Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
Someone mentioned the monetary policy regime instigated in 1997. By which I assume they meant the independence of the BoE. I don't think BoE per se has been the problem - it's been the international consensus for many years that interest rates are there to manage consumer price inflation but should be agnostic to asset price inflation.
Back in the 1970s there wasn't really any distinction between the 2. It was in the 1980s that they started to decouple, with the stock market boom (and various busts) in the late 80s and then in particular the 1990s post-cold war deflationary boom that allowed spending to rise in the West without consumer prices going up, as China massively expanded its capacity while the former Soviet bloc reduced its commodity consumption.
UK monetary policy evolved to this new orthodoxy. In October 1992 after Black Wednesday Norman Lamont introduced a formal inflation targeting policy. In the following 5 years he and then Ken Clarke started to work more closely with the Bank of England in setting interest rates. The target remained at 2.5% from 1992 to 2003, when it went down to 2%.
Brown's decision to give the BoE independence was both a continuation of the trend of taking it out of the hands of the government, but also intended to be a prudent measure to prevent governments keeping rates artificially low. At the same time as the announcement the rate was increased by 0.25%. It didn't really change the monetary regime, it just changed the governance around it. Arguably we might have seen even more aggressive cuts during recessions if politicians retained control.
Changing the governance around it was a pretty big deal because it effectively moved it outside the domain of legitimate mainstream political debate. Anyone who thought that there was something wrong with the orthodox view automatically became a crank.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
Perfect would be house prices to rise below the rate of increase in incomes (if any).
There's nothing perfect about a market in which prices never fall.
I mean in terms of letting the air out of the housing bubble without negative equity and people running around screaming.
People would be running around screaming about inflation anyway in your scenario and at the margins it would still mean some people would suffer financially.
Who would be suffering financially, if their house price goes up slowly or not at all?
Tenants who can't afford a deposit without house price falls.
One of the most difficult things during the slump in house prices in the early nineties was that deposits had to be bigger. Mortgages were limited to those with 10-15% of the asking price rather than 5% as lenders feared further drops. The rates offered to those with bigger deposits were far better too.
If the house price is lower, but the deposit is twice as big, then being an FTB becomes an impossible step.
Those of us who are actually old enough to remember know how painful it was.
10% of less is better than 10% of more.
Calling it painful is just false compared to what people have had to do in recent years.
What you underwent was much, much less painful than those failing to do so in recent years, which is why more people got on the ladder in your day than recently.
No one was getting on the ladder in the early 90s. And fewer people were getting on the ladder in the later 90s than in the 80s.
Like so many of your 'solutions' to problems you simply don't understand how people or the systems work.
People who already got on the ladder in the 80s only had to stay on the ladder. In the 90s, more were able to do so, rather than less in subsequent decades.
The 1990s saw fewer people being unable to get on the ladder than ever before or since. Which yes is including the 80s or the time since. Which is unsurprising, because homes were affordable.
And yet as you have admitted after Robert corrected you, fewer people, got on the ladder in the 90s than had in the 80s.
Because they were already on the ladder, yes.
People who got on the ladder in the 1980s didn't fall off it in the 1990s.
The 1990s meant that people who couldn't get on the ladder in the 1980s, were able to then instead. It was even better than the 80s because it was a step up from what was already a high to an even better high of home ownership.
Instead since then we've had continuous regression.
So the rate of people getting on the property ladder dropped. There were fewer FTB than there would have been if the rates had continued from the 1980s. And you think that was a good thing?
Its a view I suppose
Of course, people who'd already bought in the 1980s couldn't be FTB a second time in the 1990s. The 1980s was exceptional as Council Houses being sold off was a one-off, people who bought then for the first time couldn't redo the first time purchase again ten years later.
People who're already on the property ladder aren't the issue, unless for some reason they can't afford to keep their home, the issue is the ones who aren't.
The figure to look at is how many people can't afford a home. And that was lower in the 1990s than the 1980s or any other time before or since.
THere are always new first time buyers - at least as long as people still have babies. But if 100 people can get on tghe poperty ladder in the 1980s and only 50 people can get on the property ladder in the 1990s when the same number of people want to do so then that is a problem. Overall you still have more people as homeowners but the rate at which this happens has reduced.
This all stems from your inability to read data and thinking that an increasae in absolute numbers is the same as an increase in the rate. It is the debt/deficit argument in a different form.
You are absolutely right there is an issue with falling home ownership at present. But your 'solution' won't work. It will just make matters worse.
If you want to be radical (and a bit communist) then get the Government to pass a law that house prices cannot increase by any more than 1% below the rate of wage inflation. The housing market won't suddenly dry up but houses will get cheaper for first time buyers relative to their pay.
Affordability works. Your incomprehension is coming from a failure to realise that the 1980s was sui generis due to the sale of Council Houses. Yes if the 11% rise of the 80s had continued in the 90s it would have been better, but it is also completely infeasible and unrealistic.
Reductio ad absurdum keeping that as a baseline then by now we should be your logic have over 100% home ownership now had it continued from 90s to today at 80s rates. Obviously that's completely impossible.
Any gain in share from a high is good. Any decline in share is bad.
Someone mentioned the monetary policy regime instigated in 1997. By which I assume they meant the independence of the BoE. I don't think BoE per se has been the problem - it's been the international consensus for many years that interest rates are there to manage consumer price inflation but should be agnostic to asset price inflation.
Back in the 1970s there wasn't really any distinction between the 2. It was in the 1980s that they started to decouple, with the stock market boom (and various busts) in the late 80s and then in particular the 1990s post-cold war deflationary boom that allowed spending to rise in the West without consumer prices going up, as China massively expanded its capacity while the former Soviet bloc reduced its commodity consumption.
UK monetary policy evolved to this new orthodoxy. In October 1992 after Black Wednesday Norman Lamont introduced a formal inflation targeting policy. In the following 5 years he and then Ken Clarke started to work more closely with the Bank of England in setting interest rates. The target remained at 2.5% from 1992 to 2003, when it went down to 2%.
Brown's decision to give the BoE independence was both a continuation of the trend of taking it out of the hands of the government, but also intended to be a prudent measure to prevent governments keeping rates artificially low. At the same time as the announcement the rate was increased by 0.25%. It didn't really change the monetary regime, it just changed the governance around it. Arguably we might have seen even more aggressive cuts during recessions if politicians retained control.
Changing the governance around it was a pretty big deal because it effectively moved it outside the domain of legitimate mainstream political debate. Anyone who thought that there was something wrong with the orthodox view automatically became a crank.
If you think that putting it in the hands of politicians would have resulted in higher interest rates and lower house prices I think you are misguided. Personally I am in favour of some modest leaning against the wind on asset prices, and this is by no means a crank view. If they had targeted a broad measure of domestic price inflation like the GDP deflator I think a lot of the pre-GFC problems in the UK and elsewhere could have been avoided.
One of Stodge's political maxims is no matter how extreme a viewpoint, someone will always try to go further. I presume this Ramaswamy sees himself as the next step beyond Trump. His views, as far as I understand them, seem contradictory, inflamatory and just plain daft in equal measure. His sole motivation seems to be to create a political culture and climate which he can exploit to make money for himself and his companies.
I imagine as long as the real band is playing, the tribute won't get a look in.
Rightmove, Land Registry and Yopa all have a substantial lag, so those LR June figures relate to sales agreed in Jan/Feb. Rightmove only list new asking prices not actual agreed sales or houses reduced. The real prices are probably 10% lower. Affordability is tanking due to higher mortgage rates. There's something like a 5:1 ratio of houses for sale to agreed sales. There a house price fall happening. Just a question of how far down it will go.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
Perfect would be house prices to rise below the rate of increase in incomes (if any).
There's nothing perfect about a market in which prices never fall.
I mean in terms of letting the air out of the housing bubble without negative equity and people running around screaming.
People would be running around screaming about inflation anyway in your scenario and at the margins it would still mean some people would suffer financially.
Who would be suffering financially, if their house price goes up slowly or not at all?
Tenants who can't afford a deposit without house price falls.
One of the most difficult things during the slump in house prices in the early nineties was that deposits had to be bigger. Mortgages were limited to those with 10-15% of the asking price rather than 5% as lenders feared further drops. The rates offered to those with bigger deposits were far better too.
If the house price is lower, but the deposit is twice as big, then being an FTB becomes an impossible step.
Those of us who are actually old enough to remember know how painful it was.
10% of less is better than 10% of more.
Calling it painful is just false compared to what people have had to do in recent years.
What you underwent was much, much less painful than those failing to do so in recent years, which is why more people got on the ladder in your day than recently.
No one was getting on the ladder in the early 90s. And fewer people were getting on the ladder in the later 90s than in the 80s.
Like so many of your 'solutions' to problems you simply don't understand how people or the systems work.
People who already got on the ladder in the 80s only had to stay on the ladder. In the 90s, more were able to do so, rather than less in subsequent decades.
The 1990s saw fewer people being unable to get on the ladder than ever before or since. Which yes is including the 80s or the time since. Which is unsurprising, because homes were affordable.
And yet as you have admitted after Robert corrected you, fewer people, got on the ladder in the 90s than had in the 80s.
Because they were already on the ladder, yes.
People who got on the ladder in the 1980s didn't fall off it in the 1990s.
The 1990s meant that people who couldn't get on the ladder in the 1980s, were able to then instead. It was even better than the 80s because it was a step up from what was already a high to an even better high of home ownership.
Instead since then we've had continuous regression.
So the rate of people getting on the property ladder dropped. There were fewer FTB than there would have been if the rates had continued from the 1980s. And you think that was a good thing?
Its a view I suppose
Of course, people who'd already bought in the 1980s couldn't be FTB a second time in the 1990s. The 1980s was exceptional as Council Houses being sold off was a one-off, people who bought then for the first time couldn't redo the first time purchase again ten years later.
People who're already on the property ladder aren't the issue, unless for some reason they can't afford to keep their home, the issue is the ones who aren't.
The figure to look at is how many people can't afford a home. And that was lower in the 1990s than the 1980s or any other time before or since.
THere are always new first time buyers - at least as long as people still have babies. But if 100 people can get on tghe poperty ladder in the 1980s and only 50 people can get on the property ladder in the 1990s when the same number of people want to do so then that is a problem. Overall you still have more people as homeowners but the rate at which this happens has reduced.
This all stems from your inability to read data and thinking that an increasae in absolute numbers is the same as an increase in the rate. It is the debt/deficit argument in a different form.
You are absolutely right there is an issue with falling home ownership at present. But your 'solution' won't work. It will just make matters worse.
If you want to be radical (and a bit communist) then get the Government to pass a law that house prices cannot increase by any more than 1% below the rate of wage inflation. The housing market won't suddenly dry up but houses will get cheaper for first time buyers relative to their pay.
Affordability works. Your incomprehension is coming from a failure to realise that the 1980s was sui generis due to the sale of Council Houses. Yes if the 11% rise of the 80s had continued in the 90s it would have been better, but it is also completely infeasible and unrealistic.
Reductio ad absurdum keeping that as a baseline then by now we should be your logic have over 100% home ownership now had it continued from 90s to today at 80s rates. Obviously that's completely impossible.
Any gain in share from a high is good. Any decline in share is bad.
And your proposals would cause a further decline in share. It doesn't matter how cheap houses are if no one is willing to sell them. And people will not sell at a loss. This is what happened in the ealy 90s. Fewer sales and fewer houses being built.
