The press on housing falls

Zammo

boinging wrote: »

4% is no small change. Scenario:

Buy today - 400K
Stamp Duty - 12K

House worth 16K less in 1 year, so plus the 12K stamp duty a total of 28K cost for me if I sold in 1 year.

How much would it cost you to rent it for that amount of time?

kennyboy66_2

Zammo wrote: »

How much would it cost you to rent it for that amount of time?

I'd guess about £8k less than what you would pay in interest on a £400k loan.

Why anyone would be a FTB now is beyond me.

Running_Horse

The level of the fall in the 80s was not as bad as the fact you could not get any buyer at any price. But with over 50% equity in my current house and no plans to move for 20 years, I don't care if prices halve or double. As long as the mortgage is affordable, nothing else matters.

SquatNow

I'm sorry you're all lunatics. house prices only ever go up everyone knows that.

Only doom mongers and people wearing tin-foil hats claim prices can go down.

I suggest the mods delete this topic immediately and cancel the accounts of all those people who've said prices could fall... we'll have none of that behaivour here. Everyone should go back to talking about how important it is to get on the property [STRIKE]ladder[/STRIKE] pyramid as fast as you can and advising people to bid 30% over the asking price before you miss your chance forever.

JohnInDebt

Now is not a good time to buy into this pyramid scheme, when it all falls flat you don't want to be at the bottom.

beingjdc

Zammo wrote: »

How much would it cost you to rent it for that amount of time?

Not a fair comparison - the interest on a 400k mortgage would be about £25,000, so you're talking £53,000 total cost. So, the question is can you rent for £4,000 a month somewhere nicer than you can buy for £400k.

I think yes, given that I rent for £1,235 a month somewhere that would cost £250,000 to buy.

Alan_M_2

jonewer wrote: »

Sorry, I meant late 80s/early 90s.

Prices peaked in Q3 1989 at £62,782 and bottomed out in Q4 of 1992 at £50,168

According to nationwide

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/downloads/UK_house_price_since_1952.xls

The problem with taking statistics such as these (or in fact any statistic) is that they are only as good as the figures from which they are compiled.

Say a house valued at £100,000 in 1988 dropped to £60,000 by 1992 but was then sold for £99,000 in 1996.

That house dropped in value by 1% - simply because the owners were trapped in negative equity, weren't able to sell, therefore were not able to produce a "statistic".

Statistics are about as accurate as sentiment.

Take them all with a pinch of salt.

I live in Surrey, always have done and in the early 90's there were plenty of houses that more than halved in value. This however is not actually recorded unless it's sold.

Now remember, the Nationwides figures exclude repossessions and houses disposed of at auction. These would simply skew the figures and not provide a representative set of statistics.

Read into that what you like.

mr.broderick

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Just proves that there are statsitics, statistics and damned lies. Prices fell much more than that in the late 80's/early 90's. Mine by about 30%.

As for recent falls, they are hardly exceptional considering it is November. Hardly a popular time of year to be moving house.

THE real falls haven't got here yet. Maybe the bottom of the market will be when prices reach 1995 levels (adjusted for inflation).

GG

It's lies,damned lies and statistics gorgeous.

mr.broderick

Alan_M wrote: »

The problem with taking statistics such as these (or in fact any statistic) is that they are only as good as the figures from which they are compiled.

Say a house valued at £100,000 in 1988 dropped to £60,000 by 1992 but was then sold for £99,000 in 1996.

That house dropped in value by 1% - simply because the owners were trapped in negative equity, weren't able to sell, therefore were not able to produce a "statistic".

Statistics are about as accurate as sentiment.

Take them all with a pinch of salt.

I live in Surrey, always have done and in the early 90's there were plenty of houses that more than halved in value. This however is not actually recorded unless it's sold.

Now remember, the Nationwides figures exclude repossessions and houses disposed of at auction. These would simply skew the figures and not provide a representative set of statistics.

Read into that what you like.

Top post from a top man.

Griptool

jonewer wrote: »

Sorry, I meant late 80s/early 90s.

Prices peaked in Q3 1989 at £62,782 and bottomed out in Q4 of 1992 at £50,168

According to nationwide

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/downloads/UK_house_price_since_1952.xls

You were obviously wearing nappies during that period as this is total bo11ocks.

Three bed starter homes in my home town went from £55000 to £35000 between 1989 and 1995, now factor in inflation between 7% -13% and Even you can figure out:T the size of the crash.

Some of my friends had the pleasure of negative equity by thinking that prices only ever go up " if I don't buy now I'll never be able to afford to buy":rotfl: