How far will house prices fall [volume 4]

[greggy50]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I did it for convenience correct as I got the boat to Canary Wharf (The tube at rush hour makes me want to self-harm) as I worked in the Citibank building and as such it was a 25 minute commute door to door. Explored most of London whilst I lived there and it was a direct train to "trendy" Shoreditch from Canada Water which generally appeared to be full of nob heads the place really just was not for me at all. They are some nice bits of London for sure but much prefer it where I am now and feel I have a far better quality of life I can appreciate why some people may like it but it just was not for me!

[Matt p]

Taylor Wimpey to set aside £130m due to leasehold houses sold with onerous groundrent clauses.

http://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/taylor-wimpey-pa...

Appears selling the freeholds off to Willi Aster is causing quite the ststorm.

[fishseller]

would Manchester be a good investment especially town center with HS2 and a lot of companies relocating their ?

[TheLordJohn]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I think you'll continue to be wrong, unfortunately.
There's clearly a problem with the numbers of population and homes being built.
The UK isn't any less desirable for people all around the world.
Prices aren't going down any time soon.

[_dobbo_]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

There is a big difference between the government acting to reign in price increases and the government acting to actually reduce the value of houses (which is what this thread is about).

[Cold]

UK house prices fell for the second month in a row during April, according to the Nationwide.

"The building society said prices dropped 0.4% in April, and the annual rate of price growth slowed to 2.6%, the weakest pace for almost four years."

[PH XKR]

0.4% drop? Nationwide base their figures on asking not sold price. Also a drop but an increase??

[matrignano]

okgo said:

Actually both.

I found some alright 1 beds around where my office in Great Portland St is for around 600, which will sound idiotic to some, but as a locations go its pretty close to everything. They're not amazing flats, but they're eqaully not anywhere near as I imagined they would be. Of course its double if you want a shiny one.

That's an unbelievable price!
You could probably sublet that on AirBnB for a fortune

[TheLordJohn]

p1stonhead said:

TheLordJohn said:

Matt p said:

NW London?. Willesden, harrow or Harlesden?. No thanks you're ok

I drive through the latter almost every day. (through the night, actually).
It's an absolute disgrace of a place.
How anyone can claim we don't have an immigration problem after seeing that place is beyond me.
There's not a single white British person there. It's an absolute dump.

Jesus.

Hate to say I told you so -

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/28/wi...

[kingston12]

_dobbo_ said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

There is a big difference between the government acting to reign in price increases and the government acting to actually reduce the value of houses (which is what this thread is about).

I agree, but I wonder how much a flat market might actually be a cause of a reduction.

I know someone who thinks he is an investment master because he bought a house in 2012 that has since virtually doubled in value. He can't wait to do it again, whilst keeping his current house of course.

There are probably quite a few people in that position, years of free money just for owning a house and very little acceptance that there is a downside risk as well.

I can't imagine them being happy if the taps are turned off and their house is worth roughly the same in five years time as it is now. They might be tempted to pull out of the market and use their investment genius elsewhere, I'm just not sure where that is...

[Magog]

I don't generally subscribe to the 'Current generation spends all there money on shiny crap/I didn't have an Iphone in 1973" argument, but this article did make me raise an eyebrow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39743452


After they got married last month, that situation no longer felt right. "We wanted to move out. Not straight away, but as a married couple we feel as if we should be on our own, rather than with my mum and dad."

Having spent a lot of their savings on their wedding in Las Vegas last month, the only option was to rent

FFS!

[Welshbeef]

Magog said:

I don't generally subscribe to the 'Current generation spends all there money on shiny crap/I didn't have an Iphone in 1973" argument, but this article did make me raise an eyebrow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39743452


After they got married last month, that situation no longer felt right. "We wanted to move out. Not straight away, but as a married couple we feel as if we should be on our own, rather than with my mum and dad."

Having spent a lot of their savings on their wedding in Las Vegas last month, the only option was to rent

FFS!

More possibly to wanting to have sex in the kitchen living room etc not a great idea with Mum and Dad in the house.

[boxst]

Magog said:

I don't generally subscribe to the 'Current generation spends all there money on shiny crap/I didn't have an Iphone in 1973" argument, but this article did make me raise an eyebrow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39743452


After they got married last month, that situation no longer felt right. "We wanted to move out. Not straight away, but as a married couple we feel as if we should be on our own, rather than with my mum and dad."

Having spent a lot of their savings on their wedding in Las Vegas last month, the only option was to rent

FFS!

Apart from what you quoted, the second thing they are saying is to try and force older people to 'downsize' when they no longer need that larger family home. If that becomes a larger call, I wonder if a labour government (doubt it would be tory) would have compulsory orders to sell houses etc... Nightmare.

