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
Username checks out
Not necessarily; many pagans are/were very religious. Hell, they used to teach the doctrines, still do, in the halls of Eton and Balliol.
Especially as IIRC it's defined as someone who is not of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism. Which leaves the Druids, the imperial state religion of Rome, and everyone else.
There is a difference between having faith, which I do and believing its more than a personal guideline on how to live. I believe mine informs me how to live, HYUFD believes his should tell the country how to live
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
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
Some people believe women have a duty to have children.
As a population they do but not as individuals. Ditto with men.
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
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
No, they would also be views held by strict Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims.
Hence Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Roman Catholics have higher marriage and birth rates than the UK average
If you'd like a socially conservative society, can I kindly suggest you convert to Islam and go and live in Saudi Arabia where women can't escape marriage with mediocre men who treat them with no respect.
No I am not suggesting arranged marriages or public beheadings, just support for the traditional family and marriage
Oh, I see. The good old hanging is so much more traditional and suitable.
Oh, that's a definite move from you, then: Scots aren't Brits. "most Scots as well as Brits", you said.
What next, defining Brits as Welsh-speakers?
No, it is a perfect example of how despite whinges from Scots Nats like you that Scotland is a progressive liberal nirvana, it is actually not that different from the rest of the UK on many issues
Last year (to 31/12/22) they had a deficit of £803K following a deficit of over £700K the year before. As a result they are now absolutely insolvent with net assets of (£219K). The central party owes the local parties a share of the membership income which they collect on their behalf. The unpaid share is over £800k. The party has £100k in the bank so I trust that the local treasurers are not holding their breath awaiting payment.
The SNP have therefore burnt through the £600k that they were supposed to be holding in trust for the next referendum, they have burnt through the accumulated reserves of the party and they are only able to operate by failing to pay the money due to their branches as they fall due.
Many have claimed that the SNP is vindictive towards private enterprise and business in Scotland but in fairness these accounts show very clearly that their incompetence is directed at all organisations in the country up to and including themselves. Whelk stalls simply don't come close.
Most interesting is the point that the party received over £500k for Conference Income. It appears that most of this was "donations" by businesses who were then given access to Scottish Ministers to lobby their interests. I think the technical term may be "corrupt".
Marriage has suited Mrs C and myself for 60+ years and seems to have suited our children. One grandchild has followed us, one hasn’t and the rest haven’t got there yet!
And next year my wife and I join you in being married for 60 years.
We have three married children 57 52 and 48, the eldest only marrying in 2015 and has no children, our daughter married in 1998 and has 2 children, and our youngest married in 2021 and has three children 12, 10 and 1
Not sure what @HYUFD would say about our youngest but who cares !!!!
Congratulations to them. I would prefer marriage to come before children but at least they have had children
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
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
Some people believe women have a duty to have children.
Yes and the technical term for those people is knuckle dragging mysogynist arseholes
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
"Childless spinsters"
What a vulgar term. You sound like a bitter old man from some time around 1850.
Many women would prefer not to have children. Some would prefer not to unless they find the right partner. Others choose to have children without a partner.
Frankly it's none of your business. And men with this sort of attitude towards women only increases the number who decide to remain single.
It is indeed a rather primitive term. Back from the good old days before the Married Women's Property Acts. How unreasonable those women were in keeping their own paws on their property and not letting have a husband have 100% rights to their inheritances.
Good evening
Just catching up and frankly @HYUFD views are archaic and frankly insulting to many women
I find it difficult to read some of his prejudices which fortunately are a from a small number of evangelical zealots
No, they would also be views held by strict Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews and religious Muslims.
Hence Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Roman Catholics have higher marriage and birth rates than the UK average
If you'd like a socially conservative society, can I kindly suggest you convert to Islam and go and live in Saudi Arabia where women can't escape marriage with mediocre men who treat them with no respect.
No I am not suggesting arranged marriages or public beheadings, just support for the traditional family and marriage
Oh, I see. The good old hanging is so much more traditional and suitable.
Oh, that's a definite move from you, then: Scots aren't Brits. "most Scots as well as Brits", you said.
What next, defining Brits as Welsh-speakers?
No, it is a perfect example of how despite whinges from Scots Nats like you that Scotland is a progressive liberal nirvana, it is actually not that different from the rest of the UK on many issues
You're just making up bollocks about individuals on PB rather than actually answering.
Vladimir Putin confirms Yevgeny Prigozhin died when the Wagner founder's plane crashed yesterday.
" I knew Prigozhin for a long time, from the early 1990s. He had a difficult path and made serious mistakes in his life. But he got results – for himself, and when I asked him." https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1694744520565354821
Last year (to 31/12/22) they had a deficit of £803K following a deficit of over £700K the year before. As a result they are now absolutely insolvent with net assets of (£219K). The central party owes the local parties a share of the membership income which they collect on their behalf. The unpaid share is over £800k. The party has £100k in the bank so I trust that the local treasurers are not holding their breath awaiting payment.
The SNP have therefore burnt through the £600k that they were supposed to be holding in trust for the next referendum, they have burnt through the accumulated reserves of the party and they are only able to operate by failing to pay the money due to their branches as they fall due.
Many have claimed that the SNP is vindictive towards private enterprise and business in Scotland but in fairness these accounts show very clearly that their incompetence is directed at all organisations in the country up to and including themselves. Whelk stalls simply don't come close.
