House Prices Up....

MobileSaver

pop_gun wrote: »

It's extremely naive of you to think a house is just a home.

No, for the vast majority of people that is exactly what they're buying; a home not a financial investment.

pop_gun wrote: »

So no one who owns a house wants to see it rise as fast as possible, so as to cash in at a later date?

I'm sure some people do but the vast majority don't. Most people have aspirations to buy a bigger, better house and/or in a nicer location in the future and they realise that if their house price rises quickly then so does their next house.

pop_gun wrote: »

My original point was about equity. If you keep remortgaging or become unemployed you'll have little to no equity in your property. Which in essence makes you a tenant of your mortgage provider.

Yes, that would be correct.. but that's not how the vast majority of home owners end up.

AnotherJoe

pop_gun wrote: »

You present a highly idealised scenario. No job insecurity, no redundancies, no zero hour contracts, no outsourcing, no pitter-patter of tiny feet, no wage increases, no separation of the couple (divorce), no council tax, water rates, gas and electric, work travel expenses or monthly shop. you resent a wholly irrelevant scenario,since all those have been happening since time immemorial. So what if people shop? You don't think there were redundancies in the 80's or people went shopping in the 90's, etc?.

The house is unaffordable in this economic climate.so you say. Many find it affordable. Someone will buy the place with 10% deposit and pray like crazy it doubles in value over the next 5 to 10 years. They'd be mad to pray for that because it makes their next house even more unaffordable. House price rises don't actually help anyone. n when their work situation deteriorates they'll change to an interest only mortgage. And you don't think that ever happened in the past?
Meaning little equity in the house and the inability to repay the capital. But for those who didn't remortage they would have plenty of equity, and after 20 to 39 years, all of it. Why do you only focus on those for whom it went wrong? They'd be no better off in rented where their rental payments are more than a mortage ! .

Soon we'll have 50 to a 100 year inter-generation mortgages like they do in Japan. Anything to keep the property ponzi scheme going.

What a wholly pessimistic one sided view you take..replace it with someone paying rent (more than mortage in many cases) and all the events you mention,redundancies, patter of tiny feet, ,shopping, blah blah blah, all still apply and they don't end up owning the home they live in after 30 years of paying a landlords mortage for them, then need to pay the LL for another 30 years after as well!

pop_gun

MobileSaver wrote: »

No, for the vast majority of people that is exactly what they're buying; a home not a financial investment.



I'm sure some people do but the vast majority don't. Most people have aspirations to buy a bigger, better house and/or in a nicer location in the future and they realise that if their house price rises quickly then so does their next house.



Yes, that would be correct.. but that's not how the vast majority of home owners end up.

You take the facts regarding property being a financial investment and offer an opinion to counter it. No amount of opinion will override the fact properties are viewed as investment vehicles.

If house prices are rising faster in my area than they are in yours. Then providing I wanted to move to your area, I could sell up and do so.

Those with mortgages who have either secured credit against their property or remortgaged and have little to no equity and are struggling to make repayments are the norm. Not the exception.
House repossessions are at record low levels. But the fact there are repossessions in this environment of forebearance and easy credit is a cause for concern. It highlights the unaffordability issue and the rush to buy mind set of those who don't want to get left behind.

ukcarper

pop_gun wrote: »

You take the facts regarding property being a financial investment and offer an opinion to counter it. No amount of opinion will override the fact properties are viewed as investment vehicles.

If house prices are rising faster in my area than they are in yours. Then providing I wanted to move to your area, I could sell up and do so.

Those with mortgages who have either secured credit against their property or remortgaged and have little to no equity and are struggling to make repayments are the norm. Not the exception.
House repossessions are at record low levels. But the fact there are repossessions in this environment of forebearance and easy credit is a cause for concern. It highlights the unaffordability issue and the rush to buy mind set of those who don't want to get left behind.

You are talking absolute rubbish the vast majority have not remortgaged their property, have little equity and are struggling to make payments. You really need to stop reading HPC propaganda .

p1212

ukcarper wrote: »

You are talking absolute rubbish the vast majority have not remortgaged their property, have little equity and are struggling to make payments. You really need to stop reading HPC propaganda .

While there are less investors/speculators they own more property per head and their demand is concentrated on a very short time period (last few years) and specific desirable locations (like London or south Manchester), so it has totally distorted the markets there.

And a lot of them is already struggling as valuations are coming back lower than 1-2 years ago, so they can't remortgage as they don't have enough equity. Just read some landlord forums, some stories are really shocking.

Stop looking at lenders rigged house price indexes, read the facts:

http://www.cityam.com/248689/berkeley-group-has-suspended-construction-20m-housing

It is happening...

cells

pop_gun wrote: »

You take the facts regarding property being a financial investment and offer an opinion to counter it. No amount of opinion will override the fact properties are viewed as investment vehicles.

If house prices are rising faster in my area than they are in yours. Then providing I wanted to move to your area, I could sell up and do so.

