of an identical/virtually identical size, of a virtually identical exterior interior condition/modernisation, with the same size garden. etc. sells for considerably less than what was paid for their house, what happens to the value of their house?