Someone mentioned the monetary policy regime instigated in 1997. By which I assume they meant the independence of the BoE. I don't think BoE per se has been the problem - it's been the international consensus for many years that interest rates are there to manage consumer price inflation but should be agnostic to asset price inflation.
Back in the 1970s there wasn't really any distinction between the 2. It was in the 1980s that they started to decouple, with the stock market boom (and various busts) in the late 80s and then in particular the 1990s post-cold war deflationary boom that allowed spending to rise in the West without consumer prices going up, as China massively expanded its capacity while the former Soviet bloc reduced its commodity consumption.
UK monetary policy evolved to this new orthodoxy. In October 1992 after Black Wednesday Norman Lamont introduced a formal inflation targeting policy. In the following 5 years he and then Ken Clarke started to work more closely with the Bank of England in setting interest rates. The target remained at 2.5% from 1992 to 2003, when it went down to 2%.
Brown's decision to give the BoE independence was both a continuation of the trend of taking it out of the hands of the government, but also intended to be a prudent measure to prevent governments keeping rates artificially low. At the same time as the announcement the rate was increased by 0.25%. It didn't really change the monetary regime, it just changed the governance around it. Arguably we might have seen even more aggressive cuts during recessions if politicians retained control.
Changing the governance around it was a pretty big deal because it effectively moved it outside the domain of legitimate mainstream political debate. Anyone who thought that there was something wrong with the orthodox view automatically became a crank.
The problem was successive Governments had used the Bank of England and interest rates as a political tool. Rates would be cut just before an election in an all too obvious attempt to bribe voters into supporting the incumbent Government. The economic consequences of these cuts wouldn't hit until after the election when the re-elected Government could ride out the resulting unpopularity.
Taking control from politicians was meant to work to the long-term economic benefit of all - we would have greater stability and certainty in rates and rate setting (via the MPC) was based on sound economic argument rather than political whim or opinion poll rating.
Serial killer Rose West was allowed to keep her Co-op bank account, despite executives later deciding feminists should be “debanked”, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Co-operative Bank considered closing West’s account during a review of customers with criminal records around a decade ago, it is understood.
However, the murderer of 10 women and girls was allowed to stay on as a customer despite the bank later declining services to a feminist group over its views on transgender issues, and other banks closing accounts belonging to politicians, such as Brexiteer Nigel Farage, over reputational fears.
Bosses at the Co-op, which has the slogan “Ethical then, now and always”, deemed keeping West as a customer carried little risk to the bank’s reputation, it is understood, while drug dealers and gang members were stripped of their accounts.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Absolutely! 10% of 2.2x income is far, far easier to afford than 10% of 6x income.
Which is why the 90s saw the lowest rate ever recorded of people unable to afford their own home. And people call that "miserable". 🤦♂️
No, affordability has 2 factors. The purchase price and the cost of borrowing.
If the price has dropped 30% but the interest rate has doubled, then affordability has not improved.
What happened after the negative equity of the early nineties was a sharp drop in interest rates, creating ideal conditions for affordability.
At the moment we have falling house prices and rising interest rates. Due to the prevalence of 2 year plus fixes those rising rates are on a time delay, but a significant drag on affordability for some time yet, and we probably haven't seen the peak yet.
Yes indeed and you were incredibly fortunate to be a first time buyer when you were, which is why you like most of your peers were able to do so.
Unlike the generation that came after you.
If you think its miserable to save a 10% deposit at 2.2x income, just imagine how miserable it is to save a 10% deposit at 6x income.
Which is why fewer people than ever before were unable to afford a home in the 90s. And more and more people have been unable to do so since.
Saving for a deposit at 6x income is far more miserable than doing so at 2.2x income.
No, I was a FTB in 1992, sold in 1996 at the same price. The house I bought second doubled in price in 5 years, which was crazy.
The fact you could afford a property in 1992 puts you instantly ahead of most young people in recent decades.
Better than being stuck renting in 1992 and still stuck renting in 1996 which is what many face at 6x multiple rather than your 2x
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
Perfect would be house prices to rise below the rate of increase in incomes (if any).
There's nothing perfect about a market in which prices never fall.
I mean in terms of letting the air out of the housing bubble without negative equity and people running around screaming.
People would be running around screaming about inflation anyway in your scenario and at the margins it would still mean some people would suffer financially.
Who would be suffering financially, if their house price goes up slowly or not at all?
Tenants who can't afford a deposit without house price falls.
One of the most difficult things during the slump in house prices in the early nineties was that deposits had to be bigger. Mortgages were limited to those with 10-15% of the asking price rather than 5% as lenders feared further drops. The rates offered to those with bigger deposits were far better too.
If the house price is lower, but the deposit is twice as big, then being an FTB becomes an impossible step.
Those of us who are actually old enough to remember know how painful it was.
10% of less is better than 10% of more.
Calling it painful is just false compared to what people have had to do in recent years.
What you underwent was much, much less painful than those failing to do so in recent years, which is why more people got on the ladder in your day than recently.
No one was getting on the ladder in the early 90s. And fewer people were getting on the ladder in the later 90s than in the 80s.
Like so many of your 'solutions' to problems you simply don't understand how people or the systems work.
People who already got on the ladder in the 80s only had to stay on the ladder. In the 90s, more were able to do so, rather than less in subsequent decades.
The 1990s saw fewer people being unable to get on the ladder than ever before or since. Which yes is including the 80s or the time since. Which is unsurprising, because homes were affordable.
And yet as you have admitted after Robert corrected you, fewer people, got on the ladder in the 90s than had in the 80s.
Because they were already on the ladder, yes.
People who got on the ladder in the 1980s didn't fall off it in the 1990s.
The 1990s meant that people who couldn't get on the ladder in the 1980s, were able to then instead. It was even better than the 80s because it was a step up from what was already a high to an even better high of home ownership.
Instead since then we've had continuous regression.
So the rate of people getting on the property ladder dropped. There were fewer FTB than there would have been if the rates had continued from the 1980s. And you think that was a good thing?
Its a view I suppose
Of course, people who'd already bought in the 1980s couldn't be FTB a second time in the 1990s. The 1980s was exceptional as Council Houses being sold off was a one-off, people who bought then for the first time couldn't redo the first time purchase again ten years later.
People who're already on the property ladder aren't the issue, unless for some reason they can't afford to keep their home, the issue is the ones who aren't.
The figure to look at is how many people can't afford a home. And that was lower in the 1990s than the 1980s or any other time before or since.
THere are always new first time buyers - at least as long as people still have babies. But if 100 people can get on tghe poperty ladder in the 1980s and only 50 people can get on the property ladder in the 1990s when the same number of people want to do so then that is a problem. Overall you still have more people as homeowners but the rate at which this happens has reduced.
This all stems from your inability to read data and thinking that an increasae in absolute numbers is the same as an increase in the rate. It is the debt/deficit argument in a different form.
You are absolutely right there is an issue with falling home ownership at present. But your 'solution' won't work. It will just make matters worse.
If you want to be radical (and a bit communist) then get the Government to pass a law that house prices cannot increase by any more than 1% below the rate of wage inflation. The housing market won't suddenly dry up but houses will get cheaper for first time buyers relative to their pay.
Affordability works. Your incomprehension is coming from a failure to realise that the 1980s was sui generis due to the sale of Council Houses. Yes if the 11% rise of the 80s had continued in the 90s it would have been better, but it is also completely infeasible and unrealistic.
Reductio ad absurdum keeping that as a baseline then by now we should be your logic have over 100% home ownership now had it continued from 90s to today at 80s rates. Obviously that's completely impossible.
Any gain in share from a high is good. Any decline in share is bad.
And your proposals would cause a further decline in share. It doesn't matter how cheap houses are if no one is willing to sell them. And people will not sell at a loss. This is what happened in the ealy 90s. Fewer sales and fewer houses being built.
Bart is too young to remember, while we and @DavidL are not. He has the advantage of just Bartsplaining to people who were there what it was like
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Absolutely! 10% of 2.2x income is far, far easier to afford than 10% of 6x income.
Which is why the 90s saw the lowest rate ever recorded of people unable to afford their own home. And people call that "miserable". 🤦♂️
No, affordability has 2 factors. The purchase price and the cost of borrowing.
If the price has dropped 30% but the interest rate has doubled, then affordability has not improved.
What happened after the negative equity of the early nineties was a sharp drop in interest rates, creating ideal conditions for affordability.
At the moment we have falling house prices and rising interest rates. Due to the prevalence of 2 year plus fixes those rising rates are on a time delay, but a significant drag on affordability for some time yet, and we probably haven't seen the peak yet.
Yes indeed and you were incredibly fortunate to be a first time buyer when you were, which is why you like most of your peers were able to do so.
Unlike the generation that came after you.
If you think its miserable to save a 10% deposit at 2.2x income, just imagine how miserable it is to save a 10% deposit at 6x income.
Which is why fewer people than ever before were unable to afford a home in the 90s. And more and more people have been unable to do so since.
Saving for a deposit at 6x income is far more miserable than doing so at 2.2x income.
No, I was a FTB in 1992, sold in 1996 at the same price. The house I bought second doubled in price in 5 years, which was crazy.
I was an FTB in 1989. Had to give my half of the house to my ex-partner at he end of 1990 when we split and the £40,000 we had paid was only worth £30,000.
I bought my first property in 1995 having rented for a decade after leaving home. I bought new and got a £3k discount to avoid paying stamp duty. I sold a decade later with the property going for 250% of what I originally paid - there aren't many investments that more than double in barely a decade.
Those who bought in the late 60s and particularly the mid 70s did so miuch better.
I believe prices increased 46 fold between 1948 and 2022 - my parents' house value appreciated by 45 times between 1967 and 2000 - no wonder people considered bricks and mortar the ultimate hedge against inflation.
When you consider many (by no means all) older people today they have benefitted from runaway asset inflation even though the rate on savings has been poor for a generation.
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Absolutely! 10% of 2.2x income is far, far easier to afford than 10% of 6x income.
Which is why the 90s saw the lowest rate ever recorded of people unable to afford their own home. And people call that "miserable". 🤦♂️
No, affordability has 2 factors. The purchase price and the cost of borrowing.
If the price has dropped 30% but the interest rate has doubled, then affordability has not improved.
What happened after the negative equity of the early nineties was a sharp drop in interest rates, creating ideal conditions for affordability.
At the moment we have falling house prices and rising interest rates. Due to the prevalence of 2 year plus fixes those rising rates are on a time delay, but a significant drag on affordability for some time yet, and we probably haven't seen the peak yet.
Yes indeed and you were incredibly fortunate to be a first time buyer when you were, which is why you like most of your peers were able to do so.
Unlike the generation that came after you.
If you think its miserable to save a 10% deposit at 2.2x income, just imagine how miserable it is to save a 10% deposit at 6x income.
Which is why fewer people than ever before were unable to afford a home in the 90s. And more and more people have been unable to do so since.
Saving for a deposit at 6x income is far more miserable than doing so at 2.2x income.
No, I was a FTB in 1992, sold in 1996 at the same price. The house I bought second doubled in price in 5 years, which was crazy.
The fact you could afford a property in 1992 puts you instantly ahead of most young people in recent decades.
Better than being stuck renting in 1992 and still stuck renting in 1996 which is what many face at 6x multiple rather than your 2x
Depends where you lived. The East Midlands were notably cheap at that time, as I recall a friend there commenting whgen he moved to the university quarter in Leicester.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Absolutely! 10% of 2.2x income is far, far easier to afford than 10% of 6x income.
