House price fall "accelerating"

dannyboycey

CB1979 wrote: »

Croydon/surrounding areas, seem to be pretty much the same £180-200kish for a decent 2 bed flat in a decent area of south croydon

Getting close to London so different rules apply to a certain extent. But these are asking prices. A lot of sellers are holding out for some kind of post-Christmas miracle boost to HPI.

Badger_Lady

dannyboycey wrote: »

Home. Investment. Whatever. In my opinion, only a simpleton would knowingly buy something that they knew would be cheaper in a few months.... Unless for some reason they have absolutely no other option open to them.

In my opinion, only a simpleton would knowingly give their money to a landlord, never to be seen again.

dannyboycey wrote: »

I'm buying an LCD TV. I could get it now for £700. Or I could wait till after Christmas, when it'll be AT LEAST £100 cheaper. It's to watch TV on, it's not 'an investment'. Should I just buy it now for the hell of it?

Loads of people do, though .

I've also bought a car, a fridge/freezer and a PC. They're all guaranteed to decrease in value. But I still want them.

boinging_2

pinkshoes wrote: »

If prices drop and for some reason I need to move, then instead of selling, I'll probably just rent my property out, and rent/buy elsewhere. Until now, I've never contemplated buying a 2nd property, but in the above case I would now consider it.

Okay, so do you have a mortgage at the moment? (I take it as yes from your previous comments).

You still have to pay that on the house you live in now, if you move out and I'd be surprised if the rent (minus tax) is enough to cover the mortgage (that's one of the issues at the moment - it's cheaper to rent than buy).

So you are having to make up the shortfall on property one and how do propose to buy property 2? Do you have another deposit (remember your first deposit may already be lost due to the price move downwards from when you bought it).

I can't see how you can be better off.

HugoSP

The latest I heard is that about 5 central banks are clubbing together to pump billions into the credit market.

The worry is that lenders won't pass on the interest rate cuts or gain access to the money available.

Zammo

$$$ wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7141151.stm

Why was my original post edited?

For the record I stated that I wouldn't particularly like to be a first time buyer in the process of buying at the moment.

How is this deemed to be worthy of censorship?

ivegotabig1

House prices Tumble !!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/12/13/bcnrics113.xml

The Illusion is slowly but surely being shatered... & what the BOE or FED does will make little differance, the economy has been living a lie for several years !! & Now its finally been found out !! Things will take there course which is a deflating of the economy to more sustainable levels.....period !! (& I am a home owner !!!- Just a realistic one )

boinging_2

Badger_Lady wrote: »

In my opinion, only a simpleton would knowingly give their money to a landlord, never to be seen again.



Loads of people do, though .

I can't even be bothered to go through all the reason why it's actually cheaper to rent than it would be to buy a house. All I will say is if you had bought a house 3 months ago it's now worth 3% less than when you bought it (plus with the stamp duty you have paid (assuming over 250K) = you need a 6% rise before you are even back to where you started).

pamaris

HugoSP wrote: »

The latest I heard is that about 5 central banks are clubbing together to pump billions into the credit market.

The worry is that lenders won't pass on the interest rate cuts or gain access to the money available.

Yes, but that is an attempt to kick start liquidity. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't but lenders will tighten lending regardless. Right now hardly any money is availably to be lent. If money is pumped into the system, it will only be lent at sensible ratios to good credit risks.

I think that the bottom line is that lending has been fast and loose; this is what caused prices to climb so high, and the money just will not be lent recklessly anymore now that the banks must shoulder the risk themselves instead of passing it down the line. With no more 5-6x salary mortgages, prices have to come down. No two ways about it really.

Badger_Lady

boinging wrote: »

I can't even be bothered to go through all the reason why it's actually cheaper to rent than it would be to buy a house. All I will say is if you had bought a house 3 months ago it's now worth 3% less than when you bought it (plus with the stamp duty you have paid (assuming over 250K) = you need a 6% rise before you are even back to where you started).

But now you're changing your argument again - we were talking about a home as a home, and mine is decorated / laid out the way I want it with "security of tenure" (for want of a better phrase). It is therefore a better home than the rented equivalent

Incidentally, I did buy 3 months ago but couldn't give a sh1te about the current monetary value of my house - it's a meaningless figure in the air until you sell. My mortgage repayments are less than rent would have been, and I've got space for 3 lodgers if I ever felt the need.

I'm so bored of people telling me to sell my home. Why should I?

dannyboycey

Badger_Lady wrote: »

In my opinion, only a simpleton would knowingly give their money to a landlord, never to be seen again.

This can be disproved mathematically. It is the reason why many of the 'super-rich' actually rent yachts and planes and even apartments on the advice of top financial advisors. I guess they are just simpletons though.

Someone that takes on an interest-only mortgage when house prices go down owns no more of their house than a renter. The renter can up sticks and do what they want at any time. The buyer is stuck paying more than market value for a house they don't own!