Are the property bears relieving themselves in the woods ?

wotsthat

Bantex wrote: »

Just pointing out that ever increasing prices are not necessarily a good thing. If more cash was going into investment on parts of teh economy that produce jobs and growth rather than just sitting in inanimate piles of bricks, I believe we would all be better off.

I think so too.

A crash wouldn't be great though - they're associated with bad things happening in the economy. Take the last one - was there a rush for houses as they were being sold at 25% off?

Much better, in my view, for prices to decline in real terms but increase nominally. Houses get cheaper but no-one ends up in negative equity and the banks still have security for existing lending.

What do I know though? I look at some of the links that have been posted for places in Walthamstow and I wonder what possesses someone to part that much money to live in such a grim part of the world.

mayonnaise

wotsthat wrote: »

A crash wouldn't be great though - they're associated with bad things happening in the economy. Take the last one - was there a rush for houses as they were being sold at 25% off?

Yep, I remember the last 'crash'. Or correction, or whatever you choose to call it.
It was 2008, it went hand in hand with a massive spike in unemployment, high street chains closing down on a weekly basis, big drop in GDP...etc...
I didn't see the priced-out masses flock into the market either to snap up all those properties that lost a good chunk of equity.

Bantex_2

There was a proper crash in 1990. Did sort out the wheat from the chaff. They did things properly in them days and repo'd if you didn't pay your mortgage.

No BTLs to suck up all the property then though.

wotsthat

Bantex wrote: »

There was a proper crash in 1990. Did sort out the wheat from the chaff. They did things properly in them days and repo'd if you didn't pay your mortgage.

Same thing happened - transaction levels fell off a cliff despite the bargains on offer.

Bubble_and_Squeak

robmatic wrote: »

Cohesive communities and limited immigration are a big factor in their social contract.

how does an eu member limit immigration?
last time i was there it was no less cosmopolitan than other european countries. though, i only visited stokholm and gothernburg

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

gbsilp wrote: »

How did we cope [x] years ago when house prices were 50% of what they were today?

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

They didn't drop to that price though, you can't be serious?

gbsilp wrote: »

What single sentence answer? Further, please point out the question that this single sentence answer seeks to address. Thanks.

How do you not understand that prices where rising when they cost 50% less. They weren't 50% less because of an almighty financial meltdown.... How do you not understand the difference? Your stupidity offends me.

gbsilp

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

How do you not understand that prices where rising when they cost 50% less. They weren't 50% less because of an almighty financial meltdown.... How do you not understand the difference? You're stupidity offends me.

How do you not understand the difference between "were" and "where"....? :rotfl:


Anyway, the point I was leading up to before being rudely interupted was that 10 years ago (or whenever), the collateral available (encumbered and unencumbered) for secured lending (still with me?) was around 50% of that available now and the securitisation machine was in full flow.

Now, I really can't be bothered to explain the rest as frankly, sharing my knowledge with the likes of you, Jack, offends me (and far more than your perception of my "stupidity" offends you, I can assure). Anyway, let's just say that the return of cov-lite loans in the CLO market has alarm bells ringing in lots of quarters and does not bode well. However, being the super smart genius you clearly are, I am sure you can figure out the relationship and interplay between the various securitisation sectors (in particular the CLO and RMBS markets etc etc).

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

gbsilp wrote: »

How do you not understand the difference between "were" and "where"....? :rotfl:


Anyway, the point I was leading up to before being rudely interupted was that 10 years ago (or whenever), the collateral available (encumbered and unencumbered) for secured lending (still with me?) was around 50% of that available now and the securitisation machine was in full flow.

Now, I really can't be bothered to explain the rest as frankly, sharing my knowledge with the likes of you, Jack, offends me (and far more than your perception of my "stupidity" offends you, I can assure). Anyway, let's just say that the return of cov-lite loans in the CLO market has alarm bells ringing in lots of quarters and does not bode well. However, being the super smart genius you clearly are, I am sure you can figure out the relationship and interplay between the various securitisation sectors (in particular the CLO and RMBS markets etc etc).

Auto correct son.

But good comeback, glad you are able to refute the obvious and simple post...... :rotfl:

gbsilp

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Auto correct son.

But good comeback, glad you are able to refute the obvious and simple post...... :rotfl:

Unlike you, your post isn't obvious nor simple (but it is irrelevant so you have something in common with it). How's the cov-lite reading coming on....?

wotsthat

gbsilp wrote: »

Now, I really can't be bothered to explain the rest as frankly, sharing my knowledge with the likes of you, Jack, offends me (and far more than your perception of my "stupidity" offends you, I can assure). Anyway, let's just say that the return of cov-lite loans in the CLO market has alarm bells ringing in lots of quarters and does not bode well. However, being the super smart genius you clearly are, I am sure you can figure out the relationship and interplay between the various securitisation sectors (in particular the CLO and RMBS markets etc etc).

I don't see the relevance of securitisation to asking the question how did we cope when prices were 50% lower.

We coped just fine of course but that doesn't mean it would be a good thing if they dropped by 50%.