Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

IGNORED

Property crash, just maybe it really is different this time (Part 3)


spunko

Recommended Posts

On 10/06/2024 at 01:38, sancho panza said:

Basic household bills started out at around £3,000 a month,

No they didn't. 

She was too lazy to do any cleaning or gardening. She's also used to living in a modern rabbit hutch heated to 27c - good luck trying to run an older house at that temperature

  • Lol 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wight Flight said:

Mine was an absolute nightmare to heat. Single pane ancient metal windows, ill fitting doors and thin wattle and daub walls.

Add in open staircases and it was a money pit.

3555515717_2_6_8.thumb.jpg.6087b3ce7f7c4b7dfabe194026abce86.jpg

  • Agree 2
  • Lol 3
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/one-five-first-time-buyers-110418748.html

One in five first-time buyers now over the age of 40

 

One in five first-time buyers is now over the age of 40, as more families wait until they have had children before buying a house, according to Santander.

Economic pressures and rising house prices have meant couples are prioritising children before becoming homeowners.

More than one in 10 of those getting on to the housing ladder for the first time have dependents, including children, data from the lender showed.

 

The average age of a first-time buyer has risen from 32 years old in 2004 to 36 years old in 2022, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Over the past 20 years house prices have nearly doubled, rising 98pc over the period. The average house price was £283,000 in March this year, in March 2004, the average house price in England was just £142,571.

  • Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, spygirl said:

UK mortgages in arrears rise to highest level since 2016

The proportion of mortgages in arrears rose to a near eight-year high at the start of the year, according to Bank of England data that reflects the impact of higher mortgage payments on household finances.

ftcms:09495fad-d4cf-46e6-9ee2-2f660808f6

Misleading graph to be expected from the BoE. Why not start the Y axis at zero?

  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/06/2024 at 12:46, Frank Hovis said:

 

Nice buying technique, I've heard of people having twenty lowball offers in because they only need one bite.

Most people though, including myself, want a particular house in a particular location so that strategy is denied them.

Well 3rd offer in, place was originally 600k, relisted to Offers Over 500k... 500k was well recieved by the agent (dammit, too high lol). £1880p/sqm.

  • Informative 2
  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

Well 3rd offer in, place was originally 600k, relisted to Offers Over 500k... 500k was well recieved by the agent (dammit, too high lol). £1880p/sqm.

The sort of fall / underbid that I've been seeing from sales I know ((albeit limited numbers).

  • Informative 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HousePriceMania
3 hours ago, sancho panza said:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/one-five-first-time-buyers-110418748.html

One in five first-time buyers now over the age of 40

 

One in five first-time buyers is now over the age of 40, as more families wait until they have had children before buying a house, according to Santander.

Economic pressures and rising house prices have meant couples are prioritising children before becoming homeowners.

More than one in 10 of those getting on to the housing ladder for the first time have dependents, including children, data from the lender showed.

 

The average age of a first-time buyer has risen from 32 years old in 2004 to 36 years old in 2022, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Over the past 20 years house prices have nearly doubled, rising 98pc over the period. The average house price was £283,000 in March this year, in March 2004, the average house price in England was just £142,571.

Hang on, 20 years ago the local BTL scumbag told me house prices double every 10 years

  • Lol 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HousePriceMania said:

Hang on, 20 years ago the local BTL scumbag told me house prices double every 10 years

20 years ago TOS said house prices would crash. That they should have been right doesn't cancel the fact that they were wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobthebuilder
15 minutes ago, Formerly said:

20 years ago TOS said house prices would crash. That they should have been right doesn't cancel the fact that they were wrong.

We were not wrong though, between 2007 and early 2013 the place was bang on the money. Utterly useless from then on mind.

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bobthebuilder said:

We were not wrong though, between 2007 and early 2013 the place was bang on the money. Utterly useless from then on mind.

A broken clock is right more often than that mob. 

The old saying in the US is don't fight the Fed as your victories will be fleeting ones.

In the UK you don't fight the powerful institutions of the British state on housing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobthebuilder
3 minutes ago, tank said:

your victories will be fleeting ones.

You only need to get it right once to three times in your life, the rest is noise.

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HousePriceMania
14 hours ago, Formerly said:

20 years ago TOS said house prices would crash. That they should have been right doesn't cancel the fact that they were wrong.

Didn't NI House prices collapse 50% and most of the country 20-30%?

real inflation adjusted house prices Q1 2024 nationwide uk

I'm not sure what people expect from a crash, but in real terms they crashes, flat lines and crashed again.

The main problem we have in th eUK is wages didn't keep up with inflation hence they still need to crash relative to wages. 

Would have been much better for the people if they'd just let them go in 2008 and be done with.

Can you explain how they were "wrong" ?

Edited by HousePriceMania
  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robbed from Cred n Def thread.

It belongs here.

 

170k IO mortgage. V London accent.

Mortgage from LLoyds,. who I doubt have sold many resi IO since ~2008.

Id guess, by the mortgage, that this was took out late 90s/early 00s, when IO resi mortgages started on their way to ~90^ of all mortgages sold.

We are now 2024-1999 = 25 years down the line.

Now, Id always thought that most IO resi were shorted - 10, 15y - compared to repamnets - 25y.

Maybe not.

Again, London/SE is fucked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Lol 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, tank said:

A broken clock is right more often than that mob. 

The old saying in the US is don't fight the Fed as your victories will be fleeting ones.

In the UK you don't fight the powerful institutions of the British state on housing. 