[kingston12]

boxst said:

Apart from what you quoted, the second thing they are saying is to try and force older people to 'downsize' when they no longer need that larger family home. If that becomes a larger call, I wonder if a labour government (doubt it would be tory) would have compulsory orders to sell houses etc... Nightmare.

It would certainly be an extreme policy, but would it make a difference in the long term anyway? There are plenty of 3-4 bed houses on the market in my area, but all are £1m+ which means a couple earning, say, £150k can't buy them without significant parental help.

More houses of that size on the market might drive the price down a bit, but it also mean less money passed down by parents for their children to spend on housing.

[WindyCommon]

kingston12 said:

It would certainly be an extreme policy, but would it make a difference in the long term anyway? There are plenty of 3-4 bed houses on the market in my area, but all are £1m+ which means a couple earning, say, £150k can't buy them without significant parental help.

More houses of that size on the market might drive the price down a bit, but it also mean less money passed down by parents for their children to spend on housing.

Well, it means that a couple earning £150k can't buy them without existing accumulated equity and/or parental help.

[98elise]

boxst said:

Magog said:

I don't generally subscribe to the 'Current generation spends all there money on shiny crap/I didn't have an Iphone in 1973" argument, but this article did make me raise an eyebrow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39743452


After they got married last month, that situation no longer felt right. "We wanted to move out. Not straight away, but as a married couple we feel as if we should be on our own, rather than with my mum and dad."

Having spent a lot of their savings on their wedding in Las Vegas last month, the only option was to rent

FFS!

Apart from what you quoted, the second thing they are saying is to try and force older people to 'downsize' when they no longer need that larger family home. If that becomes a larger call, I wonder if a labour government (doubt it would be tory) would have compulsory orders to sell houses etc... Nightmare.

That would just put even more pressure on lower cost (smaller) properties, which is normally the first step on the housing ladder.

Tinkering with the existing market done not create any more houses, or reduce the number of people that want them. We need more houses building so that demand and supply a balanced.

[fishseller]

98elise said:

boxst said:

Magog said:

I don't generally subscribe to the 'Current generation spends all there money on shiny crap/I didn't have an Iphone in 1973" argument, but this article did make me raise an eyebrow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39743452


After they got married last month, that situation no longer felt right. "We wanted to move out. Not straight away, but as a married couple we feel as if we should be on our own, rather than with my mum and dad."

Having spent a lot of their savings on their wedding in Las Vegas last month, the only option was to rent

FFS!

Apart from what you quoted, the second thing they are saying is to try and force older people to 'downsize' when they no longer need that larger family home. If that becomes a larger call, I wonder if a labour government (doubt it would be tory) would have compulsory orders to sell houses etc... Nightmare.

That would just put even more pressure on lower cost (smaller) properties, which is normally the first step on the housing ladder.

Tinkering with the existing market done not create any more houses, or reduce the number of people that want them. We need more houses building so that demand and supply a balanced.

Raising Interest rates up a long time ago would have solved this problem , people with savings with earned income would have helped the economy as they will be happy to spend interest earnings instead of capital, So instead became Landlords , also a cap on foreign investors unless they live in the properties they owned not just shrink wrapped and left empty

Edited by fishseller on Monday 1st May 10:31

[gumshoe]

fishseller said:

98elise said:

boxst said:

Magog said:

I don't generally subscribe to the 'Current generation spends all there money on shiny crap/I didn't have an Iphone in 1973" argument, but this article did make me raise an eyebrow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39743452


After they got married last month, that situation no longer felt right. "We wanted to move out. Not straight away, but as a married couple we feel as if we should be on our own, rather than with my mum and dad."

Having spent a lot of their savings on their wedding in Las Vegas last month, the only option was to rent

FFS!

Apart from what you quoted, the second thing they are saying is to try and force older people to 'downsize' when they no longer need that larger family home. If that becomes a larger call, I wonder if a labour government (doubt it would be tory) would have compulsory orders to sell houses etc... Nightmare.

That would just put even more pressure on lower cost (smaller) properties, which is normally the first step on the housing ladder.

Tinkering with the existing market done not create any more houses, or reduce the number of people that want them. We need more houses building so that demand and supply a balanced.

Raising Interest rates up a long time ago would have solved this problem , people with savings with earned income would have helped the economy as they will be happy to spend interest earnings instead of capital, So instead became Landlords , also a cap on foreign investors unless they live in the properties they owned not just shrink wrapped and left empty

Edited by fishseller on Monday 1st May 10:31

That's the thing. I don't subscribe to the "build more houses is the solution" idea.

