Half of UK home below crash prices of 2008

capital0ne

A small snippet in The Sunday Times today said that almost hlf of homes are still worth less than they were in 2007, with average prices 1.4% short.
Prices in 158 out of 348 council areas have not recovered after the 2008 crash according to data from Savills and the Office for National Statistics.
So there are many affordable houses now for anyone to get on the property ladder.
Interest rates back in 2007 where 6-8%, now it's 1% so mortgages are easily affordable.
There couldn't be a better time to buy a property. That must be good news :T:T:T

scholesfan88

Well it's good news if you live in one of the areas that hasn't recovered.

Davesnave

scholesfan88 wrote: »

Well it's good news if you live in one of the areas that hasn't recovered and you have a reasonably secure well-paid job.

Corrected that for you.


There are reasons why these areas are cheap.

muhandis

Out of pedantic interest, does the article say whether it's "real prices" or just the £ amount (i.e. ignoring inflation)?

If the latter, then in real terms it's more than 1.4% short.

capital0ne wrote: »

A small snippet in The Sunday Times today said that almost hlf of homes are still worth less than they were in 2007, with average prices 1.4% short.

steampowered

Since the Op did not provide a link: https://www.ft.com/content/ba1e46ec-9c17-11e9-9c06-a4640c9feebb

The key piece of information missing from the Op's post is that these are "inflation adjusted" prices.

Over the long term, you might expect the prices of a given asset - such as property or gold - to maintain roughly the same price after adjusting for inflation.

The other key point to note is that there is an enormous North/South divide in the figures. London property prices recovered past the 2008 high in the early 2010s and are now far above their pre-Lehmans peak. In the Midlands and the North it is quite different.

davidmcn

Also, it contains several confusing references to "the UK" when the figures appear to be only for England & Wales (not sure why, as the figures for Scotland & N Ireland aren't a secret and would probably make the divide between London/SE England and the rest of the UK even clearer).

Gwendo40

So they've apparently not ''recovered'' (perhaps ''relapsed'' would be a more appropriate word to use?) back to the levels which were previously attained as a result of large scale fraudulent and irresponsible lending and borrowing, creating an unsustainable bubble that almost brought about the collapse of the entire Western financial system.

capital0ne

steampowered wrote: »

Since the Op did not provide a link: https://www.ft.com/content/ba1e46ec-9c17-11e9-9c06-a4640c9feebb

The key piece of information missing from the Op's post is that these are "inflation adjusted" prices.

I quoted The Sunday Times article in full - it's their fault! Not mine.

And your FT article is behind a paywall -:(

Cheers

:T:T:T

Crashy_Time

Gwendo40 wrote: »

So they've apparently not ''recovered'' (perhaps ''relapsed'' would be a more appropriate word to use?) back to the levels which were previously attained as a result of large scale fraudulent and irresponsible lending and borrowing, creating an unsustainable bubble that almost brought about the collapse of the entire Western financial system.

Yep, and in the areas "affected" they are probably still too expensive to sell as the sellers will be no doubt be deluded about how much they should actually clear for, IMO transactions are the best stats to look at for a clearer picture of the housing market.

PasturesNew

they're cheaper because .... even though people waited 11 years in those dire areas, there's still nobody that wants to buy houses there.

Where I live, it's a different story.

Crashy_Time

Is it half of all houses, or half of all houses in so called c*rap areas?