Which is why the 90s saw the lowest rate ever recorded of people unable to afford their own home. And people call that "miserable". 🤦♂️
No, affordability has 2 factors. The purchase price and the cost of borrowing.
If the price has dropped 30% but the interest rate has doubled, then affordability has not improved.
What happened after the negative equity of the early nineties was a sharp drop in interest rates, creating ideal conditions for affordability.
At the moment we have falling house prices and rising interest rates. Due to the prevalence of 2 year plus fixes those rising rates are on a time delay, but a significant drag on affordability for some time yet, and we probably haven't seen the peak yet.
Yes indeed and you were incredibly fortunate to be a first time buyer when you were, which is why you like most of your peers were able to do so.
Unlike the generation that came after you.
If you think its miserable to save a 10% deposit at 2.2x income, just imagine how miserable it is to save a 10% deposit at 6x income.
Which is why fewer people than ever before were unable to afford a home in the 90s. And more and more people have been unable to do so since.
Saving for a deposit at 6x income is far more miserable than doing so at 2.2x income.
No, I was a FTB in 1992, sold in 1996 at the same price. The house I bought second doubled in price in 5 years, which was crazy.
The fact you could afford a property in 1992 puts you instantly ahead of most young people in recent decades.
Better than being stuck renting in 1992 and still stuck renting in 1996 which is what many face at 6x multiple rather than your 2x
Depends where you lived. The East Midlands were notably cheap at that time, as I recall a friend there commenting whgen he moved to the university quarter in Leicester.
Indeed. A lot of variance is buried in averages.
Heck, a 50% fall in cost would only bring them down to historical levels. It would take a 70% fall to make them as affordable as it was in 1992.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Absolutely! 10% of 2.2x income is far, far easier to afford than 10% of 6x income.
Which is why the 90s saw the lowest rate ever recorded of people unable to afford their own home. And people call that "miserable". 🤦♂️
No, affordability has 2 factors. The purchase price and the cost of borrowing.
If the price has dropped 30% but the interest rate has doubled, then affordability has not improved.
What happened after the negative equity of the early nineties was a sharp drop in interest rates, creating ideal conditions for affordability.
At the moment we have falling house prices and rising interest rates. Due to the prevalence of 2 year plus fixes those rising rates are on a time delay, but a significant drag on affordability for some time yet, and we probably haven't seen the peak yet.
Yes indeed and you were incredibly fortunate to be a first time buyer when you were, which is why you like most of your peers were able to do so.
Unlike the generation that came after you.
If you think its miserable to save a 10% deposit at 2.2x income, just imagine how miserable it is to save a 10% deposit at 6x income.
Which is why fewer people than ever before were unable to afford a home in the 90s. And more and more people have been unable to do so since.
Saving for a deposit at 6x income is far more miserable than doing so at 2.2x income.
No, I was a FTB in 1992, sold in 1996 at the same price. The house I bought second doubled in price in 5 years, which was crazy.
I was an FTB in 1989. Had to give my half of the house to my ex-partner at he end of 1990 when we split and the £40,000 we had paid was only worth £30,000.
I bought my first property in 1995 having rented for a decade after leaving home. I bought new and got a £3k discount to avoid paying stamp duty. I sold a decade later with the property going for 250% of what I originally paid - there aren't many investments that more than double in barely a decade.
Those who bought in the late 60s and particularly the mid 70s did so miuch better.
I believe prices increased 46 fold between 1948 and 2022 - my parents' house value appreciated by 45 times between 1967 and 2000 - no wonder people considered bricks and mortar the ultimate hedge against inflation.
When you consider many (by no means all) older people today they have benefitted from runaway asset inflation even though the rate on savings has been poor for a generation.
Yep, as I say I am not disputing the problem, nor the need for something to happen to try to deal with it. I am just disputing the idea that a cash in prices will help people get on the property ladder. It may well have exactly the opoosite effect.
Is it viable for the GIvernment to interfear with the market and put a cap on house price inflation? I am not asking if it is desirable or politcially expedient, just whether it is actually possible? No increase in prices above 1% below wage inflation for 20 years.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Absolutely! 10% of 2.2x income is far, far easier to afford than 10% of 6x income.
Which is why the 90s saw the lowest rate ever recorded of people unable to afford their own home. And people call that "miserable". 🤦♂️
No, affordability has 2 factors. The purchase price and the cost of borrowing.
If the price has dropped 30% but the interest rate has doubled, then affordability has not improved.
What happened after the negative equity of the early nineties was a sharp drop in interest rates, creating ideal conditions for affordability.
At the moment we have falling house prices and rising interest rates. Due to the prevalence of 2 year plus fixes those rising rates are on a time delay, but a significant drag on affordability for some time yet, and we probably haven't seen the peak yet.
Yes indeed and you were incredibly fortunate to be a first time buyer when you were, which is why you like most of your peers were able to do so.
Unlike the generation that came after you.
If you think its miserable to save a 10% deposit at 2.2x income, just imagine how miserable it is to save a 10% deposit at 6x income.
Which is why fewer people than ever before were unable to afford a home in the 90s. And more and more people have been unable to do so since.
Saving for a deposit at 6x income is far more miserable than doing so at 2.2x income.
No, I was a FTB in 1992, sold in 1996 at the same price. The house I bought second doubled in price in 5 years, which was crazy.
The fact you could afford a property in 1992 puts you instantly ahead of most young people in recent decades.
Better than being stuck renting in 1992 and still stuck renting in 1996 which is what many face at 6x multiple rather than your 2x
Depends where you lived. The East Midlands were notably cheap at that time, as I recall a friend there commenting whgen he moved to the university quarter in Leicester.
They still are, relatively. I paid £42 000 for a 2 bed terraced in fashionable Clarendon Park in 1992.
Inflation would put that at £111 000 in current money. The same houses are now about £220 000 now, so doubled over inflation, but probably good value still nationally, and still a lovely place to live. Fox Jr lives there in a house eerily similar to the one he was born in.
Er, all he said was he supported a *referendum* - which he hasn't always before IIRC.
You're both being unfair to the poor allotmenteer.
Corbyn also backs a United Ireland. He doesn't care about keeping the UK together, indeed he would happily have been a socialist Labour PM of England and Wales working alongside an SNP PM of Scotland and a Sinn Fein PM of Ireland
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Absolutely! 10% of 2.2x income is far, far easier to afford than 10% of 6x income.
Which is why the 90s saw the lowest rate ever recorded of people unable to afford their own home. And people call that "miserable". 🤦♂️
No, affordability has 2 factors. The purchase price and the cost of borrowing.
If the price has dropped 30% but the interest rate has doubled, then affordability has not improved.
What happened after the negative equity of the early nineties was a sharp drop in interest rates, creating ideal conditions for affordability.
At the moment we have falling house prices and rising interest rates. Due to the prevalence of 2 year plus fixes those rising rates are on a time delay, but a significant drag on affordability for some time yet, and we probably haven't seen the peak yet.
Yes indeed and you were incredibly fortunate to be a first time buyer when you were, which is why you like most of your peers were able to do so.
Unlike the generation that came after you.
If you think its miserable to save a 10% deposit at 2.2x income, just imagine how miserable it is to save a 10% deposit at 6x income.
Which is why fewer people than ever before were unable to afford a home in the 90s. And more and more people have been unable to do so since.
Saving for a deposit at 6x income is far more miserable than doing so at 2.2x income.
No, I was a FTB in 1992, sold in 1996 at the same price. The house I bought second doubled in price in 5 years, which was crazy.
The fact you could afford a property in 1992 puts you instantly ahead of most young people in recent decades.
Better than being stuck renting in 1992 and still stuck renting in 1996 which is what many face at 6x multiple rather than your 2x
Depends where you lived. The East Midlands were notably cheap at that time, as I recall a friend there commenting whgen he moved to the university quarter in Leicester.
They still are, relatively. I paid £42 000 for a 2 bed terraced in fashionable Clarendon Park in 1992.
Inflation would put that at £111 000 in current money. The same houses are now about £220 000 now, so doubled over inflation, but probably good value still nationally, and still a lovely place to live. Fox Jr lives there in a house eerily similar to the one he was born in.
Which do you think is easier to save for? A 4200 deposit at 1992 wages, of a 22000 one at today's?
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Absolutely! 10% of 2.2x income is far, far easier to afford than 10% of 6x income.
Which is why the 90s saw the lowest rate ever recorded of people unable to afford their own home. And people call that "miserable". 🤦♂️
No, affordability has 2 factors. The purchase price and the cost of borrowing.
If the price has dropped 30% but the interest rate has doubled, then affordability has not improved.
What happened after the negative equity of the early nineties was a sharp drop in interest rates, creating ideal conditions for affordability.
At the moment we have falling house prices and rising interest rates. Due to the prevalence of 2 year plus fixes those rising rates are on a time delay, but a significant drag on affordability for some time yet, and we probably haven't seen the peak yet.
Yes indeed and you were incredibly fortunate to be a first time buyer when you were, which is why you like most of your peers were able to do so.
Unlike the generation that came after you.
If you think its miserable to save a 10% deposit at 2.2x income, just imagine how miserable it is to save a 10% deposit at 6x income.
Which is why fewer people than ever before were unable to afford a home in the 90s. And more and more people have been unable to do so since.
Saving for a deposit at 6x income is far more miserable than doing so at 2.2x income.
No, I was a FTB in 1992, sold in 1996 at the same price. The house I bought second doubled in price in 5 years, which was crazy.
I was an FTB in 1989. Had to give my half of the house to my ex-partner at he end of 1990 when we split and the £40,000 we had paid was only worth £30,000.
I bought my first property in 1995 having rented for a decade after leaving home. I bought new and got a £3k discount to avoid paying stamp duty. I sold a decade later with the property going for 250% of what I originally paid - there aren't many investments that more than double in barely a decade.
Those who bought in the late 60s and particularly the mid 70s did so miuch better.
I believe prices increased 46 fold between 1948 and 2022 - my parents' house value appreciated by 45 times between 1967 and 2000 - no wonder people considered bricks and mortar the ultimate hedge against inflation.
When you consider many (by no means all) older people today they have benefitted from runaway asset inflation even though the rate on savings has been poor for a generation.
Yep, as I say I am not disputing the problem, nor the need for something to happen to try to deal with it. I am just disputing the idea that a cash in prices will help people get on the property ladder. It may well have exactly the opoosite effect.
Is it viable for the GIvernment to interfear with the market and put a cap on house price inflation? I am not asking if it is desirable or politcially expedient, just whether it is actually possible? No increase in prices above 1% below wage inflation for 20 years.
Maintaining at inflation is fine for avoiding a problem when there is none, but it doesn't fix the problem that already exists. Prices ought to halve in real terms, so how do we get there?
Yes price falls have negative consequences but it's still the least worst option to get to a healthy rate.
Would you advise a 24 stone individual to only gain a couple more pounds a year? Or to lose weight?
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
90s saw record home ownership gains not losses. Record number of people able to get onto the housing ladder.
What's negative or glib about that?
Ahem.
The 90s saw record home ownership levels, but it did not see a record rise in home ownership.
In the 80s, you sent from 55% to 67%. In the 90s, you went from 67% to around 70%.
Fantastic pedanticbetting, well done.
*bow*
Yes I should have said it saw record levels in home ownership.
