My favourite video EVER!!

chucknorris

ilovehouses wrote: »

Being a crashtroll seems to be a male dominated sport and hopefully most were just young and foolish believing they were on the cusp of being begged by frightened homeowners to buy their houses on the cheap. With the passage of time and getting a girlfriend/ wife and family they'll have had time to reflect and, anyway, women tend to not to put up with such nonsense.

Sadly though from reading HPC it does seem some do take their other halves along for the journey towards paying rent in retirement although I'm sure most just buy and stop posting or get banned for traitorous behaviour.

There was one such troll on here, his id was geneer, in the end (I believe) his partner made him buy. At about the time that he stopped posting he claimed that he had actually bought 3 years earlier, despite playing the housing bear for so many years, he was probably too embarrassed to eat humble pie and admit that he had been so wrong for so long.

westernpromise

ilovehouses wrote: »

Being a crashtroll seems to be a male dominated sport and hopefully most were just young and foolish believing they were on the cusp of being begged by frightened homeowners to buy their houses on the cheap. With the passage of time and getting a girlfriend/ wife and family they'll have had time to reflect and, anyway, women tend to not to put up with such nonsense.

Sadly though from reading HPC it does seem some do take their other halves along for the journey towards paying rent in retirement although I'm sure most just buy and stop posting or get banned for traitorous behaviour.

The crashtroll I mentioned above, "FoFP", was an Edinburgh university academic. His academic background undermined, rather than guaranteed, the quality of his thinking. He had read a lot, including all about tulips. He was so much smarter than any mere provincial estate agent that he couldn't be wrong.

Here is FoFP in a discussion entitled "Another interest rate cut on the way" in February 1996:
Rising interest rates, I suspect, may be the trigger for phase two of the housing bust. Labour oughta be praying that it happens under the Tories rather than later.
[link removed as wrecking the formatting]

Notice how in a discussion of an actual rates cut, all the fool can talk about is the next imagined rise. Like all trolls, he thinks a rise will ensure not just house price falls, but a bust. That was in 1996, 21 years ago, on the eve of the longest property bull run ever. You'd need a 75% or 80% crash to get back to those levels from here.

Here he is again in 2000 on his favourite subject of the ever-imminent house price crash. He has explained away its non-appearance in the last four years by blaming Greenspan, but he knows that the little jig will soon be up:
The housing market will drop not long after the Footsie does. The economy will screech to a halt. The smarter will then realise that a longish deflation will be a bad time to hold assets and will bail out. The housing market will tank at this point and the air will be full of the sound of people whining for the government to compensate them because their mortgage is twice the value of their house...
[link removed as wrecking the formatting]

Doesn't it all sound wearily familiar? The trolls are smart, everyone else is dumb? The pernicious thing is that trolls then as now mutually reinforce each other's bias. In the above thread, one P Burridge replies that
It certainly appears to be a distinct possibility that prices may now be peeking. That being the case, cash will once again be king for those who sold out of real assets in time. ...The key question IMV though, is will property prices actually decline again, or simply level out? Remember only 5 years or so ago, there were reports that house prices would remain broadly the same for 20 years...

"Cash will be king"...where have I heard that before? While "Luke" comments that
The only thing I am now concerned about is just how much whinging we will have to endure from those who have recently purchased at sky high prices thinking they had made a shrewd investment when in a year or so's time their mortgage is worth more than their rapidly deflating house.

We can all sigh with relief that Luke fortunately did not after 2000 have to suffer "whinging" from those idiots who, unlike Luke, in 1998 or 1999 had foolishly "purchased at sky high prices thinking they had made a shrewd investment". Luke must be jolly thankful prices kept going up after 2000 and spared him from all that whinging. Anyone who bought on a 25-year mortgage in 1996 is now within four years of paying it off. Anyone who borrowed on a variable rate in 1996 and who maintained the 1996 payment rate through the era of 0.5 and 0.25% base rates would have paid it off by now. Meanwhile Luke has been waiting like a lemon for the crash.

There is literally not an iota of original thought going on in HPC - it was all there in uk.finance 21 years ago. One of the reasons I don't feel sorry for Crashy or the HPCers is that they cannot say they weren't warned. Here is a post from a 2005 (!) thread in which someone lucidly explains to the trolls exactly why almost no homeowners will sell to rent in anticipation of a crash:

If you had a £300,000 house and you sold it and moved into rented, you're looking at 1.75% plus VAT to the agent, plus legal costs, plus removal costs of probably £2,000 plus, more if you're in a cheaper area (more stuff in a bigger place). You then re-enter after n years paying 4% stamp duty, plus another lot of legal and moving costs. Total cost about £24,000, which is 8%. So only if you get an 8% correction do you even break even, and in a falling market you might need to save still more because I suspect rents might rise. ISTR buy to let started because rents were so strong compared to mortgage costs - tenants were paying a premium to be sheltered from capital losses.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/uk.finance/FoFP$201996%7Csort:relevance/uk.finance/D-wbBuPS-Hk/OnWHUcywOY4J

Would anyone here disagree with a word of that? 12 years ago, people, on uk.finance, the concept of the Breakeven Crash Requirement was already thought through.

