House prices..
- Thread starter fendi
- Start date
Just for balance, and from your own article...
But still, I'm sure you know better than they do
That paragraph you quoted is desperate and doesn't even make sense:
If there isn't to be a significant crash how can people expect to get properties they could not previously aspire to? It's nonsensical spin, surely you can see that?
If there isn't to be a significant crash how can people expect to get properties they could not previously aspire to? It's nonsensical spin, surely you can see that?
they always say that, a buyer with a large deposit is a savvy buyer and hence will not buy until they are sure the market has bottomed out.
i.e. not a chance of someone who has the sense to save letting it vaporise that easily, only a fsa would do that.
i.e. not a chance of someone who has the sense to save letting it vaporise that easily, only a fsa would do that.
But it's from exactly the same person as the rest of the information. Surely you're not just cherrypicking the statement to fit what you believe and ignoring the rest?
Buyers with large deposits, even if the market only stagnates or drops slightly for a few months, will find themselves in a better position than they were. That doesn't imply a significant crash in any way.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 1,909
- Location
- Swansea Wales
It's not about cherry picking or who wrote what, it's about half of the article being the factual results of the survey and the bit you quoted being illogical spin tacked on the end. To be able to buy something previously you couldn't aspire to certainly implies significant falls. If it didn't require a significant fall they'd would previously have been able to aspire to it.
As always, it falls down to who's the best person to believe, the predictions of a group who does this for a living or the prediction of a random bloke on the internet who has been consistantly crying wolf for the last few years about a price crash...
I know who gets my vote in being more likely to be correct.
For sure - believe who you want. I've made my position more than clear above, recent evidence backs my position, we'll have to wait and see.
Absolutely, although it's your interpretation of recent evidence, rather than the evidence itself (which is where you differ from those who do this for a living, in the interpretation). We will wait and see, but remember, even if you're right this time around, how many years you've declared the crash to be this year and been wrong
I'm happy to declare that I've been wrong previous years, because in 2004 and 2005 I believed the market would stagnate or drop slightly (say 3-5%), but it carried on rising, same in 2006-2007. I can admit I was wrong, can you?
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 1,909
- Location
- Swansea Wales
If you look across the pond, huge communities have been hit by the credit crunch. swathes of houses boarded up and left derelict. I don't think it will happen here on that scale, but the market will drop, and ordinary people will bear the burden.
I didn't need an economic degree from Oxbridge to see this coming. Banks were greedy, people were greedy, now the fat pig is going to be roasted.
I didn't need an economic degree from Oxbridge to see this coming. Banks were greedy, people were greedy, now the fat pig is going to be roasted.
If you look across the pond, huge communities have been hit by the credit crunch. swathes of houses boarded up and left derelict. I don't think it will happen here on that scale, but the market will drop, and ordinary people will bear the burden.
I didn't need an economic degree from Oxbridge to see this coming. Banks were greedy, people were greedy, now the fat pig is going to be roasted.
But we haven't had anything approaching the sub prime lending in the US, we haven't had banks giving people with zero income a large mortgage on a trailer, or giving money to just about everyone with ridiculous variable rates after a short initial period. People like to say we have, but we really haven't. In the US over the last few years, it was almost unheard of to be turned down for a mortgage, irrespective of your circumstances. Lenders here, even some of the more risky ones like northern rock, haven't been doing that to anything like the same degree. Further more our rental prices are a lot closer to buying costs than the US (traditionally at least), meaning that abandoning your house and mortgage to move into rented accomadation is a lot less attractive here.
Not to mention american house prices were much lower than ours to start with, and they also offer much longer mortgage terms that you can pass on to your kids...
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 1,909
- Location
- Swansea Wales
Absolutely, although it's your interpretation of recent evidence, rather than the evidence itself (which is where you differ from those who do this for a living, in the interpretation). We will wait and see, but remember, even if you're right this time around, how many years you've declared the crash to be this year and been wrong
I'm happy to declare that I've been wrong previous years, because in 2004 and 2005 I believed the market would stagnate or drop slightly (say 3-5%), but it carried on rising, same in 2006-2007. I can admit I was wrong, can you?
I sold my house in London in 2006 because i thought the housing market was going to crash.
Oh well, I was wrong by 18 months. I could have waited an extra 6-12 months but I wasn't going to take the chance. I was still able to buy my small holding in Wales outright with the profit.
I bought in 2005 expecting to have to cope with stagnation or slight deprecation in price, it affects the choices you make at the time, but as long as you get what you want, it's all good
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 1,909
- Location
- Swansea Wales
Northern Rock was involved heavily in the sub prime market, and they are British ? Boy, if they get it wrong, we are in big trouble....opps, they did.
Northern rock's trouble had absolutely nothing to do with who they were lending to in the UK. Nothing at all. It was down solely to their choice to borrow money on the markets and lend it out at a slight profit. When they could not longer borrow the money (and didnt' have enough in the kitty to cover their existing commmitments) their model fell down.
Once again, it had nothing to do with sub prime lending in the UK market.
Absolutely, although it's your interpretation of recent evidence, rather than the evidence itself (which is where you differ from those who do this for a living, in the interpretation). We will wait and see, but remember, even if you're right this time around, how many years you've declared the crash to be this year and been wrong
I'm happy to declare that I've been wrong previous years, because in 2004 and 2005 I believed the market would stagnate or drop slightly (say 3-5%), but it carried on rising, same in 2006-2007. I can admit I was wrong, can you?
Sure I thought that prices would start falling sooner than they have, but not that much sooner! I only started thinking about this in 2005, signed up to that other forum in 2005. I guess I thought the market would top in 2005 or 2006 and it turns out that 2007 was the top? I'll hold my hands up to that.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 1,909
- Location
- Swansea Wales
Northern Rock's borrowing and lending extended to the US sub prime market, which of course shoulder on the UK side of things.
It was always dodgy what they were doing, and they have paid the price, or should I say me, being a tax payer.
It was always dodgy what they were doing, and they have paid the price, or should I say me, being a tax payer.