So home ownership was rising quickly in the ‘80s and that then slowed right down in the the ‘90s… Doesn’t exactly support an argument that the ‘90s were a great environment for home ownership.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
90s saw record home ownership gains not losses. Record number of people able to get onto the housing ladder.
What's negative or glib about that?
Ahem.
The 90s saw record home ownership levels, but it did not see a record rise in home ownership.
In the 80s, you sent from 55% to 67%. In the 90s, you went from 67% to around 70%.
Fantastic pedanticbetting, well done.
*bow*
Yes I should have said it saw record levels in home ownership.
So home ownership was rising quickly in the ‘80s and that then slowed right down in the the ‘90s… Doesn’t exactly support an argument that the ‘90s were a great environment for home ownership.
How do you replicate the sale of Council Homes for a second time? 🤦♂️
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So your view is women should shut up and do as they are told....got it
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Absolutely! 10% of 2.2x income is far, far easier to afford than 10% of 6x income.
Which is why the 90s saw the lowest rate ever recorded of people unable to afford their own home. And people call that "miserable". 🤦♂️
No, affordability has 2 factors. The purchase price and the cost of borrowing.
If the price has dropped 30% but the interest rate has doubled, then affordability has not improved.
What happened after the negative equity of the early nineties was a sharp drop in interest rates, creating ideal conditions for affordability.
At the moment we have falling house prices and rising interest rates. Due to the prevalence of 2 year plus fixes those rising rates are on a time delay, but a significant drag on affordability for some time yet, and we probably haven't seen the peak yet.
Yes indeed and you were incredibly fortunate to be a first time buyer when you were, which is why you like most of your peers were able to do so.
Unlike the generation that came after you.
If you think its miserable to save a 10% deposit at 2.2x income, just imagine how miserable it is to save a 10% deposit at 6x income.
Which is why fewer people than ever before were unable to afford a home in the 90s. And more and more people have been unable to do so since.
Saving for a deposit at 6x income is far more miserable than doing so at 2.2x income.
No, I was a FTB in 1992, sold in 1996 at the same price. The house I bought second doubled in price in 5 years, which was crazy.
I was an FTB in 1989. Had to give my half of the house to my ex-partner at he end of 1990 when we split and the £40,000 we had paid was only worth £30,000.
I bought my first property in 1995 having rented for a decade after leaving home. I bought new and got a £3k discount to avoid paying stamp duty. I sold a decade later with the property going for 250% of what I originally paid - there aren't many investments that more than double in barely a decade.
Those who bought in the late 60s and particularly the mid 70s did so miuch better.
I believe prices increased 46 fold between 1948 and 2022 - my parents' house value appreciated by 45 times between 1967 and 2000 - no wonder people considered bricks and mortar the ultimate hedge against inflation.
When you consider many (by no means all) older people today they have benefitted from runaway asset inflation even though the rate on savings has been poor for a generation.
Yep, as I say I am not disputing the problem, nor the need for something to happen to try to deal with it. I am just disputing the idea that a cash in prices will help people get on the property ladder. It may well have exactly the opoosite effect.
Is it viable for the GIvernment to interfear with the market and put a cap on house price inflation? I am not asking if it is desirable or politcially expedient, just whether it is actually possible? No increase in prices above 1% below wage inflation for 20 years.
Maintaining at inflation is fine for avoiding a problem when there is none, but it doesn't fix the problem that already exists. Prices ought to halve in real terms, so how do we get there?
Yes price falls have negative consequences but it's still the least worst option to get to a healthy rate.
Would you advise a 24 stone individual to only gain a couple more pounds a year? Or to lose weight?
If rapid weight loss caused issues for the body (as it does) then the 'cure' would be as bad as the problem.
But it is a stupid analogy because what you are suggesting is the equivalent of one of those fad diets that doesn't actually solve the problem. As I say, putting people a third of the mortgaged homeowners into negative equity as hapend in the last big crash means the housing market grinds to halt. And builders stop biulding - as happened last time and is starting to happen now. A First Time Buyer can't buy a house if there are no houses for sale.
Oh and the last time this happened 350,000 people had their homes repossessed. Many of them first time buyers who had only just got on the housing ladder. That is what you are wishing on people now.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
90s saw record home ownership gains not losses. Record number of people able to get onto the housing ladder.
What's negative or glib about that?
Ahem.
The 90s saw record home ownership levels, but it did not see a record rise in home ownership.
In the 80s, you sent from 55% to 67%. In the 90s, you went from 67% to around 70%.
Fantastic pedanticbetting, well done.
*bow*
Yes I should have said it saw record levels in home ownership.
So home ownership was rising quickly in the ‘80s and that then slowed right down in the the ‘90s… Doesn’t exactly support an argument that the ‘90s were a great environment for home ownership.
How do you replicate the sale of Council Homes for a second time? 🤦♂️
OK, that explains the ‘80s, but it also explains why home ownership levels were high in the ‘90s, which is counter to your narrative that the economic context at the time was responsible.
Given previous commentary on the Georgia case suggested it was much more complicated than the Federal cases, which will be lucky to begin in early 2024, this seems hugely optimisitc. Fun though.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
I have met incels, there problems are their own, they generally have a shitty attitude to women and believe its a womans job to serve, they generally have also poor hygiene because lack of grooming is somehow manly. Also found most of them cant keep a decent job because their shitty attitude and sense of entitlement is to great and work colleagues won't put up with it.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Absolutely! 10% of 2.2x income is far, far easier to afford than 10% of 6x income.
Which is why the 90s saw the lowest rate ever recorded of people unable to afford their own home. And people call that "miserable". 🤦♂️
No, affordability has 2 factors. The purchase price and the cost of borrowing.
If the price has dropped 30% but the interest rate has doubled, then affordability has not improved.
What happened after the negative equity of the early nineties was a sharp drop in interest rates, creating ideal conditions for affordability.
At the moment we have falling house prices and rising interest rates. Due to the prevalence of 2 year plus fixes those rising rates are on a time delay, but a significant drag on affordability for some time yet, and we probably haven't seen the peak yet.
Yes indeed and you were incredibly fortunate to be a first time buyer when you were, which is why you like most of your peers were able to do so.
Unlike the generation that came after you.
If you think its miserable to save a 10% deposit at 2.2x income, just imagine how miserable it is to save a 10% deposit at 6x income.
Which is why fewer people than ever before were unable to afford a home in the 90s. And more and more people have been unable to do so since.
Saving for a deposit at 6x income is far more miserable than doing so at 2.2x income.
No, I was a FTB in 1992, sold in 1996 at the same price. The house I bought second doubled in price in 5 years, which was crazy.
I was an FTB in 1989. Had to give my half of the house to my ex-partner at he end of 1990 when we split and the £40,000 we had paid was only worth £30,000.
I bought my first property in 1995 having rented for a decade after leaving home. I bought new and got a £3k discount to avoid paying stamp duty. I sold a decade later with the property going for 250% of what I originally paid - there aren't many investments that more than double in barely a decade.
Those who bought in the late 60s and particularly the mid 70s did so miuch better.
I believe prices increased 46 fold between 1948 and 2022 - my parents' house value appreciated by 45 times between 1967 and 2000 - no wonder people considered bricks and mortar the ultimate hedge against inflation.
When you consider many (by no means all) older people today they have benefitted from runaway asset inflation even though the rate on savings has been poor for a generation.
Yep, as I say I am not disputing the problem, nor the need for something to happen to try to deal with it. I am just disputing the idea that a cash in prices will help people get on the property ladder. It may well have exactly the opoosite effect.
Is it viable for the GIvernment to interfear with the market and put a cap on house price inflation? I am not asking if it is desirable or politcially expedient, just whether it is actually possible? No increase in prices above 1% below wage inflation for 20 years.
Maintaining at inflation is fine for avoiding a problem when there is none, but it doesn't fix the problem that already exists. Prices ought to halve in real terms, so how do we get there?
Yes price falls have negative consequences but it's still the least worst option to get to a healthy rate.
Would you advise a 24 stone individual to only gain a couple more pounds a year? Or to lose weight?
If rapid weight loss caused issues for the body (as it does) then the 'cure' would be as bad as the problem.
But it is a stupid analogy because what you are suggesting is the equivalent of one of those fad diets that doesn't actually solve the problem. As I say, putting people a third of the mortgaged homeowners into negative equity as hapend in the last big crash means the housing market grinds to halt. And builders stop biulding - as happened last time and is starting to happen now. A First Time Buyer can't buy a house if there are no houses for sale.
Oh and the last time this happened 350,000 people had their homes repossessed. Many of them first time buyers who had only just got on the housing ladder. That is what you are wishing on people now.
New house construction was actually higher in the 90s when we had a proper correction than in the 2010s when we had endless schemes to prop up the market.
They need to not just go for the small fry but go for the money.
Hopefully, these individuals will facilitate that if they don't want porridge at His Majesty's Pleasure.
If they are indeed guilty it shows the dangers of hubris - I don't think anyone thinks things are squeaky clean in development, but be too brazen in your actions and the authorities will bestir themselves.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
It's what Jesus* would have wanted.
* Under some readings of the Bible
Under some readings he's on board with slavery and mass murder, people can be real creative in interpreting what most of the time seems like pretty solid messaging.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
It's what Jesus* would have wanted.
* Under some readings of the Bible
Under some readings he's on board with slavery and mass murder, people can be real creative in interpreting what most of the time seems like pretty solid messaging.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Absolutely! 10% of 2.2x income is far, far easier to afford than 10% of 6x income.
Which is why the 90s saw the lowest rate ever recorded of people unable to afford their own home. And people call that "miserable". 🤦♂️
No, affordability has 2 factors. The purchase price and the cost of borrowing.
If the price has dropped 30% but the interest rate has doubled, then affordability has not improved.
What happened after the negative equity of the early nineties was a sharp drop in interest rates, creating ideal conditions for affordability.
At the moment we have falling house prices and rising interest rates. Due to the prevalence of 2 year plus fixes those rising rates are on a time delay, but a significant drag on affordability for some time yet, and we probably haven't seen the peak yet.
Yes indeed and you were incredibly fortunate to be a first time buyer when you were, which is why you like most of your peers were able to do so.
Unlike the generation that came after you.
If you think its miserable to save a 10% deposit at 2.2x income, just imagine how miserable it is to save a 10% deposit at 6x income.
Which is why fewer people than ever before were unable to afford a home in the 90s. And more and more people have been unable to do so since.
Saving for a deposit at 6x income is far more miserable than doing so at 2.2x income.
No, I was a FTB in 1992, sold in 1996 at the same price. The house I bought second doubled in price in 5 years, which was crazy.
I was an FTB in 1989. Had to give my half of the house to my ex-partner at he end of 1990 when we split and the £40,000 we had paid was only worth £30,000.
I bought my first property in 1995 having rented for a decade after leaving home. I bought new and got a £3k discount to avoid paying stamp duty. I sold a decade later with the property going for 250% of what I originally paid - there aren't many investments that more than double in barely a decade.
Those who bought in the late 60s and particularly the mid 70s did so miuch better.
I believe prices increased 46 fold between 1948 and 2022 - my parents' house value appreciated by 45 times between 1967 and 2000 - no wonder people considered bricks and mortar the ultimate hedge against inflation.
When you consider many (by no means all) older people today they have benefitted from runaway asset inflation even though the rate on savings has been poor for a generation.
