"Thousands" of London flats to come to the market

kabayiri

buglawton wrote: »

Um, but I thought high interest rates depress share prices while low interest rates boost them. You'd have to call the moment right, and ditch property/buy your share portfolio before the rate rise. If had such clairvoyant powers I would not have to go to work.

I can only go off the property recession of the early 90s.

When you are in the middle of it; and trying to sell; you can't get a clear picture of what is happening.

No EA will tell you that you should price 20/30/40% below current pricing, because then it almost becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Instead, things just seem to drift downwards with small recovery bumps. Some people will be more proactive in pricing lower if they see the property as an asset.

I still think job security is the bigger issue. If a London home owner can afford their property, and is willing to ride out a recession for the longer term, they won't lose out.

Conrad

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In that case, who are these properties going to be sold to? Who can afford them other than the very foreign investors who are trying to sell them? The majority of these will be out of reach for most in London.

They really aren't, as I've explained before, people earn more than official stats reveal, I assure of this. I've been a broker a long time and met thousands of others, we all experience this gap between official incomes and real incomes. Ask an Accountant.


The second point is lots of people obtain mortgages by having their boss / mate / whoever, inflate their income.

An Accountant I know ran something by me the other day. He was asking what his chances were with a certain lender, given he's saying his GF works for him (she doesn't).


All a huge crime, I hear you say, not really, just Humans doing what they can, afteral why should they be excluded from ownership, and only those with very large official incomes be entitled? His GF is self employed and her accounts reflect only a small proportion of her actual real income.

Electrum

one way or another, it looks like the top is behind us for the perma prop bulls....

mwpt

Conrad wrote: »

All a huge crime, I hear you say, not really, just Humans doing what they can, afteral why should they be excluded from ownership, and only those with very large official incomes be entitled? His GF is self employed and her accounts reflect only a small proportion of her actual real income.

Wow.

So, these people have a right to break the law, bidding prices up higher and deprive someone who follows the law of a chance to buy.

Conrad

mwpt wrote: »

Wow.

So, these people have a right to break the law, bidding prices up higher and deprive someone who follows the law of a chance to buy.

Not a 'right to break the law', but none the less Human nature to find a way to put your own roof over your head.


Why should an agency nurse, who's income lenders typically decline, just resign herself to a fate of renting? No. She will find a way to buy.


Why should a 51 y/o divorcee have to become a renter due to lenders insisting on a mortgage term to retirement age meaning this compressed payment 'appears' unaffordable? Lots of people wont simply take their fate lying down, instead the 51 y/o will effect a pay rise (cough) in order to pass the lenders affordability test.


Dreadful criminals.

cells

Conrad wrote: »

Not a 'right to break the law', but none the less Human nature to find a way to put your own roof over your head.


Why should an agency nurse, who's income lenders typically decline, just resign herself to a fate of renting? No. She will find a way to buy.


Why should a 51 y/o divorcee have to become a renter due to lenders insisting on a mortgage term to retirement age meaning this compressed payment 'appears' unaffordable? Lots of people wont simply take their fate lying down, instead the 51 y/o will effect a pay rise (cough) in order to pass the lenders affordability test.


Dreadful criminals.

Interesting

Of course it's all to do with regulations being out of whack with reality. Lending into retirement should be OK if the applicant can use sale of property as a repayment when needs must. The European and UK regulators forcing 50 year old to rent by not offering mortgage's into retirement supposedly to protect the 50 year old is foolish. At worst he could buy now and sell in 15 years and then rent. That's better than renting from now to forever

Maybe the banks know and use the broker market to cater for this grey market? Of course it would be better to alter regulation's to be more reasonable. So long as a third of the mortgage is paid down by age 65 I think it should be OK to lend another 15 years above age 65

Graham_Devon

mwpt wrote: »

Wow.

So, these people have a right to break the law, bidding prices up higher and deprive someone who follows the law of a chance to buy.

You clearly haven't read conrads posts about binmen actually earning 60k plus

Majority of his clients appear to have outrageous incomes while actually declaring 20k or so. Tax drivers, for instance.... 95k a year.....nurse...60k a year according to conrad and so on.

Crashy_Time

martinsurrey wrote: »

pretending that if there was panic about big losses that the government and central bank wouldn't step in as they have time and time again to prop up the system is also pretty pointless.

the end result is a guess, mainly decided by the economic weather in the US and China.

What do you think they would do this time, slash rates or indulge in more QE which hasn`t worked, or is there another rabbit in the hat that only you know about?

Crashy_Time

chucknorris wrote: »

You might have a point crashy, but in our case it would be frantic buying (not selling). Despite thinking that at my age, the time to sell is near, if there was an opportunity to buy at 40% off, I just can't see myself resisting. Unless it was crashing due to rent controls being introduced, then fair enough, in those (unlikely) circumstances, I think I would probably bite the bullet and sell.

With the FED likely to start increasing rates, there can't be too many years left of our base rate being at rock bottom. When it goes past 2%, there really isn't any incentive for me to hold property, because shares would be just as profitable, and far less intrusive into my lifestyle. I'm not in property because I have some sort of affinity with it, I just appreciate the profit that it provides.

And you think that when you decide "not to hold" property there won`t be many others thinking the same? The time to sell up is passing you by IMO.

ukcarper

Crashy_Time wrote: »

And you think that when you decide "not to hold" property there won`t be many others thinking the same? The time to sell up is passing you by IMO.

I'm not sure anybody will take much notice of your opinion.