It was only the FED going full Zirp allowed that. That was an extreme policy, one which would eventually lead to very serious issues, which as predicted we are seeing now. They've managed to fracture their whole global dominance position as a result as the BRICS nations said no more military/dollar hegemony control. An empire and generational shift mistake. Nobody thought they would be that stupid, but they were.

  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bobthebuilder said:

You only need to get it right once to three times in your life, the rest is noise.

Got it extremely right twice, luck/legwork still plays a part, not done bad as decent house in decent area.

Changes absolutely nothing in regards what I think of everything in the last three decades, which is still a disastrous and economy wrecking experiment with very dire long term consequences..

  • Agree 2
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, sancho panza said:

Over the past 20 years house prices have nearly doubled, rising 98pc over the period. The average house price was £283,000 in March this year, in March 2004, the average house price in England was just £142,571.

(From your quote)

The above gives a sub 3.6% compound annual growth rate over the period (assuming 100% gain and exactly 20 years).For comparison I think it is far to call Gold $400 in March 2004 and $2000 in March 2024, giving just under 8.4% compound annual growth rate over the period.

Houses and gold actually seem to be similar as asset classes, brief periods of strong gains and long consolidations. 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, onlyme said:

It was only the FED going full Zirp allowed that. That was an extreme policy, one which would eventually lead to very serious issues, which as predicted we are seeing now. They've managed to fracture their whole global dominance position as a result as the BRICS nations said no more military/dollar hegemony control. An empire and generational shift mistake. Nobody thought they would be that stupid, but they were.

IMO the real mistakes were made with the Vietnam War and the manned lunar landings. The US couldn't afford them any more than the British Empire could afford the two world wars. The only difference is that the British Empire couldn't just print in the same way, and hence was destroyed in lets say ~31 years (1914-1945). The final insult of Suez came just over a decade later.

If we (for arguements sake) assume 1971 and the end of dollar convertability to gold as the moment the US knew it was fucked, then we could argue the printing etc bought them an extra ~30 years of hegemony. Which lasted up until another great mistake of the hugely expensive war on terror in response to 911, launched at the height of hubris backed only by printing. Sadly it all appears to have come at the cost of accelerating what would follow. The innability to secure the Red Sea (and hence access to the Suez canal -oh the irony) against Houthi missiles, and the failure to retake Crimea are signs that the US is a busted flush. More years for the decline than the British Empire but the same destination.

My assertion is that the current politicians have inherited a clusterfuck, and that mistakes made at the height of US power (1950s and 1960s) had already doomed future Americans to far lower living standards but that printing pushed that pain back for decades. This doesn't necessarily let them off the hook, but when you view it through the above lense their actions make total sense: loot the dying empire to buy a place in the next one.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Axeman123 said:

IMO the real mistakes were made with the Vietnam War and the manned lunar landings. The US couldn't afford them any more than the British Empire could afford the two world wars. The only difference is that the British Empire couldn't just print in the same way, and hence was destroyed in lets say ~31 years (1914-1945). The final insult of Suez came just over a decade later.

If we (for arguements sake) assume 1971 and the end of dollar convertability to gold as the moment the US knew it was fucked, then we could argue the printing etc bought them an extra ~30 years of hegemony. Which lasted up until another great mistake of the hugely expensive war on terror in response to 911, launched at the height of hubris backed only by printing. Sadly it all appears to have come at the cost of accelerating what would follow. The innability to secure the Red Sea (and hence access to the Suez canal -oh the irony) against Houthi missiles, and the failure to retake Crimea are signs that the US is a busted flush. More years for the decline than the British Empire but the same destination.

My assertion is that the current politicians have inherited a clusterfuck, and that mistakes made at the height of US power (1950s and 1960s) had already doomed future Americans to far lower living standards but that printing pushed that pain back for decades. This doesn't necessarily let them off the hook, but when you view it through the above lense their actions make total sense: loot the dying empire to buy a place in the next one.

WTO and forced deindustrialisation for me, it always was a sham, a means of giving benefit to big multinationals  and the banks behind them to leverage cheap labour  and arse rape their own populations whilst keeping them distracted with cheap money and plastic trinkets.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, onlyme said:

WTO and forced deindustrialisation for me, it always was a sham, a means of giving benefit to big multinationals  and the banks behind them to leverage cheap labour  and arse rape their own populations whilst keeping them distracted with cheap money and plastic trinkets.

Indeed, it was classic first-order thinking: "corporations can pay 25 cents an hour wages in China and keep the profits in the US". No thought to the fact that other players would respond, no thought to the costs associated with the rust belt decline. I would say however that it was more a managerial response to decline, and the wage inflation of the era, rather than a root cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wight Flight

This is quite a good drop, and shows there really is a lack of first time buyers or investors.

A good location - and unlikely to fall in to the sea any time soon.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/119486348?

The interesting thing is that the last one sold on Rightmove was £171k in Sep 2022 (asking was £175). They were developer sold, so maybe most aren't listed, but they were originally £195k - £205k about 24 months ago.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 2
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobthebuilder
1 hour ago, Wight Flight said:

This is quite a good drop, and shows there really is a lack of first time buyers or investors.

A good location - and unlikely to fall in to the sea any time soon.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/119486348?

The interesting thing is that the last one sold on Rightmove was £171k in Sep 2022 (asking was £175). They were developer sold, so maybe most aren't listed, but they were originally £195k - £205k about 24 months ago.

That is nice, a flat in the country near £100K would suit me just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wight Flight
1 hour ago, Bobthebuilder said:

That is nice, a flat in the country near £100K would suit me just fine.

I am quite tempted myself as a backup plan.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...