Nationalist

Mindfulmoney Have A Semi-Retraction Of Their Attack On Hpc

29 posts in this topic

[url="http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/7438/investing-strategy-/house-price-crash-wisdom-of-crowds-or-digital-maoism.html"]It's here.[/url]

[quote]Last week Mindful Money published an opinion piece critical of the online community House Price Crash. The response was immediate and vehement. We looked at the comments to make sense of the debate. Here’s what happened:

House Price Crash, a site which, in case you were unfamiliar, aims to:

"Act as a counterbalance to the huge amounts of positive spin the housing market receives in the mainstream media and provide anyone involved in the market with up to date data and commentary.

The response to "Inside the House Price Crash community " was almost immediate, with early commenters channeling their inner Malcolm Tucker at the one sided portrayal of ‘the mighty HPC' as one reader put it.

This was a typical comment:

"The writer of this poor excuse for journalism clearly misses the point. Deliberately so. HPCers don't want to "cash in" on bargains... they want affordable housing - one of the basic needs of human beings - for all." Chuffy

Fair enough.

And while affordable housing was a recurring theme that ran through many of the comments, exception was taken to the critical stance of the schadenfreude that characterizes a large part of the HPC forum.

Here are a few observations from the offending article:

"Basically contributors appear to be frustrated would-be first-time buyers who resent renting and are hoping prices will "crash" so they can cash in."

"There's obvious delight in any loss of homeowners' equity"
[/quote]

...probably not worth making any comments on the article. All that can be said was said last week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im not sure any of us want to 'cash in' as its teh 'cashing in' thats denied cost of us a fair chance to live in the uk as normal people and not nimby slaves. the cashing in went in 06. all we are trying to do is prevent more stealing. by the time the public get the message, it will be all over anyway, so whats the point. the damage is done. the dream is gone.

and i for one, have become uncomfortably numb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='right_freds_dead' timestamp='1317134489' post='3130590']
im not sure any of us want to 'cash in' as its teh 'cashing in' thats denied cost of us a fair chance to live in the uk as normal people and not nimby slaves. the cashing in went in 06. all we are trying to do is prevent more stealing. by the time the public get the message, it will be all over anyway, so whats the point. the damage is done. the dream is gone.

and i for one, have become uncomfortably numb.
[/quote]
+1. Well said.

We want a fair chance at living in the UK. I dont want to be a bank slave. I want the government to run the country for the majority, to treat the real tax payers as precious commodities, to stop meddling in markets, to allow freedom and most of all....to regulate[s] EAs[/s] 2nd hand house salesmen and limit their ridiculous fees to 0.1% of the asking price. :P Edited by TheCountOfNowhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='right_freds_dead' timestamp='1317134489' post='3130590']
im not sure any of us want to 'cash in' as its teh 'cashing in' thats denied cost of us a fair chance to live in the uk as normal people and not nimby slaves. the cashing in went in 06. all we are trying to do is prevent more stealing. by the time the public get the message, it will be all over anyway, so whats the point. the damage is done. the dream is gone.

and i for one, have become uncomfortably numb.
[/quote]

Well said.

I was surprised to see one of my posts being quoted in the article. I have to admit that, taken out of the HPC context, it did look a little harsh - bit I would still stand by it.

The argument made about homeowners holding onto their equity was specious. The real issue here is the debt-fuelled pyramid and the original article fails completely to address that. Edited by andybee33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='right_freds_dead' timestamp='1317134489' post='3130590']
im not sure any of us want to 'cash in' as its teh 'cashing in' thats denied cost of us a fair chance to live in the uk as normal people and not nimby slaves. the cashing in went in 06. all we are trying to do is prevent more stealing. by the time the public get the message, it will be all over anyway, so whats the point. the damage is done. the dream is gone.

