London house prices continuing to fall, says Rics

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Crashy_Time wrote: »

The point I was making is that the average person just looks at the headline rate - How much can I borrow, What is the monthly payment etc. and most would consider property their main investment. The trouble with property is that is much more difficult to sell than a share or a stake in the FTSE. If you think I am only in cash then you are doubly naïve.

The only thing you're in is a padded room..... Crashy no cashy....

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

The point I was making is that the average person just looks at the headline rate - How much can I borrow, What is the monthly payment etc. and most would consider property their main investment. The trouble with property is that is much more difficult to sell than a share or a stake in the FTSE. If you think I am only in cash then you are doubly naïve.

It's sweetly ironic that the average 'sheeple' has done so well out of property. Maybe it won't be so good for them in the future but we've been hearing that for a long time.

Interesting about your cash. I always thought you were pretty much 100% in cash and slept with your Post Office book sellotaped to your chest. You must be their only customer with a hairy passbook.

MARTYM8`

IronWolf wrote: »

I live in Westminster and there are blocks of flats being thrown up everywhere, no shortage of housebuilding here apparently. I guess it depends what area of the country you're living in. Some areas of London are in a realm of their own.

Yes - but you refer to what area of the country you are living in?

Might I suggest many (most?) of the people buying those flats in central London are living in Moscow, Dubai, Singapore and Shanghai - and no one will be living in them as they are held purely as investments. I doubt many ordinary Londoners on typical salaries can afford to buy flats in Westminster!

MARTYM8`

wotsthat wrote: »

It's sweetly ironic that the average 'sheeple' has done so well out of property. Maybe it won't be so good for them in the future but we've been hearing that for a long time.

On paper of course - my parents house in London is now worth 80 times what they paid for it. But it makes little difference to their daily life - cos its all on paper.

They have no intention of moving so will only realise that during their life time if and when the council comes knocking for care home fees. That is of course the reality for most people - an asset on paper which they will never realise while alive as they only have one property and they will always need somewhere to live!

Perhaps what might be more of a concern for people like them is the inability/difficulty their kids or grandkids have in being able to afford a house in the same area so they can see them regularly. Cos most people care a lot more about their kids and grandkids future - than their house price.

Not of course that that seems to apply to certain very self centred posters on here!

ukcarper

MARTYM8` wrote: »

On paper of course - my parents house in London is now worth 80 times what they paid for it. But it makes little difference to their daily life - cos its all on paper.

They have no intention of moving so will only realise that during their life time if and when the council comes knocking for care home fees. That is of course the reality for most people - an asset on paper which they will never realise while alive as they only have one property and they will always need somewhere to live!

Perhaps what might be more of a concern for people like them is the inability/difficulty their kids or grandkids have in being able to afford a house in the same area so they can see them regularly. Cos most people care a lot more about their kids and grandkids future - than their house price.

Not of course that that seems to apply to certain very self centred posters on here!

I disagree my house is only worth about 5x what I paid for it, but that's not why I feel I've done well it's the fact that I am now living rent free and for almost all the time I've live here the mortgage payments have been less than rent.

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

The point I was making is that the average person just looks at the headline rate - How much can I borrow, What is the monthly payment etc. and most would consider property their main investment. The trouble with property is that is much more difficult to sell than a share or a stake in the FTSE. If you think I am only in cash then you are doubly naïve.

Why do you imagine that you have to explain property investment to me, we've got 8 investment properties in London in addition to our house in Surrey. You've hinted that you are mainly in cash on a few occasions, and you have posted very negatively about shares and property quite a few times. When I asked you where your wealth is stored, you declined to respond, so how would that make me naïve because you didn't reply to a straight question? I still actually think that your wealth is stored in cash (but possibly with some gold or silver, that would be even more hilarious). But the truth is that whatever you have, it is far less than you would have if you had bought years ago. I've witnessed both wotsthat and ukcarper trying in vain to explain that to you many times, but you are too foolish to understand, just as well I suppose, otherwise it might be difficult for you to accept.

wotsthat

MARTYM8` wrote: »

On paper of course - my parents house in London is now worth 80 times what they paid for it. But it makes little difference to their daily life - cos its all on paper.

The imputed rent is the gift that keeps on giving.

They'll be saving thousands - real money that can be spent on the grandchildren instead.

chucknorris

ukcarper wrote: »

I disagree my house is only worth about 5x what I paid for it, but that's not why I feel I've done well it's the fact that I am now living rent free and for almost all the time I've live here the mortgage payments have been less than rent.

wotsthat wrote: »

The imputed rent is the gift that keeps on giving.

They'll be saving thousands - real money that can be spent on the grandchildren instead.

It is amazing that some people just don't seem to get that, it is hardly rocket science, is it? I do wonder if they really believe what they say on here, can they really be that naïve. I suspect that most realise that they aren't where they would have hoped to be in life, and they just feel compelled to justify their position. Take crashy for example, both of you have clearly explained to him how he would have been far better off if he had bought (or stayed in the market) years ago, yet for some reason he just doesn't seem to get it.

cells

chucknorris wrote: »

It is amazing that some people just don't seem to get that, it is hardly rocket science, is it? I do wonder if they really believe what they say on here, can they really be that naïve. I suspect that most realise that they aren't where they would have hoped to be in life, and they just feel compelled to justify their position. Take crashy for example, both of you have clearly explained to him how he would have been far better off if he had bought (or stayed in the market) years ago, yet for some reason he just doesn't seem to get it.

It isn't possible for renters to convert to owners in any large portion while there is a shortage of new builds.

in fact the opposite has to happen with renters increasing in number so the housing stock which is in shortage is used more efficiently. Thats been going on since about the year 2004 to now and will continue for as long as the new build rate is below 250k a year.

I think the current rate of rental growth is 30,000 homes a month NET addition and that is probably unstoppable without higher new build rates

but most people bulls and bears simply don't know this

chucknorris

cells wrote: »

It isn't possible for renters to convert to owners in any large portion while there is a shortage of new builds.

in fact the opposite has to happen with renters increasing in number so the housing stock which is in shortage is used more efficiently. Thats been going on since about the year 2004 to now and will continue for as long as the new build rate is below 250k a year.

I think the current rate of rental growth is 30,000 homes a month NET addition and that is probably unstoppable without higher new build rates

but most people bulls and bears simply don't know this

I honestly don't know why you are posting this in response to my post, which was making a point about how some posters don't seem to understand the financial advantage of owning. Which of course is completely different and nothing at all to do with those who do understand, but are not in a position to buy. Did you even read the post (and the relevant preceding posts) before responding to it?