Halifax ... 1.7% rise MOM

RelievedSheff

movilogo wrote: »

Or could be as simple as price became too high and buyers simply can't afford anymore. If income does not keep pace with house price rise, there has to be a point when the price elasticity rubber band will snap.

Up until the last few months wage growth was out stripping house price growth so it wasn't that!

Sailtheworld

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Brexit happens in a few days, THEN the real uncertainty begins, the stock market is just being juiced by the Fed (again) and other central banks, plus the fake euphoria over the Trump/China "deal" is pulling the sheep back into the market (most credible commentators are saying that nothing has been signed that was not already more or less happening, and that China are still just playing for time) One of my equity investments (tracker) that I looked at recently was up about 8%, and my pensions have done great since the crash in 2008 - So what! The Fed/central banks can`t keep pumping the markets forever, not without severe economic consequences down the road (we have already gone too far with the QE Forever experiment IMO, and it is hurting banks hence the moves on overdraft and other bank charges that I posted in another link)

Why not review your list of imminent reasons for a crash from 2019, 2018, 2017,....1998 and see how many housing crashes came to pass?

Sailtheworld

movilogo wrote: »

Or could be as simple as price became too high and buyers simply can't afford anymore. If income does not keep pace with house price rise, there has to be a point when the price elasticity rubber band will snap.

People on the Internet have been saying house prices are too high since the Internet was invented. It would seem somewhat coincidental that the 'price elasticity rubber band' snapped just as we were going through the process of brexit.

Perhaps you always have difficulty spotting elephants in the room?

triathlon

Sailtheworld wrote: »

Why not review your list of imminent reasons for a crash from 2019, 2018, 2017,....1998 and see how many housing crashes came to pass?

Honestly, just give up, he won't be told, he will stick to his plan now to the grave, and posters on here have offered him advice and help.

Some people you just cannot help

Sailtheworld

I wonder how long it takes for coronavirus to be mentioned on HPC as a reason why prices are 100% definitely going to crash next week.

Malthusian

Sailtheworld wrote: »

I wonder how long it takes for coronavirus to be mentioned on HPC as a reason why prices are 100% definitely going to crash next week.

About minus four hours.

Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

A Black Swan event is supposed to catch everyone by surprise. This seems to have exploded in the last week. At the rate China is locking itself down do you think it could be the event to tip the already fragile world economy over the edge?

triathlon

Sailtheworld wrote: »

I wonder how long it takes for coronavirus to be mentioned on HPC as a reason why prices are 100% definitely going to crash next week.

Are you kidding, they probably had the first post up the moment the first case in Wuhan sneezed. What a bunch, most of us are observing the story and fearing a potential catastrophe and the many lives that might be lost, they see it as yet another chance to swoop in like vultures and fight over the remains, it is difficult to feel more disgust than I do for that website

lisyloo

Crashy_Time wrote: »

IMO a basic mistake you are making is confusing soaring stock markets and higher headline averages for house prices with everything therefore being OK in the property and stock markets, this is not the case IMO

The thing is the successful people I meet in life are not blind to risk rather they have a sensible balanced approach to risk/return the most obvious of which is to be diversified in term of asset class.
In the debate between utopia and Armageddon I think we live in a very safe orderly country and overall things are pretty good.
There are some imbalances in the economy and we’ve just voted with a landslide for the status quo (I didn’t BTW as I’d like to see a little more equality).

IMO the generation that thought the bungalow they bought for 40k was going to fund their retirement should be fully awake by now to the fact that it isn`t anymore!

Actually it’s working out pretty well for those of us who bought decades ago and have moved up the market.
I’ve never proposed relying on your residence for your retirement income, but plenty of mortgage free people in their 50s with family homes can downsize or do equity release.
The sensible thing is to have this as the icing on the cake of your main pension provision, but most wont need the same size house once their children have left or once they become a bit less mobile and find it too much.
Also no need to live near work so I expect to move to a cheaper area or country. This is especially true for anyone in an expensive area like London.

Why don’t you think someone with a nice expensive house can downsize? (Assuming they’re aren’t reliant on it for income).

Btw - I’ve never had a decent answer to that question over the last two decades but I remain open minded,

Crashy_Time

lisyloo wrote: »

The thing is the successful people I meet in life are not blind to risk rather they have a sensible balanced approach to risk/return the most obvious of which is to be diversified in term of asset class.
In the debate between utopia and Armageddon I think we live in a very safe orderly country and overall things are pretty good.
There are some imbalances in the economy and we’ve just voted with a landslide for the status quo (I didn’t BTW as I’d like to see a little more equality).



Actually it’s working out pretty well for those of us who bought decades ago and have moved up the market.
I’ve never proposed relying on your residence for your retirement income, but plenty of mortgage free people in their 50s with family homes can downsize or do equity release.
The sensible thing is to have this as the icing on the cake of your main pension provision, but most wont need the same size house once their children have left or once they become a bit less mobile and find it too much.
Also no need to live near work so I expect to move to a cheaper area or country. This is especially true for anyone in an expensive area like London.

Why don’t you think someone with a nice expensive house can downsize? (Assuming they’re aren’t reliant on it for income).

Btw - I’ve never had a decent answer to that question over the last two decades but I remain open minded,

Too much time spent here perhaps? My point was that many people are not going to get the price they thought they would, not that people could never downsize.

lisyloo

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Too much time spent here perhaps? My point was that many people are not going to get the price they thought they would, not that people could never downsize.

It’s a fair question and one I ask sometimes but
I think the time spent on here has generally paid off e.g. £8k PA stooze on mortgage to name one example.
If reflection and research results in successful action then it’s not wasted time.

On what basis do you think people won’t get the price they thought?
Long term property has done well especially when imputed rent is taken into account.
I’d disagree over recent decades.
Equities may have outperformed property but it’s a different story once you factor in that you need somewhere to live.
Short term I’d agree it’s not a good asset class to speculate on but for residential it’s somewhere to live not just an investment.