Prices will fall by 50% in four years

Paul_N_4

Maybe, but I'm more inclined to think Phil is just thick.

tradetime

PasturesNew wrote: »

To clarify, is that "97.2% of RICS surveyors surveyed by RICS feel that prices are going down"?

It is the percentage of chartered surveyors reporting a price rise verses those reporting a fall in their designated area. (that much I do know) My interpretation is that a reading of -97.2% means that 97.2% more surveyors reported a fall than reported a rise in prices, so no I don't interpret it like that. Suppose there were only 50 surveyors in the survey and 10 reported a rise, if 19 reported a fall then that would be 90% more, and a reading of -90%. I'm assuming there would be some who'd report neither rise nor fall. Maybe someone else knows for sure.

brit1234

Dan: wrote: »

No. Because prices are not going to fall 50%

What is mean is people like Brit, Zammo, !!!!!!? etc who wish for people to be repossessed and lose their jobs for their own financial benefit.

Wrong yet again, what is mean is:

1. Banks lending more money than people can afford.
2. Companies making forged documents to support these unstable loans
3. Builders like Barrat putting pressure and guilt on FTB parents to give them money for overvalued shoe boxes.
4. Buy to let investors buying up all FTB properties with their tax advantages to make vast portfolios with hardly any money put down.

Where has anyone said we want people to lose their jobs or houses (other than BTL :rolleyes:).

Property is well overvalued and the market is simply correcting itself.

phil_b_2

Paul_N wrote: »

Cause that will be easy for a family on £30k joint income.

Sure, it may take them 3-4 years, maybe they'll have to blag a couple of k off family, maybe turn in a little overtime a few nights a week. Again, I dont see why it should be quick and easy to buy an average family house. 15k would be a low single wage, what should they expect?

Paul_N wrote: »

£140,000 for a family home? Family homes round my way (3 bed house) go for average £200,000. You might be able to dig out something from Rightmove for that price, but £140,000 for a family house it certainly not typical. i.e. the average house (which you could argue is a typical family home) according to Nationwide is about £180,000..

where do you live?

Paul_N wrote: »

You can't envisage a world where it costs more to live? Where more of your wage packet goes on day to day living? It seems people have taken the last several years for granteed believing cheap food, cheap fuel, low mortgage rates, etc are the norm. Almost the same as believing house prices only ever go up.

I hear a lot of the 'rising cost of living' thing, especially with regards to food, but seriously, how much do people eat?!?! The cost of groceries would have to rocket a lot before making much a difference to me, but perhaps I dont eat that much. I'm yet to feel any real effect on my wallet from food/fuel rises. A lot of people dont even drive.

Paul_N wrote: »

Houses at 50% will not be cheap if you have to spend three/four times what you do now just to get by. No one told you the 'nice' decade is over?

3-4 times? We would be talking £3 for a lettuce and over £4 per litre of fuel, sure then things would'nt be looking so good. I know energy bills have shot up rediculously. I cant be sure how much other stuff will rise though. Fuel is my main expense but its not so bothersome I compain about it (yet).

neverdespairgirl

Dan: wrote: »

Yes it sounds like a few quid, but the loan is only for 2 years and I can easily afford the repayments. I also intend to settle it within the 2 years as well.

I'm sure that's all true, but £25k is still quite a lot of money, affordable loan or not!

Microstar_2

As a seasoned landlord with outright ownership of a number of houses, and the best part of 30 years in the business, I view the posts of 'Pickles' et al with mounting incredulity. Assuming your posts really do represent your views, and you're not a 'troll', then its clear that you simply do not comprehend the scale of what we are entering into. 50% REAL price falls are entirely possible. I have the feeling that this downturn (or 'correction' or 'crash', as you prefer) has the potential to eclipse that of the early '90's, which I was also 'privileged' to witness as close quarters!

Annpan

Hello lovely people.
Negative equity really only affects people remortgaging or selling - or am I thick?
We bought our first house in 1974 and all this 'stuff ' you've been debating didn't exist for us. Only gazumping and having to have a good deposit to put down on the house. I can remember worrying for a few weeks if the building society my husband had been in since birth would lend us the money. We were stretched on the loan taking into account both salaries.
When we did get the house, we went out on Saturday nights for a couple of halves of lager and a bag of chips on the way home. - aw.
We were under threat of nuclear holocaust and inflation (rampant), strikes and Arthur Scargill! You young folks can google him and you'll get the idea.
Happy days and we're still here to tell the tale. Mortgage free achieved by hard graft, building our own house and looking after the budget.
Don't go prematurely grey with all this worrying. I promise you that you'll look back in 30 years time and probably be reading something akin to what's on this forum.

Paul_N_4

phil_b wrote: »

where do you live?

Obviously way south of where you live. But it doesn't matter, the average house is currently around £180,000 according to Nationwide and in fact a little more according to Halifax. My bet is the average house is probably an average family home.

I cant be sure how much other stuff will rise though. Fuel is my main expense but its not so bothersome I compain about it (yet).

You said it.

The average house price was 3.5x the average salary once. And they were that 'low' because that is what people could afford to pay for them, and that is what the banks were willing to lend to them. Its the fact people think going back to this situation is absurd that gets me. Ask someone in the 90s if buying a home at 3.5x salary was easy and they'd likely tell you "not at all" (because of mortgage rates, cost of living, etc). The same can happen again. As I said, 50% off house prices won't necessarily mean they'll be more affordable, just cheaper.

PasturesNew

Paul_N wrote: »

LOL, pickles taking quotes from krusty and phil.

It just goes to show what complete BS those two 'property experts' talk.

According to Phil (linky) "It is negative equity which forces home owners to sell"

:rotfl:

How can compete numbskulls like this be allowed on TV?

The classic case of "it's not what you know, it's who you know"

The Old Boys' Club

Microstar_2

Annpan wrote: »

Mortgage free achieved by hard graft, building our own house and looking after the budget.

Not quite.
You sound about the same age as me. Let us not forget that we bought houses during a period of high inflation (both prices and earnings). A few early years of 'pain' were soon followed by much more manageable mortgage payments as inflation whittled the sum owed down to something very sensible. Thus the 'housing ladder' appeared before us. You may also remember something called 'MIRAS'? In effect people of our generation had their houses bought for them (in part) by the rest of society.
The historically atypical low inflation conditions that have predominated in recent years have meant that house buying has become more expensive and difficult for the younger generation, they have not been able to count on high inflation to eat away at the debt - although that may now be changing.