Yep, as I say I am not disputing the problem, nor the need for something to happen to try to deal with it. I am just disputing the idea that a cash in prices will help people get on the property ladder. It may well have exactly the opoosite effect.
Is it viable for the GIvernment to interfear with the market and put a cap on house price inflation? I am not asking if it is desirable or politcially expedient, just whether it is actually possible? No increase in prices above 1% below wage inflation for 20 years.
The argument goes building a lot more properties (houses for some, flats where I am) will improve the demand side of the supply vs demand equation and lead to a stabilisation in prices.
I'm not convinced either - there is always demand for property in London though as much for renting as for owner occupation (and those putting forward the argument for more properties often forget there is a demand for quality rented property - the political argument for home ownership is well known).
I do wonder who buys these properties and to what extent a smallish (numerically) group of property owners with multiple properties (obviously not all under one person) control the market. In East Ham, houses are built to be knocked into maisonettes by landlords who can quickly recoup the capital cost of the building works from rental income.
Perhaps we should crack down on multiple property ownerships - I'm not sure how.
Sean Dyche may not be able to buy new players before the transfer window closes next week after the collapse of talks over potential new investment in Everton.
In an alarming development for the club’s short-term financial security, the American investment firm, MSP Sports Capital, has withdrawn from a deal in which it would have taken a 25 per cent interest from the majority shareholder, Farhad Moshiri.
With serious talks in progress for most of the year, and a deal apparently imminent in May when the Everton board underwent a significant reshuffle in readiness, it was hoped that the cash injection would provide funds to significantly bolster a squad that only avoided relegation from the Premier League on the final day of last season.
Instead, Everton’s cash-flow problems have led to them seeking loan signings and creative repayment structures to fund transfers.
It is understood, for example, that a move for Leeds United’s £40 million-valued forward Wilfried Gnonto collapsed precisely because the selling club would not accept Everton’s payment schedule. A bid for the Southampton forward Che Adams, for a reported £12 million, is proving similarly complicated to finalise, a point conceded by Dyche, the Everton manager, when explaining the delay in new signings arriving at Goodison Park.
Science on Trial sounds like those idiots who denied Covid-19 and wanted Chris Whitty put on trial.
upporters of serial killer Lucy Letby have launched an appeal to fund her defence calling the nurse’s trial the “greatest miscarriage of justice that the UK has ever witnessed”.
Letby, who was sentenced to a whole life order for the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of six others, has the right to appeal her life term but her lawyers have so far not indicated they will.
Despite this, a campaign calling itself Science on Trial is putting forward arguments questioning expert witness accounts and forensic evidence believing the killer nurse did not get a fair trial.
Its founder Sarrita Adams, a scientific consultant for biotech start-ups in California, says she has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University, but, according to her LinkedIn profile, she appears not to have worked as a scientist since then.
“Through fundraising, researching, and legal assistance, we aim to ensure that Lucy Letby can have a fair trial where scientific evidence is reliable,” her website states.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Absolutely! 10% of 2.2x income is far, far easier to afford than 10% of 6x income.
Which is why the 90s saw the lowest rate ever recorded of people unable to afford their own home. And people call that "miserable". 🤦♂️
No, affordability has 2 factors. The purchase price and the cost of borrowing.
If the price has dropped 30% but the interest rate has doubled, then affordability has not improved.
What happened after the negative equity of the early nineties was a sharp drop in interest rates, creating ideal conditions for affordability.
At the moment we have falling house prices and rising interest rates. Due to the prevalence of 2 year plus fixes those rising rates are on a time delay, but a significant drag on affordability for some time yet, and we probably haven't seen the peak yet.
Yes indeed and you were incredibly fortunate to be a first time buyer when you were, which is why you like most of your peers were able to do so.
Unlike the generation that came after you.
If you think its miserable to save a 10% deposit at 2.2x income, just imagine how miserable it is to save a 10% deposit at 6x income.
Which is why fewer people than ever before were unable to afford a home in the 90s. And more and more people have been unable to do so since.
Saving for a deposit at 6x income is far more miserable than doing so at 2.2x income.
No, I was a FTB in 1992, sold in 1996 at the same price. The house I bought second doubled in price in 5 years, which was crazy.
I was an FTB in 1989. Had to give my half of the house to my ex-partner at he end of 1990 when we split and the £40,000 we had paid was only worth £30,000.
I bought my first property in 1995 having rented for a decade after leaving home. I bought new and got a £3k discount to avoid paying stamp duty. I sold a decade later with the property going for 250% of what I originally paid - there aren't many investments that more than double in barely a decade.
Those who bought in the late 60s and particularly the mid 70s did so miuch better.
I believe prices increased 46 fold between 1948 and 2022 - my parents' house value appreciated by 45 times between 1967 and 2000 - no wonder people considered bricks and mortar the ultimate hedge against inflation.
When you consider many (by no means all) older people today they have benefitted from runaway asset inflation even though the rate on savings has been poor for a generation.
Yep, as I say I am not disputing the problem, nor the need for something to happen to try to deal with it. I am just disputing the idea that a cash in prices will help people get on the property ladder. It may well have exactly the opoosite effect.
Is it viable for the GIvernment to interfear with the market and put a cap on house price inflation? I am not asking if it is desirable or politcially expedient, just whether it is actually possible? No increase in prices above 1% below wage inflation for 20 years.
Maintaining at inflation is fine for avoiding a problem when there is none, but it doesn't fix the problem that already exists. Prices ought to halve in real terms, so how do we get there?
Yes price falls have negative consequences but it's still the least worst option to get to a healthy rate.
Would you advise a 24 stone individual to only gain a couple more pounds a year? Or to lose weight?
If rapid weight loss caused issues for the body (as it does) then the 'cure' would be as bad as the problem.
But it is a stupid analogy because what you are suggesting is the equivalent of one of those fad diets that doesn't actually solve the problem. As I say, putting people a third of the mortgaged homeowners into negative equity as hapend in the last big crash means the housing market grinds to halt. And builders stop biulding - as happened last time and is starting to happen now. A First Time Buyer can't buy a house if there are no houses for sale.
Oh and the last time this happened 350,000 people had their homes repossessed. Many of them first time buyers who had only just got on the housing ladder. That is what you are wishing on people now.
New house construction was actually higher in the 90s when we had a proper correction than in the 2010s when we had endless schemes to prop up the market.
The propping up of the market was equally bad I agree. But what can't be denied is the 1990s drop in value caused a notable drop in building. Exactly the opposite of what we need now. Especially when added to the fact that a lot fewer of the existing building stock was being sold.
Science on Trial sounds like those idiots who denied Covid-19 and wanted Chris Whitty put on trial.
upporters of serial killer Lucy Letby have launched an appeal to fund her defence calling the nurse’s trial the “greatest miscarriage of justice that the UK has ever witnessed”.
Letby, who was sentenced to a whole life order for the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of six others, has the right to appeal her life term but her lawyers have so far not indicated they will.
Despite this, a campaign calling itself Science on Trial is putting forward arguments questioning expert witness accounts and forensic evidence believing the killer nurse did not get a fair trial.
Its founder Sarrita Adams, a scientific consultant for biotech start-ups in California, says she has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University, but, according to her LinkedIn profile, she appears not to have worked as a scientist since then.
“Through fundraising, researching, and legal assistance, we aim to ensure that Lucy Letby can have a fair trial where scientific evidence is reliable,” her website states.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
I have met incels, there problems are their own, they generally have a shitty attitude to women and believe its a womans job to serve, they generally have also poor hygiene because lack of grooming is somehow manly. Also found most of them cant keep a decent job because their shitty attitude and sense of entitlement is to great and work colleagues won't put up with it.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that, Thatcher managed to be married without divorce with children and be UK PM for 11 years. Yet 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
It's what Jesus* would have wanted.
* Under some readings of the Bible
'4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who [a]made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19&version=NKJV
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
90s saw record home ownership gains not losses. Record number of people able to get onto the housing ladder.
What's negative or glib about that?
Ahem.
The 90s saw record home ownership levels, but it did not see a record rise in home ownership.
In the 80s, you sent from 55% to 67%. In the 90s, you went from 67% to around 70%.
Fantastic pedanticbetting, well done.
*bow*
Yes I should have said it saw record levels in home ownership.
So home ownership was rising quickly in the ‘80s and that then slowed right down in the the ‘90s… Doesn’t exactly support an argument that the ‘90s were a great environment for home ownership.
How do you replicate the sale of Council Homes for a second time? 🤦♂️
OK, that explains the ‘80s, but it also explains why home ownership levels were high in the ‘90s, which is counter to your narrative that the economic context at the time was responsible.
No it doesn't because home ownership rates kept growing through the 90s. To be at a post 80s high and keep growing is fantastic.
But those gains have been reversed in two decades of decline as housing became unaffordable. Low interest rates don't help affordability if you can't get a deposit.
Science on Trial sounds like those idiots who denied Covid-19 and wanted Chris Whitty put on trial.
upporters of serial killer Lucy Letby have launched an appeal to fund her defence calling the nurse’s trial the “greatest miscarriage of justice that the UK has ever witnessed”.
Letby, who was sentenced to a whole life order for the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of six others, has the right to appeal her life term but her lawyers have so far not indicated they will.
Despite this, a campaign calling itself Science on Trial is putting forward arguments questioning expert witness accounts and forensic evidence believing the killer nurse did not get a fair trial.
Its founder Sarrita Adams, a scientific consultant for biotech start-ups in California, says she has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University, but, according to her LinkedIn profile, she appears not to have worked as a scientist since then.
“Through fundraising, researching, and legal assistance, we aim to ensure that Lucy Letby can have a fair trial where scientific evidence is reliable,” her website states.
I have no views about all this - it was a long and complex trial; but one significant thing to note about all this is that the Letby defence called no expert evidence at all to rebut or refute the prosecution case. This will not be an oversight, and there can only be one reason for it - there was none they could call which would assist them.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Absolutely! 10% of 2.2x income is far, far easier to afford than 10% of 6x income.
Which is why the 90s saw the lowest rate ever recorded of people unable to afford their own home. And people call that "miserable". 🤦♂️
No, affordability has 2 factors. The purchase price and the cost of borrowing.
If the price has dropped 30% but the interest rate has doubled, then affordability has not improved.
What happened after the negative equity of the early nineties was a sharp drop in interest rates, creating ideal conditions for affordability.
At the moment we have falling house prices and rising interest rates. Due to the prevalence of 2 year plus fixes those rising rates are on a time delay, but a significant drag on affordability for some time yet, and we probably haven't seen the peak yet.
Yes indeed and you were incredibly fortunate to be a first time buyer when you were, which is why you like most of your peers were able to do so.
Unlike the generation that came after you.
If you think its miserable to save a 10% deposit at 2.2x income, just imagine how miserable it is to save a 10% deposit at 6x income.
Which is why fewer people than ever before were unable to afford a home in the 90s. And more and more people have been unable to do so since.
Saving for a deposit at 6x income is far more miserable than doing so at 2.2x income.
No, I was a FTB in 1992, sold in 1996 at the same price. The house I bought second doubled in price in 5 years, which was crazy.
I was an FTB in 1989. Had to give my half of the house to my ex-partner at he end of 1990 when we split and the £40,000 we had paid was only worth £30,000.
I bought my first property in 1995 having rented for a decade after leaving home. I bought new and got a £3k discount to avoid paying stamp duty. I sold a decade later with the property going for 250% of what I originally paid - there aren't many investments that more than double in barely a decade.
