"Breakeven Crash Requirement"

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

my thinking is that virtually no one waits hoping for a crash to then buy or sells to rent to try and profit from a falling market. They really are the one in a million and as you say the return transaction costs are so high its pointless STR-ing if you intend to enter the market again.

my best guess is that a lot of the crash-wishers simply do not have the income or savings to be able to buy something they consider decent so they wish for a crash rather than spend time analyzing learning and understanding and coming to a conclsuion that prices are going to crash. of course in this day and age of internet forums a wish easily becomes a self confirming million posts forum all waiting for 50% off by Christmas

BTW if you knew this why did you not stop your sister from making a £1million pound mistake?

May I point out that you don't give you posts any more credence by labelling people as "crash wishers".

Many people (and these are not all minimum wage workers as you ave made out before) would simply like to see lower prices, for a variety of reasons. Labelling them all as "crash wishers" highlights your own inability to be rational on the subject.

cells

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Spot on.

All the last crash did was consolidate even more property in the hands of pre-existing property owners.

im not sure that was due to the crash, probably more to do with the regulator and political response to the crash. eg get rid of interest only, get rid of self cert, cap mortgages etc, taking a huge number out of being able to get mortgages sure doesnt help increase the homeownership rate

padington

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I might be. It would probably help if I knew what the question was in reference to?

Being a perceived leading light perhaps for your crashist brethren when the rocks were all to be found ?

chewmylegoff

There is something a bit weird about people who are obsessed with a club of idiots who operate a stupid Internet forum about nonsense to the extent that they have to constantly post about said idiots on a different Internet forum. I really don't understand it or why anyone thinks thst a bunch of idiots who want house prices to crash are worth even a passing glance let alone all this constant attention. Perhaps if you're obsessed with said irrelevant morons you should set up a dedicated site called myobsessionwithhpcidiots.com or something and form your own rubbish and irrelevant anti-cult and stop polluting this board with deranged threads about nothing.

It's the forum equivalent of that phase the BBC went through when they reported everything Stephen Fry said on Twitter as a news article.

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

im not sure that was due to the crash, probably more to do with the regulator and political response to the crash. eg get rid of interest only, get rid of self cert, cap mortgages etc, taking a huge number out of being able to get mortgages sure doesnt help increase the homeownership rate

You may remember a couple of banks that are no more.

Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley.

There is a reason they are no more. One of the main reasons is they were so up to their neck in the type of mortgages you talk about.

There was, therefore a reason for tighter regulation of the mortgage market.

Graham_Devon

padington wrote: »

Being a perceived leading light perhaps for your crashist brethren when the rocks were all to be found ?

I didn't realise that I had ever advised someone whether to buy or not. Let alone started a movement.

But thanks - I quite like the "leading light" tag.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

May I point out that you don't give you posts any more credence by labelling people as "crash wishers".

Many people (and these are not all minimum wage workers as you ave made out before) would simply like to see lower prices, for a variety of reasons. Labelling them all as "crash wishers" highlights your own inability to be rational on the subject.

what is the difference between wishing for a crash and "like to see lower prices"? sounds like splitting hairs to me.

anyway the reason why i type crash wishers is because its short and gets to the point. typing - people who would like to see lower prices but not to the extent that it can be defined a crash - would get a bit tiresome

padington

chewmylegoff wrote: »

There is something a bit weird about people who are obsessed with a club of idiots who operate a stupid Internet forum about nonsense to the extent that they have to constantly post about said idiots on a different Internet forum. I really don't understand it or why anyone thinks thst a bunch of idiots who want house prices to crash are worth even a passing glance let alone all this constant attention. Perhaps if you're obsessed with said irrelevant morons you should set up a dedicated site called myobsessionwithhpcidiots.com or something and form your own rubbish and irrelevant anti-cult and stop polluting this board with deranged threads about nothing.

It's the forum equivalent of that phase the BBC went through when they reported everything Stephen Fry said on Twitter as a news article.

I'm talking about Graham and this forum, not about any other forum.

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

what is the difference between wishing for a crash and "like to see lower prices"? sounds like splitting hairs to me.

Well it may come as a surprise, but you don't have to have a full scale "crash" to see lower prices.

cells wrote: »

anyway the reason why i type crash wishers is because its short and gets to the point. typing - people who would like to see lower prices but not to the extent that it can be defined a crash - would get a bit tiresome

Typing "crash wishers" to define people who don't want to see a crash would appear a little tiresome, awkward and plain bizzare. Doesn't stop you?

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You may remember a couple of banks that are no more.

Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley.

There is a reason they are no more. One of the main reasons is they were so up to their neck in the type of mortgages you talk about.

There was, therefore a reason for tighter regulation of the mortgage market.

from my understanding they did not go under because the mortgages they wrote were poor but because their business plan of borrowing via interbank lending was a poor decision that was made impossible by a credit crunch


whatever the reason, can you at least stand up and say that if regulations forbid another 10% of the country from getting mortgages then ownership will fall 10%?