The odd thing about crashtrolls is that they all seem to think they are the first crashtrolls there have ever been.

Arklight

westernpromise wrote: »

The crashtroll I mentioned above, "FoFP", was an Edinburgh university academic. His academic background undermined, rather than guaranteed, the quality of his thinking. He had read a lot, including all about tulips. He was so much smarter than any mere provincial estate agent that he couldn't be wrong.

Here is FoFP in a discussion entitled "Another interest rate cut on the way" in February 1996:
Rising interest rates, I suspect, may be the trigger for phase two of the housing bust. Labour oughta be praying that it happens under the Tories rather than later.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/uk.finance/FoFP$201996|sort:relevance/uk.finance/ziECfUDSCFM/yDREOAOHIu4J

Notice how in a discussion of an actual rates cut, all the fool can talk about is the next imagined rise. Like all trolls, he thinks a rise will ensure not just house price falls, but a bust. That was in 1996, 21 years ago, on the eve of the longest property bull run ever. You'd need a 75% or 80% crash to get back to those levels from here.

Here he is again in 2000 on his favourite subject of the ever-imminent house price crash. He has explained away its non-appearance in the last four years by blaming Greenspan, but he knows that the little jig will soon be up:
The housing market will drop not long after the Footsie does. The economy will screech to a halt. The smarter will then realise that a longish deflation will be a bad time to hold assets and will bail out. The housing market will tank at this point and the air will be full of the sound of people whining for the government to compensate them because their mortgage is twice the value of their house...
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/uk.finance/FoFP$201997|sort:relevance/uk.finance/JwpzYQsxHhE/VSUFKIaNimoJ

Doesn't it all sound wearily familiar? The trolls are smart, everyone else is dumb? The pernicious thing is that trolls then as now mutually reinforce each other's bias. In the above thread, one P Burridge replies that
It certainly appears to be a distinct possibility that prices may now be peeking. That being the case, cash will once again be king for those who sold out of real assets in time. ...The key question IMV though, is will property prices actually decline again, or simply level out? Remember only 5 years or so ago, there were reports that house prices would remain broadly the same for 20 years...

"Cash will be king"...where have I heard that before? While "Luke" comments that
The only thing I am now concerned about is just how much whinging we will have to endure from those who have recently purchased at sky high prices thinking they had made a shrewd investment when in a year or so's time their mortgage is worth more than their rapidly deflating house.

We can all sigh with relief that Luke fortunately did not after 2000 have to suffer "whinging" from those idiots who, unlike Luke, in 1998 or 1999 had foolishly "purchased at sky high prices thinking they had made a shrewd investment". Luke must be jolly thankful prices kept going up after 2000 and spared him from all that whinging. Anyone who bought on a 25-year mortgage in 1996 is now within four years of paying it off. Anyone who borrowed on a variable rate in 1996 and who maintained the 1996 payment rate through the era of 0.5 and 0.25% base rates would have paid it off by now. Meanwhile Luke has been waiting like a lemon for the crash.

There is literally not an iota of original thought going on in HPC - it was all there in uk.finance 21 years ago. One of the reasons I don't feel sorry for Crashy or the HPCers is that they cannot say they weren't warned. Here is a post from a 2005 (!) thread in which someone lucidly explains to the trolls exactly why almost no homeowners will sell to rent in anticipation of a crash:

If you had a £300,000 house and you sold it and moved into rented, you're looking at 1.75% plus VAT to the agent, plus legal costs, plus removal costs of probably £2,000 plus, more if you're in a cheaper area (more stuff in a bigger place). You then re-enter after n years paying 4% stamp duty, plus another lot of legal and moving costs. Total cost about £24,000, which is 8%. So only if you get an 8% correction do you even break even, and in a falling market you might need to save still more because I suspect rents might rise. ISTR buy to let started because rents were so strong compared to mortgage costs - tenants were paying a premium to be sheltered from capital losses.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/uk.finance/FoFP$201996|sort:relevance/uk.finance/D-wbBuPS-Hk/OnWHUcywOY4J

Would anyone here disagree with a word of that? 12 years ago, people, on uk.finance, the concept of the Breakeven Crash Requirement was already thought through.

The odd thing about crashtrolls is that they all seem to think they are the first crashtrolls there have ever been.

Cool story bro.

Tiners

Genuine question, all these on here who are revelling in the rampant HPI we've seen for the last 2 decades and mocking the HPC brigade... are you saying that you knew all along that the banks would get bailed out in 2007/8 following years of irresponsible and fraudulent lending? And that the govt/BoE would embark on the biggest programme of support the housing market has ever seen from 2008 onward (in the form of QE,ZIRP, FLS, HTB etc etc)?