and i for one, have become uncomfortably numb.
[/quote]
No, it's nonsense put about by people who don't know. I currently rent - sold in 2006, but still own other property. I do not belive the equity that arrived since 1994 is signs of a market working properly atall. It has produced distortions in the economy, shut out 1st time buyers, given too much equity to old folk who never dreamed it would be there anyway. Come on....where is the perspective.
People pay stupid rents, the govt stupid amounts of HB. (Holier than thou speech coming) For one thing, none of it would have happened had I been in charge of policy the last 15 years. There would have been no fall in rates to 3.75% in 2004 when plainly property was ramping up. There would have been no loans over 2.5 x incomes allowed either. We would be living with homes about 40% less than the current price and first timers - people who bother to save up a deposit, would have been still buying. There would have been a Euro crisis but not a housing price crisis. Also banks would never have been deregulated by me in the way they have over 20 yrs and they would not be on the hook for massive residential property loans.
Politicians need to do Economic history before stepping up as chancellor or PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='andybee33' timestamp='1317135225' post='3130602']
Well said.

I was surprised to see one of my posts being quoted in the article. I have to admit that, taken out of the HPC context, it did look a little harsh - bit I would still stand by it.

[b]The argument made about homeowners holding onto their equity was specious. The real issue here is the debt-fuelled pyramid and the original article fails completely to address that.[/b]
[/quote]

Yes, in the three 'plus' points for prices 'not falling' as described in the latest article, they cite the need for some to fund retirements:

[quote]
Many wish to use the equity in their homes or buy-to-lets as a replacement for otherwise poor retirement pension prospects so they need high values.
[/quote]

The author has singularly failed to grasp who ultimately pays for this retirement, and why it is neither desirable or sustainable.

The author might go further to examine what happens to new entrants in a stable pricing regime. Are a person's retirement plans aided by paying more interest over the life of the mortgage? Seems to me that in a stable pricing regime, the lower the cost the better for every new entrant, as it allows less to be spent securing the home and thus frees up more income to fund retirement plans rather than being given to a bank in interest. The equity withdrawal aspect of funding retirement is only sustainable with constant HPI, and constant HPI is an impossibility of Ponzi dreams. End of.

EDIT to add, the other two points about high prices being 'good' are pretty poor VI nonsense to boot:

[quote]
They help avoid negative equity (where loans are higher than the property's value). This can prevent people moving for a new job or to accommodate a larger family as well as preventing losses to lenders.

They provide economic and social stability - plunging house prices prevent people moving and can lead, as in the United States, to areas where no one buys because they are waiting for "a cheaper tomorrow".
[/quote]

No negative equity but try and get an extra bedroom and it'll cost you £100k, great. I feel a lot better off. Interesting that the author argues for a Ponzi scheme twice in the three points made- lenders losses cannot be prevented by ever-rising prices, in fact it makes catastrophic losses much more likely, as amply demonstrated lately.

The second point is just rubbish- is the author seriously arguing that higher house moving costs make it easier to move?

The author is like a child being dragged to the dentist- in the child's mind there are overriding reasons for avoiding the chair at that moment in time, irrespective of how much good it will do in the long run. Edited by cheeznbreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting to counterpoint the 2 "last words" in the article.

someone who doesn't post here, but used the forum as a resource to get better knowledge of the impending world financial crisis, vs a bitter, whining troll who is complaining that he can't troll any more because he has been banned.

I am not an uber bear and would like to see if that declaration gets me banned. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine the scene a month or so ago at Gadhaffi's palace. G is there, with some of his close friends, sitting having lunch.

Gadaffi: "You'll never believe what I witnessed earlier today"

Friend: "No, what?"

G: "Well, I was logged into this forum that was started by some libyans in Tikrit. They were having a good laugh that some of my police were having a hard time, with a bit of an uprising. The Policeman, who had worked hard to progress up through the ranks, had apparently been driven out of his home of 10 years. A nice house too - fully kitted out with all the latest mod cons. His family too - just out on the street, just like that, banished from his home town. The worst bit about it though - this forum didn't have any sympathy for the policeman in question. They were happy that this had happened. To this poor policeman, who had maintained order in their own town for years.

F: Hadn't the policeman been involved in mass oppression of the foruim group for years though?"

G: "Yes, but that's not the point - these people were positively revelling in his plight".

F: "How awful. That forum seems like a complete bunch of hard nosed meanies. They deserve nothing but the worst".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='bobthe~' timestamp='1317138037' post='3130656']
Interesting to counterpoint the 2 "last words" in the article.

someone who doesn't post here, but used the forum as a resource to get better knowledge of the impending world financial crisis, vs a bitter, whining troll who is complaining that he can't troll any more because he has been banned.

