Jump to content

Recommended Posts

From the BBC


'The UK's property market has a better chance of bouncing back before other countries because "we failed" to build enough houses, Gordon Brown has said.


The prime minister told a City audience the US and Spain had "overbuilt" homes during the years of rising prices.


In contrast the UK had "pent-up demand" because not enough had been built.


He said the UK problem was not shortage of demand for homes at "the right prices" but a shortage of mortgages "at the right prices for people to buy".'

Whatever, but he's (and I hate saying this word in connection with GB) right. Particularly in London and the south east, theres simply not enough property to go round. Things can change very quickly and unexpectedly in the house market. For example in May 07 the current situation was unthinkable amongst buyers and sellers.

I'm afraid the supply and demand model will not prevent house prices in London by falling a further 20% at least.


There are so many other factors now as to why a two bedroom Victorian terrace in ED will no longer achieve ?400,000 plus. Banks and Mortage companies will no longer allow irresponsible borrowing which has been seen over the past ten years without a significant LTV ratio. There are many many jobs being lost each day, bonuses will be significantly down this year and 2010 will have significantly lower on top of that. Salaries are being restricted, money is tight and the recession that we are now heading into will not unfold and reach out to all the other businesses for a period of time yet....


I wonder if Gordon commented on sustaining a property market where the average wage is ?30k odd in London and the average house price is ?300k (10x average earnings).



But is this true? is it? I know demand outsrips supply in certain demographics but I'm pretty sure (as in vague recollection of article) there are swathes of (sepecially new-build) flats empty? But to let landlords hanging on to them rather than letting them to retain value etc etc


And people saying the housing market will bounce back as A Good Thing rather suggests the lessons of the current situation haven't really been learned either

Well demographic projections seem to say that we will continue to need new housing, especially of the starter home variety. This being caused by more single person households - which apparently is the trend.


This doesnt take into account basic economics. If people cant or wont pay the going to rate, they wont buy.

There have been no shortage of flats whilst we've been looking!


I have no idea if we're getting a bargain or not, I think we are, and there is a similar flat in the same block (not battle ships by the way) still on the market for over ?30k more than we're paying, so that won't sell!

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And people saying the housing market will bounce

> back as A Good Thing rather suggests the lessons

> of the current situation haven't really been

> learned either


Depends what you mean by "bouncing back". Prices returning to 2007 levels wouldn't necesarily be a good thing. But it will be a good thing when people start buying and banks start lending (albeit more repsonsibly) again.

extirpation:- act of doing away with, abolition, cancellation, eradication.


I fear PGC that there are many more in the coming months, who will savour similar taste during extirpation years 2009-14.


My first teetering steps into property were a disaster, and took several (5) years to get back to zero debt, but I fortunately did not have dependents at that time in my life.


One thing you can guarantee about life, it changes, and you eventually get back to normality within a few years

of being in the 'wastelands of extirpationville'.


But as you rightfully say PGC it leaves a lasting foul taste, plus the odour of burnt finger ends, and the remaining ordure in the mind.


I have the greatest sympathy for all who have travelled this most miserable of life's routes.

"I wonder if Gordon commented on sustaining a property market where the average wage is ?30k odd in London and the average house price is ?300k (10x average earnings)."


-- You cannot compare two averages like that! The distribution of the two is completely different. Not that it wouldn't be an interesting question to ask though.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am cynical regarding people buying houses

> because it's safer than putting money into the

> bank. Despite that article.

>

> Aren't all accounts now guaranteed by the

> government up to ?50,000? If that's not enough for

> you, you can split your money between different

> banks. If that still isn't enough for you, you can

> put your cash into an Irish bank, where all of

> your money will be guaranteed by the Irish

> government. And if you are still in doubt, buy

> gold.

>

> Buying a house (which will almost definitely go

> down in value in the short term) purely as a way

> of storing your money seems rather daft to me!



Well said Jeremey, the cash buyers afraid of losing their money in the banks is almost laughable....if the major banks crash and everyone loses ALL their money, you think having bricks and mortar will mean anything....you will be better off with a tent, a fishing rod and a box of matches if it all came to that.

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well demographic projections seem to say that we

> will continue to need new housing, especially of

> the starter home variety. This being caused by

> more single person households - which apparently

> is the trend.



the demographic trends are assumed rather than proven. They are based on the assumption that foreign workers will keep coming to the UK for work (unlikely in a recession) and that more people want to live in single person households, which looks decidedly questionable:


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23564666-details/More+extended+families+sharing+home/article.do


The truth is that there isn't a dire shortage of property. If there was, rents would have risen faster than wage inflation, as sale prices have. In reality, rents have kept pace with wage inflation. The reason for high house prices was not undersupply but cheap credit and lax lending by the banks, causing a runaway bubble. We all know that the bubble has now burst.


The most likely outcome from the house price crash is that values will return to historic income multiples. The only thing that could sustain prices at the current level would be a return to irresponsible lending, which aint gonna happen. Or soaring inflation. But with recession and unemployment looming we're more likely to see deflation next year than inflation. Arguably the deflation has already started with the housing market.

I don't think the salary multiples will change that much, but I do believe that lower LTV's will become the norm. Higher LTV's will exist (probably 90% max), but the rates will be so high that repayment affordability would be an issue. This will mean larger deposits will be required, thus slowing the demand.

local estate agent Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hope??

>

> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-235

> 72439-details/London+house+prices+cut+by+20+per+ce

> nt/article.do#readerComments


look more closely.


"Purchasers have been told that now is their best time to close a deal before the Government's ?37 billion bank rescue restores confidence to the market."


told by whom? Answer: estate agent Peter Rollings, managing director of agents Marsh & Parsons.


Not that estate agents would try to talk up the market...;-)

... and speaking of London estate agents, this is what Knight Frank says:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23572535-details/London+home+slump+%27will+go+on+next+year%27/article.do


"London home slump 'will go on next year'


14.10.08


House prices in London will continue to fall next year and not return to last year's peak until 2015, estate agent Knight Frank warned today, adding that "there is more pain to come" for the housing market.


"Banks won't lend to each other because they don't know if they will be repaid, and consumers find it hard to get mortgages," said researcher Liam Bailey. "With the UK entering recession, unemployment is likely to increase, and disposable income and household budgets will fall."


Knight Frank said houses in Greater London will slump by a total of 25.2% from their 2007 peak by next year."

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Most high street banks have only been offering 4

> to 4.5 times salary, so I don't really buy what

> you're saying.


but first-time buyers are now borrowing only about three times their salary:

http://ftadviser.com/FTAdviser/Mortgages/News/article/20081014/43666f0a-99cd-11dd-8351-00144f2af8e8/Lending-for-house-purchases-hits-sixyear-low.jsp


and that isn't going to change any time soon.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...