Those who bought in the late 60s and particularly the mid 70s did so miuch better.
I believe prices increased 46 fold between 1948 and 2022 - my parents' house value appreciated by 45 times between 1967 and 2000 - no wonder people considered bricks and mortar the ultimate hedge against inflation.
When you consider many (by no means all) older people today they have benefitted from runaway asset inflation even though the rate on savings has been poor for a generation.
Yep, as I say I am not disputing the problem, nor the need for something to happen to try to deal with it. I am just disputing the idea that a cash in prices will help people get on the property ladder. It may well have exactly the opoosite effect.
Is it viable for the GIvernment to interfear with the market and put a cap on house price inflation? I am not asking if it is desirable or politcially expedient, just whether it is actually possible? No increase in prices above 1% below wage inflation for 20 years.
Maintaining at inflation is fine for avoiding a problem when there is none, but it doesn't fix the problem that already exists. Prices ought to halve in real terms, so how do we get there?
Yes price falls have negative consequences but it's still the least worst option to get to a healthy rate.
Would you advise a 24 stone individual to only gain a couple more pounds a year? Or to lose weight?
If rapid weight loss caused issues for the body (as it does) then the 'cure' would be as bad as the problem.
But it is a stupid analogy because what you are suggesting is the equivalent of one of those fad diets that doesn't actually solve the problem. As I say, putting people a third of the mortgaged homeowners into negative equity as hapend in the last big crash means the housing market grinds to halt. And builders stop biulding - as happened last time and is starting to happen now. A First Time Buyer can't buy a house if there are no houses for sale.
Oh and the last time this happened 350,000 people had their homes repossessed. Many of them first time buyers who had only just got on the housing ladder. That is what you are wishing on people now.
New house construction was actually higher in the 90s when we had a proper correction than in the 2010s when we had endless schemes to prop up the market.
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I have to say travelling through Waterloo and Bank three days this week the "suits" are a minority these days. I'm not saying everyone is turning up in jeans - far from it - but hybrid working patterns have moved into hybrid dress codes. Smart casual rather than business formal - it's the new way, embrace it.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Absolutely! 10% of 2.2x income is far, far easier to afford than 10% of 6x income.
Which is why the 90s saw the lowest rate ever recorded of people unable to afford their own home. And people call that "miserable". 🤦♂️
No, affordability has 2 factors. The purchase price and the cost of borrowing.
If the price has dropped 30% but the interest rate has doubled, then affordability has not improved.
What happened after the negative equity of the early nineties was a sharp drop in interest rates, creating ideal conditions for affordability.
At the moment we have falling house prices and rising interest rates. Due to the prevalence of 2 year plus fixes those rising rates are on a time delay, but a significant drag on affordability for some time yet, and we probably haven't seen the peak yet.
Yes indeed and you were incredibly fortunate to be a first time buyer when you were, which is why you like most of your peers were able to do so.
Unlike the generation that came after you.
If you think its miserable to save a 10% deposit at 2.2x income, just imagine how miserable it is to save a 10% deposit at 6x income.
Which is why fewer people than ever before were unable to afford a home in the 90s. And more and more people have been unable to do so since.
Saving for a deposit at 6x income is far more miserable than doing so at 2.2x income.
No, I was a FTB in 1992, sold in 1996 at the same price. The house I bought second doubled in price in 5 years, which was crazy.
The fact you could afford a property in 1992 puts you instantly ahead of most young people in recent decades.
Better than being stuck renting in 1992 and still stuck renting in 1996 which is what many face at 6x multiple rather than your 2x
Depends where you lived. The East Midlands were notably cheap at that time, as I recall a friend there commenting whgen he moved to the university quarter in Leicester.
They still are, relatively. I paid £42 000 for a 2 bed terraced in fashionable Clarendon Park in 1992.
Inflation would put that at £111 000 in current money. The same houses are now about £220 000 now, so doubled over inflation, but probably good value still nationally, and still a lovely place to live. Fox Jr lives there in a house eerily similar to the one he was born in.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
It's what Jesus* would have wanted.
* Under some readings of the Bible
Under some readings he's on board with slavery and mass murder, people can be real creative in interpreting what most of the time seems like pretty solid messaging.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
It's what Jesus* would have wanted.
* Under some readings of the Bible
'4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who [a]made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19&version=NKJV
Not a valid source. Dodgy translation. Spooner would not approve.
Science on Trial sounds like those idiots who denied Covid-19 and wanted Chris Whitty put on trial.
upporters of serial killer Lucy Letby have launched an appeal to fund her defence calling the nurse’s trial the “greatest miscarriage of justice that the UK has ever witnessed”.
Letby, who was sentenced to a whole life order for the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of six others, has the right to appeal her life term but her lawyers have so far not indicated they will.
Despite this, a campaign calling itself Science on Trial is putting forward arguments questioning expert witness accounts and forensic evidence believing the killer nurse did not get a fair trial.
Its founder Sarrita Adams, a scientific consultant for biotech start-ups in California, says she has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University, but, according to her LinkedIn profile, she appears not to have worked as a scientist since then.
“Through fundraising, researching, and legal assistance, we aim to ensure that Lucy Letby can have a fair trial where scientific evidence is reliable,” her website states.
Science on Trial sounds like those idiots who denied Covid-19 and wanted Chris Whitty put on trial.
upporters of serial killer Lucy Letby have launched an appeal to fund her defence calling the nurse’s trial the “greatest miscarriage of justice that the UK has ever witnessed”.
Letby, who was sentenced to a whole life order for the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of six others, has the right to appeal her life term but her lawyers have so far not indicated they will.
Despite this, a campaign calling itself Science on Trial is putting forward arguments questioning expert witness accounts and forensic evidence believing the killer nurse did not get a fair trial.
Its founder Sarrita Adams, a scientific consultant for biotech start-ups in California, says she has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University, but, according to her LinkedIn profile, she appears not to have worked as a scientist since then.
“Through fundraising, researching, and legal assistance, we aim to ensure that Lucy Letby can have a fair trial where scientific evidence is reliable,” her website states.
I have no views about all this - it was a long and complex trial; but one significant thing to note about all this is that the Letby defence called no expert evidence at all to rebut or refute the prosecution case. This will not be an oversight, and there can only be one reason for it - there was none they could call which would assist them.
That was a really weird aspect of the trial. You’d have expected the defence to have either said she was insane, or that the evidence was rubbish and circumstantial, given that she was obviously looking at a life sentence on conviction - but her defence didn’t bring that up at all.
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I have to say travelling through Waterloo and Bank three days this week the "suits" are a minority these days. I'm not saying everyone is turning up in jeans - far from it - but hybrid working patterns have moved into hybrid dress codes. Smart casual rather than business formal - it's the new way, embrace it.
No. I am one of those minorities in a suit.
Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you should be too.
Science on Trial sounds like those idiots who denied Covid-19 and wanted Chris Whitty put on trial.
upporters of serial killer Lucy Letby have launched an appeal to fund her defence calling the nurse’s trial the “greatest miscarriage of justice that the UK has ever witnessed”.
Letby, who was sentenced to a whole life order for the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of six others, has the right to appeal her life term but her lawyers have so far not indicated they will.
Despite this, a campaign calling itself Science on Trial is putting forward arguments questioning expert witness accounts and forensic evidence believing the killer nurse did not get a fair trial.
Its founder Sarrita Adams, a scientific consultant for biotech start-ups in California, says she has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University, but, according to her LinkedIn profile, she appears not to have worked as a scientist since then.
“Through fundraising, researching, and legal assistance, we aim to ensure that Lucy Letby can have a fair trial where scientific evidence is reliable,” her website states.
I have no views about all this - it was a long and complex trial; but one significant thing to note about all this is that the Letby defence called no expert evidence at all to rebut or refute the prosecution case. This will not be an oversight, and there can only be one reason for it - there was none they could call which would assist them.
Perhaps she had an incompetent defence as Stefan Kiszko.
David Waddington didn't too badly, ended up as Home Secretary.
That case always put a kernel of doubt for all guilty convictions for me.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that, Thatcher managed to be married without divorce with children and be UK PM for 11 years. Yet 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
An ageing population also consists very often of widows and widowers. My father lived for 14 years after my mother passed away and he knew many people of his generation who were living alone following the loss of a wife or husband with whom they had lived for 50 years or more.
It's very hard and there's an argument for downsizing to properties more suited to single elderly people - why aren't we building retirement villages or communities for those who are older, need care and are alone?
I know there's an argument against creating "ghettoes" for retired people and social and communal intermixing has obvious benefits but if all we build are flats for the young and houses for families we forget a key part of our population.
As always with housing, it's a nuanced and multi layered problem and defies simple or simplistic solutions.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
So what, if women are happier staying single than settling for someone they don't find satisfactory its none of mine, yours or the governements business. Your attitude reeks of "lie back and think of england". I am sure a lot of guys prefer to stay single too rather than settle for a woman they find unsatisfying....I don't see you criticising them. I am a perfect example of that I havent dated in most of the last 17 years not because of not having opportunities but because I didn't find the women in question anything like someone I wanted to spend time with....but to you its all womens fault and they should suck it up.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
I have met incels, there problems are their own, they generally have a shitty attitude to women and believe its a womans job to serve, they generally have also poor hygiene because lack of grooming is somehow manly. Also found most of them cant keep a decent job because their shitty attitude and sense of entitlement is to great and work colleagues won't put up with it.
Exactly.
Step number one of getting into a good relationship is sorting your own shit out. Get a decent job, look after yourself and treat women (or men) as equals rather than objects.
Instead their attitude towards women is reminiscent of the average 14-year old at an all boys school towards girls. Like a foreign species
Science on Trial sounds like those idiots who denied Covid-19 and wanted Chris Whitty put on trial.
upporters of serial killer Lucy Letby have launched an appeal to fund her defence calling the nurse’s trial the “greatest miscarriage of justice that the UK has ever witnessed”.
Letby, who was sentenced to a whole life order for the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of six others, has the right to appeal her life term but her lawyers have so far not indicated they will.
Despite this, a campaign calling itself Science on Trial is putting forward arguments questioning expert witness accounts and forensic evidence believing the killer nurse did not get a fair trial.
Its founder Sarrita Adams, a scientific consultant for biotech start-ups in California, says she has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University, but, according to her LinkedIn profile, she appears not to have worked as a scientist since then.
“Through fundraising, researching, and legal assistance, we aim to ensure that Lucy Letby can have a fair trial where scientific evidence is reliable,” her website states.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
It's what Jesus* would have wanted.
* Under some readings of the Bible
'4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who [a]made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19&version=NKJV
I interpret that passage as meaning "thou shall not cock block"
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that, Thatcher managed to be married without divorce with children and be UK PM for 11 years. Yet 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
An ageing population also consists very often of widows and widowers. My father lived for 14 years after my mother passed away and he knew many people of his generation who were living alone following the loss of a wife or husband with whom they had lived for 50 years or more.
It's very hard and there's an argument for downsizing to properties more suited to single elderly people - why aren't we building retirement villages or communities for those who are older, need care and are alone?
I know there's an argument against creating "ghettoes" for retired people and social and communal intermixing has obvious benefits but if all we build are flats for the young and houses for families we forget a key part of our population.
As always with housing, it's a nuanced and multi layered problem and defies simple or simplistic solutions.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
People have always wanted gods and goddesses for partners since Ug went out with his club to find Ugina.