You simply cannot build enough houses to satisfy the investment demand. If everyone was buying purely for shelter then the market would be very different.

The other potential side effect if you were successful in "building enough houses" to quell demand, could be that (foreign) investors no longer see large capital appreciation and question the safe haven aspect of laying money into real estate that doesn't provide them (much of) a return. In turn, that could see a a load of property flooding the market and drive prices down, and fast.

Traditionally, even in London, the marker for investment in real estate was if it would return circa 5-8% (not as capital appreciation), nowadays people are happy with 1.5%.

[AstonZagato]

gumshoe said:

fishseller said:

98elise said:

boxst said:

Magog said:

I don't generally subscribe to the 'Current generation spends all there money on shiny crap/I didn't have an Iphone in 1973" argument, but this article did make me raise an eyebrow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39743452


After they got married last month, that situation no longer felt right. "We wanted to move out. Not straight away, but as a married couple we feel as if we should be on our own, rather than with my mum and dad."

Having spent a lot of their savings on their wedding in Las Vegas last month, the only option was to rent

FFS!

Apart from what you quoted, the second thing they are saying is to try and force older people to 'downsize' when they no longer need that larger family home. If that becomes a larger call, I wonder if a labour government (doubt it would be tory) would have compulsory orders to sell houses etc... Nightmare.

That would just put even more pressure on lower cost (smaller) properties, which is normally the first step on the housing ladder.

Tinkering with the existing market done not create any more houses, or reduce the number of people that want them. We need more houses building so that demand and supply a balanced.

Raising Interest rates up a long time ago would have solved this problem , people with savings with earned income would have helped the economy as they will be happy to spend interest earnings instead of capital, So instead became Landlords , also a cap on foreign investors unless they live in the properties they owned not just shrink wrapped and left empty

Edited by fishseller on Monday 1st May 10:31

That's the thing. I don't subscribe to the "build more houses is the solution" idea.

You simply cannot build enough houses to satisfy the investment demand. If everyone was buying purely for shelter then the market would be very different.

The other potential side effect if you were successful in "building enough houses" to quell demand, could be that (foreign) investors no longer see large capital appreciation and question the safe haven aspect of laying money into real estate that doesn't provide them (much of) a return. In turn, that could see a a load of property flooding the market and drive prices down, and fast.

Traditionally, even in London, the marker for investment in real estate was if it would return circa 5-8% (not as capital appreciation), nowadays people are happy with 1.5%.

I think a property tax is inevitable. Unfortunately it won't be implemented sensibly.

[98elise]

gumshoe said:

fishseller said:

98elise said:

boxst said:

Magog said:

I don't generally subscribe to the 'Current generation spends all there money on shiny crap/I didn't have an Iphone in 1973" argument, but this article did make me raise an eyebrow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39743452


After they got married last month, that situation no longer felt right. "We wanted to move out. Not straight away, but as a married couple we feel as if we should be on our own, rather than with my mum and dad."

Having spent a lot of their savings on their wedding in Las Vegas last month, the only option was to rent

FFS!

Apart from what you quoted, the second thing they are saying is to try and force older people to 'downsize' when they no longer need that larger family home. If that becomes a larger call, I wonder if a labour government (doubt it would be tory) would have compulsory orders to sell houses etc... Nightmare.

That would just put even more pressure on lower cost (smaller) properties, which is normally the first step on the housing ladder.

Tinkering with the existing market done not create any more houses, or reduce the number of people that want them. We need more houses building so that demand and supply a balanced.

Raising Interest rates up a long time ago would have solved this problem , people with savings with earned income would have helped the economy as they will be happy to spend interest earnings instead of capital, So instead became Landlords , also a cap on foreign investors unless they live in the properties they owned not just shrink wrapped and left empty

Edited by fishseller on Monday 1st May 10:31

That's the thing. I don't subscribe to the "build more houses is the solution" idea.

You simply cannot build enough houses to satisfy the investment demand. If everyone was buying purely for shelter then the market would be very different.

The other potential side effect if you were successful in "building enough houses" to quell demand, could be that (foreign) investors no longer see large capital appreciation and question the safe haven aspect of laying money into real estate that doesn't provide them (much of) a return. In turn, that could see a a load of property flooding the market and drive prices down, and fast.

Traditionally, even in London, the marker for investment in real estate was if it would return circa 5-8% (not as capital appreciation), nowadays people are happy with 1.5%.

I would agree if you're​ talking about empty property, but BTL does not remove property from the pool. It's simply a different way of getting 1 family in 1 home. If you converted everyone's tenancy to ownership the same number of people would still be chasing the same number of homes.