Because ultimately, these are the only reasons that the HPIers have been proved correct and the HPCers have been proved wrong.

GreatApe

Tiners wrote: »

Genuine question, all these on here who are revelling in the rampant HPI we've seen for the last 2 decades and mocking the HPC brigade... are you saying that you knew all along that the banks would get bailed out in 2007/8 following years of irresponsible and fraudulent lending? And that the govt/BoE would embark on the biggest programme of support the housing market has ever seen from 2008 onward (in the form of QE,ZIRP, FLS, HTB etc etc)?

Because ultimately, these are the only reasons that the HPIers have been proved correct and the HPCers have been proved wrong.

Clearly False

The UK is many housing markets, while London has boomed in the last 10 years many other areas have not

The north, scotland, wales, NI have all crashed in real terms (relative to wages)

If in the same country, some areas can boom and some areas can crash that clearly shows supply and demand is setting prices. Not banking or government policy

Personally I dont understand why demand is so strong in London when you can buy twice the house for half the price in say Birmingham but it is what it is

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

Personally I dont understand why demand is so strong in London when you can buy twice the house for half the price in say Birmingham but it is what it is

because of higher paid jobs in london vs birmingham. plus london is way better then birmingham as a place to live in.

westernpromise

If you read the loons of 20-odd years ago in uk.finance they were all full of reasons why the crash hadn't happened but was sure to do so.

The flaw in the thinking is that they assumed the government would stand by and watch the economy collapse. Governments - and central bankers - are there to ensure this does not happen. So there's always something the crashtrolls didn't foresee that explains to their fan club why they were right really.

The more rational players simply consider that yes, there is always something that you can't foresee - and so we just get on with our lives.

Crashtrolls think their village is the world and are usually astonished and disbelieving to be told that Canada and Australia and Hong Kong and New York all have high house prices too, and that Stoke on Trent does not.

westernpromise

Tiners wrote: »

Genuine question, all these on here who are revelling in the rampant HPI we've seen for the last 2 decades and mocking the HPC brigade... are you saying that you knew all along that the banks would get bailed out in 2007/8 following years of irresponsible and fraudulent lending? And that the govt/BoE would embark on the biggest programme of support the housing market has ever seen from 2008 onward (in the form of QE,ZIRP, FLS, HTB etc etc)?

Because ultimately, these are the only reasons that the HPIers have been proved correct and the HPCers have been proved wrong.

The reasons the banks had to be bailed out had nothing to do with UK mortgage lending.

chucknorris

Tiners wrote: »

Genuine question, all these on here who are revelling in the rampant HPI we've seen for the last 2 decades and mocking the HPC brigade... are you saying that you knew all along that the banks would get bailed out in 2007/8 following years of irresponsible and fraudulent lending? And that the govt/BoE would embark on the biggest programme of support the housing market has ever seen from 2008 onward (in the form of QE,ZIRP, FLS, HTB etc etc)?

Because ultimately, these are the only reasons that the HPIers have been proved correct and the HPCers have been proved wrong.

I'm not sure that I fit your description of mocking those on HPC, although I do try to give as much back as Crashy tries to give me.

But to answer your question, I didn't invest primarily for capital gains, I don't know why you would assume that an investor would? That would be more speculation, than investment, I invested for income, obviously I expected some capital gains, and I was pleased that I did at so much over the rate of inflation. On the subject of corrections, I invested for the long term (over 26 years ago) and I always knew that I would have to go through at least one major correction, but it was never my plan to sell during a recession, the plan was always to sell when the market was good or at least reasonable. I will have been in the market over 30 years by the time I sell up in about 5-6 years (as long as the market is reasonable). It never was about HPI, it was about the income.

padington

Tiners wrote: »

Genuine question, all these on here who are revelling in the rampant HPI we've seen for the last 2 decades and mocking the HPC brigade... are you saying that you knew all along that the banks would get bailed out in 2007/8 following years of irresponsible and fraudulent lending? And that the govt/BoE would embark on the biggest programme of support the housing market has ever seen from 2008 onward (in the form of QE,ZIRP, FLS, HTB etc etc)?

Because ultimately, these are the only reasons that the HPIers have been proved correct and the HPCers have been proved wrong.

Many could forsee that regarding currency, there was a evident international race to the bottom after 2007. That's what the G7 and G20 meet ups are partly about, an attempt to ensue that no one debases their currency any faster than everyone else.

Mark my words, we'll see negative interest rates in the U.K. yet.

Give it time and people will start saying 'why the hell should we pay people anything to hoard their wealth, these people need to be taxed and instead we need to reward risk takers more, that's the only way we're going to get out of this mess'.