This has no bearing on who they eventually decide to marry. What has a greater bearing is the number of mentally adolescent males who seem to think a partner is a right rather than a privilege and who make no effort to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
Perfect would be house prices to rise below the rate of increase in incomes (if any).
There's nothing perfect about a market in which prices never fall.
I mean in terms of letting the air out of the housing bubble without negative equity and people running around screaming.
People would be running around screaming about inflation anyway in your scenario and at the margins it would still mean some people would suffer financially.
Who would be suffering financially, if their house price goes up slowly or not at all?
Tenants who can't afford a deposit without house price falls.
One of the most difficult things during the slump in house prices in the early nineties was that deposits had to be bigger. Mortgages were limited to those with 10-15% of the asking price rather than 5% as lenders feared further drops. The rates offered to those with bigger deposits were far better too.
If the house price is lower, but the deposit is twice as big, then being an FTB becomes an impossible step.
Those of us who are actually old enough to remember know how painful it was.
10% of less is better than 10% of more.
Calling it painful is just false compared to what people have had to do in recent years.
What you underwent was much, much less painful than those failing to do so in recent years, which is why more people got on the ladder in your day than recently.
No one was getting on the ladder in the early 90s. And fewer people were getting on the ladder in the later 90s than in the 80s.
Like so many of your 'solutions' to problems you simply don't understand how people or the systems work.
People who already got on the ladder in the 80s only had to stay on the ladder. In the 90s, more were able to do so, rather than less in subsequent decades.
The 1990s saw fewer people being unable to get on the ladder than ever before or since. Which yes is including the 80s or the time since. Which is unsurprising, because homes were affordable.
And yet as you have admitted after Robert corrected you, fewer people, got on the ladder in the 90s than had in the 80s.
Because they were already on the ladder, yes.
People who got on the ladder in the 1980s didn't fall off it in the 1990s.
The 1990s meant that people who couldn't get on the ladder in the 1980s, were able to then instead. It was even better than the 80s because it was a step up from what was already a high to an even better high of home ownership.
Instead since then we've had continuous regression.
So the rate of people getting on the property ladder dropped. There were fewer FTB than there would have been if the rates had continued from the 1980s. And you think that was a good thing?
Its a view I suppose
Of course, people who'd already bought in the 1980s couldn't be FTB a second time in the 1990s. The 1980s was exceptional as Council Houses being sold off was a one-off, people who bought then for the first time couldn't redo the first time purchase again ten years later.
People who're already on the property ladder aren't the issue, unless for some reason they can't afford to keep their home, the issue is the ones who aren't.
The figure to look at is how many people can't afford a home. And that was lower in the 1990s than the 1980s or any other time before or since.
THere are always new first time buyers - at least as long as people still have babies. But if 100 people can get on tghe poperty ladder in the 1980s and only 50 people can get on the property ladder in the 1990s when the same number of people want to do so then that is a problem. Overall you still have more people as homeowners but the rate at which this happens has reduced.
This all stems from your inability to read data and thinking that an increasae in absolute numbers is the same as an increase in the rate. It is the debt/deficit argument in a different form.
You are absolutely right there is an issue with falling home ownership at present. But your 'solution' won't work. It will just make matters worse.
If you want to be radical (and a bit communist) then get the Government to pass a law that house prices cannot increase by any more than 1% below the rate of wage inflation. The housing market won't suddenly dry up but houses will get cheaper for first time buyers relative to their pay.
Affordability works. Your incomprehension is coming from a failure to realise that the 1980s was sui generis due to the sale of Council Houses. Yes if the 11% rise of the 80s had continued in the 90s it would have been better, but it is also completely infeasible and unrealistic.
Reductio ad absurdum keeping that as a baseline then by now we should be your logic have over 100% home ownership now had it continued from 90s to today at 80s rates. Obviously that's completely impossible.
Any gain in share from a high is good. Any decline in share is bad.
And your proposals would cause a further decline in share. It doesn't matter how cheap houses are if no one is willing to sell them. And people will not sell at a loss. This is what happened in the ealy 90s. Fewer sales and fewer houses being built.
Bart is too young to remember, while we and @DavidL are not. He has the advantage of just Bartsplaining to people who were there what it was like
Yeah a group of people explaining how "difficult" it was when they first bought their home ... when most young people today find it impossible to do so.
That's not explaining what it's like Foxy, that's a 4 Yorkshiremen sketch.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
So what, if women are happier staying single than settling for someone they don't find satisfactory its none of mine, yours or the governements business. Your attitude reeks of "lie back and think of england". I am sure a lot of guys prefer to stay single too rather than settle for a woman they find unsatisfying....I don't see you criticising them. I am a perfect example of that I havent dated in most of the last 17 years not because of not having opportunities but because I didn't find the women in question anything like someone I wanted to spend time with....but to you its all womens fault and they should suck it up.
Unfortunate wording. Not the approved technique, I understand, amongst a certain mentality.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
Good old HYUFD.
It's 99% trite and boring remarks on by-elections under Anthony Eden or whatever, and 1% mind-blowing bollocks.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that, Thatcher managed to be married without divorce with children and be UK PM for 11 years. Yet 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
An ageing population also consists very often of widows and widowers. My father lived for 14 years after my mother passed away and he knew many people of his generation who were living alone following the loss of a wife or husband with whom they had lived for 50 years or more.
It's very hard and there's an argument for downsizing to properties more suited to single elderly people - why aren't we building retirement villages or communities for those who are older, need care and are alone?
I know there's an argument against creating "ghettoes" for retired people and social and communal intermixing has obvious benefits but if all we build are flats for the young and houses for families we forget a key part of our population.
As always with housing, it's a nuanced and multi layered problem and defies simple or simplistic solutions.
Yes but most widows and widowers still have living children.
Nothing wrong with retirement communities I agree, Florida and Spain have masses of them
Going to the barbers for the first time since February 2020 tomorrow. Started doing a buzz cut with clippers in lockdown and been doing it ever since, but I fancy a change. So to Apache Pete’s it is, for a short back and sides and not a lot to do on top yet cos it’s only about half an inch long.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
Foxjr hasn't had his hair cut since before lockdown, including by himself. He wears it as a "man bun" professionally. How the world of law has changed. It seems not to be an issue at his firm.
Good for him. I’m a big fan of the post-Covid wear-what-the-hell-you-want thing some of us a fortunate to enjoy.
I'm the opposite. Slovenly dress now with trainers and all sorts. Suit is far more professional.
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
I have to say travelling through Waterloo and Bank three days this week the "suits" are a minority these days. I'm not saying everyone is turning up in jeans - far from it - but hybrid working patterns have moved into hybrid dress codes. Smart casual rather than business formal - it's the new way, embrace it.
No. I am one of those minorities in a suit.
Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you should be too.
It’s good fun to not shave or get a haircut for a month - that’s what I look like now - but it’s also good to put on the suit and get on the train to the CIty. I imagine that a lot of tailors are having a bad time of it at the moment. Dockers and Ralph Lauren are probably doing well though, on the ‘smart casual’ slacks and polo shirts.
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
See mu post re the Graun article.
And I thought you approved of religious communities? Anglican nunneries such as the Clewer sisters?
Just had coffee with an old mate. He's a proper time served chippy who has a great reputation and sub contracts out to the big local builders. The site he's on now has just got rid of most of its subs, including him ( he actually offered to go, he's well off enough to retire and was going to get off the tools next year anyway). The building firm are scaling back all their sites as they see a drastic drop in the number of buyers looming. We've just made an offer on a house at 15% below the "Offers in excess of" price. The estate agent wasn't happy to take it to the seller, but the house has been on RightMove for ages, along with about half a million others! We're in no rush...
I'm sticking with my prediction. Property down 20% peak to trough in absolute terms.
You are such a gloom merchant
Indeed but for good reason.
A 50% trough would bring prices back in line better with historical standards and more like the much better 90s housing market that saw record numbers owning their own home, but unfortunately a 20% fall is about as good as we can hope for given the chronic shortage of housing.
50% would be catastrophic. How would people remortgage ? Everyone would be on about base +3 or 4 !
He doesn't care, in the same way as he didn't care about businesses that were fucked by Brexit and people that died in the pandemic. He is fundamentally a lazy selfish git.
I care about the people trapped unable to afford a house because of the absurdly high prices today. Which isn't me, I have one.
I couldn't care less if I end up in negative equity. Still better off than renting and it will make houses affordable for those younger and poorer than me. Good for them.
Those who remember negative equity in the nineties wouldn't be so glib.
What we need isn't so much a house price fall, it is for take home income to increase.
There will be some immediate losers, such as those who were first time buyers a few years ago and now can't afford SVR rates and have to be repossessed. I have sympathy for many of those people, but I have costed all my mortgages over the years on what would happen if rates went up a few %.
I have no sympathy for people that the press keep finding with houses bought in 2002 still with several hundred thousand outstanding, i.e. more than the value of the house when bought originally. If you haven't almost paid it off by now then tough.
There will be some people on negative equity who can afford the payments who are unable to move, which is a problem if you want to move location for work.
But a lot of people will be like I was in 1990, with property prices still well out of reach, sitting on my hands waiting for property to fall further. I, and almost all my friends, bought in 1993 once it bottomed out. Where I was at the time there was a fall of about 30%.
I've just looked at the Zoopla valuation of my first flat. I bought it when it was just over double my earnings - it is now at 2.5 times my current earnings, despite multiple promotions since then. (The previous owners had paid over 3.5 times my salary at the time, at the peak of the market - I would estimate based on similar second jobs post Uni now it's valued at 5-6 times salary)
So a long correction to go - though like others I don't think it will dip as far in real terms as in 1990.
You are ignoring the fact that when people move into negative equity the housing market stops working. This is exacly what happened in the early 90s. Anyone who didn't absolutey have to move didn't. And the builders stopped building as no one was willing to buy houses either because they were spooked.
If your house is worth less than you owe on your mortgage then you don't sell. It is that basic. The only way any houses were moved was either by people who were forced to move or by repossesions.
So first time buyers are still screwed.
Those of us who were FTB in the early nineties understand. It was a miserable and difficult time. Sure, things got better second half of the nineties.
It's much better to be a FTB when prices are below this line than when they are above it.
Albeit this is complicated by the fact that - because people buy on affordability - prices will tend to rise when interest rates are low, and to fall when they are high.
In the first half of the 90s, interest rates were much higher than - for example - in the first half of the 2000s.
Yes, but you're in a much better position for a given monthly mortgage payment if the principal is smaller and the interest rate is higher because:
- Interest rate movements are more likely to be in your favour - Overpayments have more impact so it's easier to pay off the mortgage sooner - Higher general inflation means pay rises erode the debt burden
I don't disagree with any of that, it is indisputably better to buy when interest rates are high and price-to-earnings are low.
HOWEVER, there are other things at work here. For a start, high interest rates and falling property prices tend to discourage new house building. Through the 1980s, house building levels rose, reaching 240,000 in 1989.
The early 1990s, which were such a great time to buy, were at least partially such a great time to buy because the recession and property price drop caused building levels to drop dramatically, falling to 170,000 in 1992.
In other words: those high interest rates are great for people who can afford to buy, but if they discourage new building, then they worsen housing availability later.
You can add an additional factor of immigration. It's not much help having, say, 10% additional building if it's outpaced by additional demand caused by immigration.
Oh yeah: you can add lots of new factors:
For example, single unmarried households under the age of 60. They used to be almost unknown, as people went from their parent's home to marriage. Now there are lots of single person households. If all those people were married (and therefore sharing a home), it would make a massive difference to overall housing demand.