Most interesting is the point that the party received over £500k for Conference Income. It appears that most of this was "donations" by businesses who were then given access to Scottish Ministers to lobby their interests. I think the technical term may be "corrupt".
Steady!
Edit: Surely they would have to write that campervan off for... reasons? Or perhaps a massive revaluation - would be a fun auction.
There is a reason I didn't make it as an accountant.
Marriage has suited Mrs C and myself for 60+ years and seems to have suited our children. One grandchild has followed us, one hasn’t and the rest haven’t got there yet!
And next year my wife and I join you in being married for 60 years.
We have three married children 57 52 and 48, the eldest only marrying in 2015 and has no children, our daughter married in 1998 and has 2 children, and our youngest married in 2021 and has three children 12, 10 and 1
Not sure what @HYUFD would say about our youngest but who cares !!!!
Congratulations to them. I would prefer marriage to come before children but at least they have had children
"Know ye that the Lord God did NOT marry the mother of his only begotten son!"
Marriage has suited Mrs C and myself for 60+ years and seems to have suited our children. One grandchild has followed us, one hasn’t and the rest haven’t got there yet!
And next year my wife and I join you in being married for 60 years.
We have three married children 57 52 and 48, the eldest only marrying in 2015 and has no children, our daughter married in 1998 and has 2 children, and our youngest married in 2021 and has three children 12, 10 and 1
Not sure what @HYUFD would say about our youngest but who cares !!!!
Congratulations to them. I would prefer marriage to come before children but at least they have had children
"Know ye that the Lord God did NOT marry the mother of his only begotten son!"
Technically however wasnt it an angel that had it away with her so not even gods son he was a beta cuck
Vladimir Putin confirms Yevgeny Prigozhin died when the Wagner founder's plane crashed yesterday.
" I knew Prigozhin for a long time, from the early 1990s. He had a difficult path and made serious mistakes in his life. But he got results – for himself, and when I asked him." https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1694744520565354821
Looks like it's all roses and 🎻 for Prigozhin judging by Grey Zone telegram channel. Вагнер воевал молча, а погиб «музыкант» под «Полёт Валькирий»
Haley I see carefully positioned herself as the most moderate candidate, more anti Trump than Ramaswamy, not as hardline for a nationwide ban on abortion as Pence and harder on Putin over Ukraine than DeSantis and Ramaswamy too. She would have a good chance in the general election but don't think she is conservative enough or MAGA enough for GOP primary voters now
Ramaswamy is incredibly glib.
He looks like he bathes in snake oil, I would count my fingers after shaking hands with him.
Haley I see carefully positioned herself as the most moderate candidate, more anti Trump than Ramaswamy, not as hardline for a nationwide ban on abortion as Pence and harder on Putin over Ukraine than DeSantis and Ramaswamy too. She would have a good chance in the general election but don't think she is conservative enough or MAGA enough for GOP primary voters now
Ramaswamy is incredibly glib.
He looks like he bathes in snake oil, I would count my fingers after shaking hands with him.
The tale of his company Axovent is well worth a read.
Pints in pubs in Mayfair this afternoon: £5.85, £5.35, £6.05 (so far). Where are people buying these £8 pints of internet legend? Must be fancier establishments, because it can't be fancier areas.
Well, Cheltenham Racecourse on racedays, for starters. But then that is run by that well-known band of thieves, The Jockey Club.
Last year (to 31/12/22) they had a deficit of £803K following a deficit of over £700K the year before. As a result they are now absolutely insolvent with net assets of (£219K). The central party owes the local parties a share of the membership income which they collect on their behalf. The unpaid share is over £800k. The party has £100k in the bank so I trust that the local treasurers are not holding their breath awaiting payment.
The SNP have therefore burnt through the £600k that they were supposed to be holding in trust for the next referendum, they have burnt through the accumulated reserves of the party and they are only able to operate by failing to pay the money due to their branches as they fall due.
Many have claimed that the SNP is vindictive towards private enterprise and business in Scotland but in fairness these accounts show very clearly that their incompetence is directed at all organisations in the country up to and including themselves. Whelk stalls simply don't come close.
Most interesting is the point that the party received over £500k for Conference Income. It appears that most of this was "donations" by businesses who were then given access to Scottish Ministers to lobby their interests. I think the technical term may be "corrupt".
Like everything else they do, along with incompetence with government funds
Comments
https://wingsoverscotland.com/dont-you-wonder-sometimes/#more-138869
Most interesting is the point that the party received over £500k for Conference Income. It appears that most of this was "donations" by businesses who were then given access to Scottish Ministers to lobby their interests. I think the technical term may be "corrupt".
Vladimir Putin confirms Yevgeny Prigozhin died when the Wagner founder's plane crashed yesterday.
" I knew Prigozhin for a long time, from the early 1990s. He had a difficult path and made serious mistakes in his life. But he got results – for himself, and when I asked him."
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1694744520565354821
Edit: Surely they would have to write that campervan off for... reasons? Or perhaps a massive revaluation - would be a fun auction.
There is a reason I didn't make it as an accountant.
That's...not the "emissions" in question...
Вагнер воевал молча, а погиб «музыкант» под «Полёт Валькирий»