House Price Crash Discussion Thread

lethal0r

mr.broderick wrote: »

Lol Big advert for fitness for gay men popped up.

so thats what this emoticon is for!:grouphug:

Nenen

!!!!!!? wrote: »

In the UK, Michael Taylor, a senior market strategist at Lombard, the economics consultancy, said on Friday night: "We have all been talking about a 1970s-style crisis but as each day goes by this looks more like the 1930s.

As someone who wasn't alive in the 1930s and with no expertise or experience in global (or even national) finances and economics, I'd be grateful if someone knowledgeable could tell me what it would mean for the average 'man/woman in the street' if the worst did happen (as predicted above). I assume huge job losses and millions living on the breadline or below. Obviously that would be an awful scenario for the vast majority although I guess there is always a few who manage to profit from disaster!

Being totally self-centred here, I'd love to know what the predicted outcome might be for someone like me... teacher in her late 40s currently STR (through circumstances not originally intended) with about 75K currently stashed away in ISAs, First Direct high interest savings account and premium bonds (and I've read all Martin's thoughts/calculations on pbs but we want to take a gamble anyway for a few months as this is the only chance we've got to get a few extra thousand if we are very lucky). Would this equity (our life's work to date and doesn't seem much to show for a life in 'caring' occupations but there it is) be devalued? Is there anything we could do now to protect it?
I'm getting more and more frightened by all this news.

m00m00

as for 'the worst that could happen' see Germany 1933-1945

BobProperty

Nenen wrote: »

..... I assume huge job losses and millions living on the breadline or below. Obviously that would be an awful scenario for the vast majority....

IIRC as far as the history of the 30s in the UK, the recession affected certain areas and jobs very badly, other areas and industries kept going. Jarrow for instance was a shipbuilding area badly affected by the downturn. So it might not be an "awful" scenario for the "vast majority". It will certainly affect everyone, but the majority of the working population aren't likely to lose their jobs. The jobs that will be of concern are the investment related ones like construction, voluntary spending related retail and service businesses, finance and insurance. In turn this puts pressure on government spending, as social costs increase and the working ( = tax paying) population decrease, so expect more tax rises.

luvpump

m00m00 wrote: »

as for 'the worst that could happen' see Germany 1933-1945

Indeed, The Nazi's did a great job on the Economy which was pretty much on its knees .. but then blew it all invading Poland

Turnbull2000

Global markets are plunging, Bear Stearns needing rescued, worst crisis since the Depression, FTSE 100 below 5500, investors fleeing to precious metals, capitalism collapsing under it's own greed. But Phil Spencer writing for the Telegraph inists the green shoots of recovery are appearing :beer:

HammersFan

Ah, Turnbull. Another way of looking at this is stocks and shares are really bad place to have money right now, perhaps something like property might be better. It's debatable of course, but didnt the slump of the stock market in the early 2000's precipitate a lot of investments in housing? I don;t expect you to agree of course (unless I predicted a monumental crash you wouldn't).

tr3mor

HammersFan wrote: »

Ah, Turnbull. Another way of looking at this is stocks and shares are really bad place to have money right now, perhaps something like property might be better. It's debatable of course, but didnt the slump of the stock market in the early 2000's precipitate a lot of investments in housing? I don;t expect you to agree of course (unless I predicted a monumental crash you wouldn't).

The 2000 slump was in IT companies.

IT companies don't lend people money to buy houses.

:money:

Turnbull2000

HammersFan wrote: »

Ah, Turnbull. Another way of looking at this is stocks and shares are really bad place to have money right now, perhaps something like property might be better. It's debatable of course, but didnt the slump of the stock market in the early 2000's precipitate a lot of investments in housing? I don;t expect you to agree of course (unless I
predicted a monumental crash you wouldn't).

I don't think you can compare. That was a market bubble that affected very few, this is a market bubble that affects everybody.

In addition...

Were the money markets decimated in 2000? Did the whole system require a desperate rescue attempt? Was a bank nationalised? Were house prices as overvalued? Were households as overextended? Were earnings growing as slowly? Was disposable income so low? Was the tax burden as high? Were we facing stagflation?

WTF?_2

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

Global markets are plunging, Bear Stearns needing rescued, worst crisis since the Depression, FTSE 100 below 5500, investors fleeing to precious metals, capitalism collapsing under it's own greed. But Phil Spencer writing for the Telegraph inists the green shoots of recovery are appearing :beer:

Yeah - it's starting to look like the start of a meltdown out there. More emergency injections of cash from the central banks, more swingeing interest rate cuts, Dollar and Pound in freefall on the FX markets.

This is exactly what I thought would happen but I take no pleasure from it. In fact, I'm extremely nervous. If you are holding Sterling savings, shove it into NS&I (National Savings) is my advice.


When companies go bust, investors lose their money. Not good, but at least the investors knew (or should have known) the risks when they put their money in.

When banks go bust, savers lose their money. There is no expectation that there is any risk whatsoever when you put your money in a bank.


Nervous times ahead ... and we haven't even seen mass unemployment and a crashing housing market in the UK yet. When they kick in it'll be mayhem.