Or divorce.
The rise in the number of divorces since the 1960s has created lots of demand for new housing. Now mum and dad both need a home. And you need kids bedrooms in both places.
Yes, clearly if more British under 60s were strict Roman Catholics, evangelicals or Orthodox Jews or conservative Muslims we would have lower divorce rates, higher marriage rates and probably higher birth rates too and many of our housing shortage problems and our pensioner heavy population demographics would be resolved
If religion is the answer you are asking the wrong question
No I am not, where are the nations with the youngest populations and highest birthrates and high marriage rates? Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia which also happen to be the most religious nations on earth.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
You only think that because you think its a bad thing. Nowadays women don't have to put up your idiots and can walk away nor do they have to be walking wombs. That is undoubtedly a good thing...the only people who think its bad are the andrew tates of the world, people you seem to side with but I fail to be surprised by that.
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes and declining marriage rates also reflects we also have career women turning down average looking, average earning guys for relationships, family and marriage because they aren't good enough and hence you get more incels and more women ending up spinsters.
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
So much better if they are chained in the kitchen doing what hubby wants.
Nobody is suggesting that but 25% of 40 year old women have never been married or had a civil partnership and that has knock on effects for birth rates and support for an ageing population and means more property needs to be built for the extra singles
So what, they haven't met a guy they like its not a crime or are you suggesting we make it one, now personally as a male I am not surprised they prefer to stay single as to many have attitudes that make you want to vomit. Far too many have the "she is my replacement mum that I can have sex with" mentality
Too many women now want a very handsome man who earns a lot and is a high achiever. That is not realistic, less than 10% of males meet those categories
All women have the right to set whatever standards they want. Whatever makes them happy. 👍
Fine, then when many of them end up childless spinsters that is their own choice.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
Ah so now its women should get married regardless of if they find someone they deem suitable so you can have tax cuts.....you wonder why I think you a despicable human being?
Comments
Reductio ad absurdum keeping that as a baseline then by now we should be your logic have over 100% home ownership now had it continued from 90s to today at 80s rates. Obviously that's completely impossible.
Any gain in share from a high is good. Any decline in share is bad.
Hopefully, these individuals will facilitate that if they don't want porridge at His Majesty's Pleasure.
Personally I am in favour of some modest leaning against the wind on asset prices, and this is by no means a crank view. If they had targeted a broad measure of domestic price inflation like the GDP deflator I think a lot of the pre-GFC problems in the UK and elsewhere could have been avoided.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23745186.jeremy-corbyn-backs-indyref2-says-labour-support/
One of Stodge's political maxims is no matter how extreme a viewpoint, someone will always try to go further. I presume this Ramaswamy sees himself as the next step beyond Trump. His views, as far as I understand them, seem contradictory, inflamatory and just plain daft in equal measure. His sole motivation seems to be to create a political culture and climate which he can exploit to make money for himself and his companies.
I imagine as long as the real band is playing, the tribute won't get a look in.
Bloody annoying.
Taking control from politicians was meant to work to the long-term economic benefit of all - we would have greater stability and certainty in rates and rate setting (via the MPC) was based on sound economic argument rather than political whim or opinion poll rating.
The Co-operative Bank considered closing West’s account during a review of customers with criminal records around a decade ago, it is understood.
However, the murderer of 10 women and girls was allowed to stay on as a customer despite the bank later declining services to a feminist group over its views on transgender issues, and other banks closing accounts belonging to politicians, such as Brexiteer Nigel Farage, over reputational fears.
Bosses at the Co-op, which has the slogan “Ethical then, now and always”, deemed keeping West as a customer carried little risk to the bank’s reputation, it is understood, while drug dealers and gang members were stripped of their accounts.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/rose-west-bank-account-co-op-nigel-farage-natwest/
Better than being stuck renting in 1992 and still stuck renting in 1996 which is what many face at 6x multiple rather than your 2x
Those who bought in the late 60s and particularly the mid 70s did so miuch better.
I believe prices increased 46 fold between 1948 and 2022 - my parents' house value appreciated by 45 times between 1967 and 2000 - no wonder people considered bricks and mortar the ultimate hedge against inflation.
When you consider many (by no means all) older people today they have benefitted from runaway asset inflation even though the rate on savings has been poor for a generation.
I want flaunt my fecund pate. It’ll sicken my mate who has a buzz cut now cos he’s got no choice in the matter anymore. Another mate’s spending £££ on a transplant. I love them both dearly but, y’know, you just gotta do this shit sometimes.
I’ve even ordered some ‘product’ off that Amazon. Pomade. Fancy.
Exciting times. Hope I sleep tonight.
No idea why I’m telling you this.
You're both being unfair to the poor allotmenteer.
Deputy Editor of PB.
Heck, a 50% fall in cost would only bring them down to historical levels. It would take a 70% fall to make them as affordable as it was in 1992.
Is it viable for the GIvernment to interfear with the market and put a cap on house price inflation? I am not asking if it is desirable or politcially expedient, just whether it is actually possible? No increase in prices above 1% below wage inflation for 20 years.
Inflation would put that at £111 000 in current money. The same houses are now about £220 000 now, so doubled over inflation, but probably good value still nationally, and still a lovely place to live. Fox Jr lives there in a house eerily similar to the one he was born in.
Where are the nations with the oldest populations, with low birthrates and low marriage rates? Largely non religious nations like Japan, China, South Korea and most of northern Europe, Australia and New Zealand.
Divorce rates too are far higher in the West now than they were 100 years ago when more were Christian
Speaking as someone of faith, its only purpose is to guide me in my decisions. It is absolutely a shitty way to govern a country.
Yes price falls have negative consequences but it's still the least worst option to get to a healthy rate.
Would you advise a 24 stone individual to only gain a couple more pounds a year? Or to lose weight?
Frequent divorce as pointed out also means more housing needed, more pressure on greenbelt and higher property prices due to increased demand for property and is not as good for children either as the 2 parent live in family
But it is a stupid analogy because what you are suggesting is the equivalent of one of those fad diets that doesn't actually solve the problem. As I say, putting people a third of the mortgaged homeowners into negative equity as hapend in the last big crash means the housing market grinds to halt. And builders stop biulding - as happened last time and is starting to happen now. A First Time Buyer can't buy a house if there are no houses for sale.
Oh and the last time this happened 350,000 people had their homes repossessed. Many of them first time buyers who had only just got on the housing ladder. That is what you are wishing on people now.
Reuters: FULTON COUNTY DA FANI WILLIS PROPOSES OCT 23, 2023 START FOR TRIAL AGAINST TRUMP AND CO-DEFENDANTS -FILING
https://nitter.net/kylegriffin1/status/1694757728768442660#m
* Under some readings of the Bible
I'm not convinced either - there is always demand for property in London though as much for renting as for owner occupation (and those putting forward the argument for more properties often forget there is a demand for quality rented property - the political argument for home ownership is well known).
I do wonder who buys these properties and to what extent a smallish (numerically) group of property owners with multiple properties (obviously not all under one person) control the market. In East Ham, houses are built to be knocked into maisonettes by landlords who can quickly recoup the capital cost of the building works from rental income.
Perhaps we should crack down on multiple property ownerships - I'm not sure how.
Sean Dyche may not be able to buy new players before the transfer window closes next week after the collapse of talks over potential new investment in Everton.
In an alarming development for the club’s short-term financial security, the American investment firm, MSP Sports Capital, has withdrawn from a deal in which it would have taken a 25 per cent interest from the majority shareholder, Farhad Moshiri.
With serious talks in progress for most of the year, and a deal apparently imminent in May when the Everton board underwent a significant reshuffle in readiness, it was hoped that the cash injection would provide funds to significantly bolster a squad that only avoided relegation from the Premier League on the final day of last season.
Instead, Everton’s cash-flow problems have led to them seeking loan signings and creative repayment structures to fund transfers.
It is understood, for example, that a move for Leeds United’s £40 million-valued forward Wilfried Gnonto collapsed precisely because the selling club would not accept Everton’s payment schedule. A bid for the Southampton forward Che Adams, for a reported £12 million, is proving similarly complicated to finalise, a point conceded by Dyche, the Everton manager, when explaining the delay in new signings arriving at Goodison Park.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/everton-unlikely-to-make-new-signings-after-us-investors-withdraw-from-talks-v8b8tth27
*Unless they get a new investor before the January transfer window opens.
upporters of serial killer Lucy Letby have launched an appeal to fund her defence calling the nurse’s trial the “greatest miscarriage of justice that the UK has ever witnessed”.
Letby, who was sentenced to a whole life order for the murder of seven babies and attempted murder of six others, has the right to appeal her life term but her lawyers have so far not indicated they will.
Despite this, a campaign calling itself Science on Trial is putting forward arguments questioning expert witness accounts and forensic evidence believing the killer nurse did not get a fair trial.
Its founder Sarrita Adams, a scientific consultant for biotech start-ups in California, says she has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge University, but, according to her LinkedIn profile, she appears not to have worked as a scientist since then.
“Through fundraising, researching, and legal assistance, we aim to ensure that Lucy Letby can have a fair trial where scientific evidence is reliable,” her website states.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/lucy-letby-legal-defence-appeal-science-on-trial-nurse-killer-b1102723.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/08/24/liverpool-transfer-mohamed-salah-al-ittihad-saudi-arabia/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11779951/The-rise-unmarried-Britain-continues-proportion-adults-never-wed-increases.html
I'd tell him to get his hair cut.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19&version=NKJV
But those gains have been reversed in two decades of decline as housing became unaffordable. Low interest rates don't help affordability if you can't get a deposit.
Low prices make deposits easier.
Just because everyone else is wrong doesn't mean you should be too.
David Waddington didn't too badly, ended up as Home Secretary.
That case always put a kernel of doubt for all guilty convictions for me.
It's very hard and there's an argument for downsizing to properties more suited to single elderly people - why aren't we building retirement villages or communities for those who are older, need care and are alone?
I know there's an argument against creating "ghettoes" for retired people and social and communal intermixing has obvious benefits but if all we build are flats for the young and houses for families we forget a key part of our population.
As always with housing, it's a nuanced and multi layered problem and defies simple or simplistic solutions.
Step number one of getting into a good relationship is sorting your own shit out. Get a decent job, look after yourself and treat women (or men) as equals rather than objects.
Instead their attitude towards women is reminiscent of the average 14-year old at an all boys school towards girls. Like a foreign species
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/aug/24/we-have-brothers-sons-lovers-but-they-cant-live-here-the-happy-home-shared-by-26-women
This was rather jolly - but interesting that they had planning problems.
Nothing will ever beat Ezekiel 23:20.
She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey’s and emissions like those of a horse.
This has no bearing on who they eventually decide to marry. What has a greater bearing is the number of mentally adolescent males who seem to think a partner is a right rather than a privilege and who make no effort to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex.
That's not explaining what it's like Foxy, that's a 4 Yorkshiremen sketch.
Except the smaller percentage of younger people will in turn have to pay higher taxes for their health and social care
Wasn't that also a description of the enemies of the story?
It's 99% trite and boring remarks on by-elections under Anthony Eden or whatever, and 1% mind-blowing bollocks.
Nothing wrong with retirement communities I agree, Florida and Spain have masses of them
And I thought you approved of religious communities? Anglican nunneries such as the Clewer sisters?