Those with mortgages who have either secured credit against their property or remortgaged and have little to no equity and are struggling to make repayments are the norm. Not the exception.
House repossessions are at record low levels. But the fact there are repossessions in this environment of forebearance and easy credit is a cause for concern. It highlights the unaffordability issue and the rush to buy mind set of those who don't want to get left behind.

What a load of nonsense. You first claim that the norm are people struggling and with little equity. And then you highlight correctly that repos are almost insignificant which totally contradicts your assumption that the majority have no equity and are struggling.

You will never reach zero repos as some repos are due to other factors. Eg a mental breakdown might lead to a repo even if your are sitting in a £500k house with a £100k mortgage.

The truth is actually much better than you think. The UK stock of wealth is around £8.8 trillion net

ukcarper

p1212 wrote: »

While there are less investors/speculators they own more property per head and their demand is concentrated on a very short time period (last few years) and specific desirable locations (like London or south Manchester), so it has totally distorted the markets there.

And a lot of them is already struggling as valuations are coming back lower than 1-2 years ago, so they can't remortgage as they don't have enough equity. Just read some landlord forums, some stories are really shocking.

Stop looking at lenders rigged house price indexes, read the facts:

http://www.cityam.com/248689/berkeley-group-has-suspended-construction-20m-housing

It is happening...

That has nothing to do with my post and house price releases are not rigged. This is the problem I with people like you and popgun if figures don't suite you agenda they must be rigged. There are obviously borrowers in difficulties both BTL and home owners but they are not the norm by a long way.

pop_gun

cells wrote: »

What a load of nonsense. You first claim that the norm are people struggling and with little equity. And then you highlight correctly that repos are almost insignificant which totally contradicts your assumption that the majority have no equity and are struggling.

You will never reach zero repos as some repos are due to other factors. Eg a mental breakdown might lead to a repo even if your are sitting in a £500k house with a £100k mortgage.

The truth is actually much better than you think. The UK stock of wealth is around £8.8 trillion net

How does that contradict anything I've written?
Most mortgage holders are in trouble. Those being repossessioned are people who realised they couldn't afford the property repayments in the long term and gave up paying the token amount required to stay in their homes.

On the 'housing benefit to private landlords' thread you were advocating a return of self cert mortgages. Or as former financial regulator William K. Black likes to call them, "liar's loans".
Which informs me you're aware of the unaffordability of property prices for a large section of the populace. Though you would rather they commit to buying a property they can't afford (yours perhaps) than have them rent or see property prices come down to match 3 or 4 times earnings.

cells

pop_gun wrote: »

How does that contradict anything I've written?
Most mortgage holders are in trouble. Those being repossessioned are people who realised they couldn't afford the property repayments in the long term and gave up paying the token amount required to stay in their homes.

On the 'housing benefit to private landlords' thread you were advocating a return of self cert mortgages. Or as former financial regulator William K. Black likes to call them, "liar's loans".
Which informs me you're aware of the unaffordability of property prices for a large section of the populace. Though you would rather they commit to buying a property they can't afford (yours perhaps) than have them rent or see property prices come down to match 3 or 4 times earnings.

Utter and total BS

Please try to read and understand what I am about to post

Transactions per year are a small fraction of the stock. For example in London aviuy 0.12 million homes are sold each year out of a non social stock of 2.7 milion or less than 4.5% of the stock transacts each year.

Prices in London are up about 30% over the last 2 years. That means if you bought two years ago or before that which 91% did they are sitting on AT LEAST 30% equity and that is assuming they bought with a 90% IO mortgage exactly two years ago they are the very worst cases and everyone else is much much better off.

You can't fall into mortgage difficulty with 30%+ equity you just sell if you have to. This is why repos are virtually non existent and the repos that do exist are probably accounted for by other issues like mental breakdowns or crime.

And if you hadn't noticed mortgage rates are extremely affordable and long term unemployment is now about 1%

Your assertions that most (>50%) are in trouble is just so stupid it shows clearly you are under the influence of extreme confirmation bias.

Regarding my views of self cert returning. They are based on the fact that even the cheapest areas of the country like the north or Manchester are also seing falling ownership rates. The reason is not price as those places are very cheap the reason some people can only buy with self cert eg recently self employed that have not the 3 years trading accounts

ukcarper

pop_gun wrote: »

How does that contradict anything I've written?
Most mortgage holders are in trouble. Those being repossessioned are people who realised they couldn't afford the property repayments in the long term and gave up paying the token amount required to stay in their homes.

On the 'housing benefit to private landlords' thread you were advocating a return of self cert mortgages. Or as former financial regulator William K. Black likes to call them, "liar's loans".
Which informs me you're aware of the unaffordability of property prices for a large section of the populace. Though you would rather they commit to buying a property they can't afford (yours perhaps) than have them rent or see property prices come down to match 3 or 4 times earnings.

As I said earlier rubbish most mortgage holders are not in trouble if you are going to make such a ridiculous claim you need to back it up so go on back it up.