I am not an uber bear and would like to see if that declaration gets me banned. <_<
[/quote]

FUBRA might like to take issuance with that statement that all bulls get banned - I'm pretty sure that most people aren't banned - they just crawl away never to be seen again when their arguments are torn to shreds.

It would be good to see an actual list of people who have been banned, and for what reason they were banned. I suspect it is a very small list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bloo Loo' timestamp='1317140078' post='3130707']
I am used to a semi these days.
[/quote]

I knew someone was going to say that. I just didn't know who it would be. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote][b]"The Social Business Group is the publisher of Mindful Money; a Social News and Knowledge Network for the investment community, created in conjunction with HSBC, Henderson and Schroders.[/b]"[/quote]

A quick google search suggests that [size="3"][b]Henderson and Schroders have billions invested in European property.[/b][/size]..... Edited by Milton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Nationalist' timestamp='1317133184' post='3130570']
.probably not worth making any comments on the article. All that can be said was said last week.
[/quote]

Lots of opinion in the article but nothing of substance. Without analysis of the facts it just boils down to "my gang is better than your gang". I'd love to see how what's happening around the world (in governments and markets) be explained in any way that could be interpreted as being positive. None so blind as those who will not see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh, just a troll. The article they published last week attacking HPC was one of their most read and commented, and no doubt brought in lots of ad revenue. Now they've tried the same thing with the [url="http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/7426/investing-strategy/fools-paradise-inside-the-worlds-greatest-investment-community.html"]Motley Fool[/url], presumably expecting the Foolish hordes will also descend on their website and bring in lots of pageviews.

[url="http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/7426/investing-strategy/fools-paradise-inside-the-worlds-greatest-investment-community.html"]Fools Paradise: Inside 'the world’s greatest investment community'[/url] Edited by Little Professor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bloo Loo' timestamp='1317140078' post='3130707']
I am used to a semi these days.
[/quote]

How[i] do[/i] you keep it up...

...your ever present wit, I mean

;)

As M. Scott Peck says in the 'The Road Less Travelled' book, to be mentally healthy, people need to undergo 'legitimate suffering'.

Perhaps hpc'ers are only celebrating this return to mental health :D .

Is there a theory that the VI's spin to avoid debtors suffering from the downside of the bubble consequences ?

If the debtors do not suffer poverty and loss of status, they are more quickly sucked into the next bubble having learnt nothing from extended pain.

The Vi's therefore hope to skip the 'debt adversity' and capitulation part of the cycle, by demonising those who celebrate this phase :unsure: .


[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxIjuJhQXC4[/media] Edited by Saving For a Space Ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do want a crash. I go to bed at night dreaming of it. The HPC of the early '90s was an opportunity. People like me don't care about affordable housing, we just want to make money.

Sorry ... channeling that fool who made the BBC news presenters jaws drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a way, I think the second article is quite fair.
There is confirmation bias here, but where isn't there any?

I believed this site was proved right on the 2007-2009 crash (see my sig) so how we serious posters here can be called nutters I do not know... but the tables are turning to the whole economy, I believe the second phase is just starting (this time it will last for the best part of a decade).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Little Professor' timestamp='1317146200' post='3130781']
Meh, just a troll. The article they published last week attacking HPC was one of their most read and commented, and no doubt brought in lots of ad revenue. Now they've tried the same thing with the [url="http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/7426/investing-strategy/fools-paradise-inside-the-worlds-greatest-investment-community.html"]Motley Fool[/url], presumably expecting the Foolish hordes will also descend on their website and bring in lots of pageviews.

[url="http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/7426/investing-strategy/fools-paradise-inside-the-worlds-greatest-investment-community.html"]Fools Paradise: Inside 'the world’s greatest investment community'[/url]
[/quote]
Well spotted, that man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='okaycuckoo' timestamp='1317147676' post='3130801']
I do want a crash. I go to bed at night dreaming of it. The HPC of the early '90s was an opportunity. People like me don't care about affordable housing, we just want to make money.

Sorry ... channeling that fool who made the BBC news presenters jaws drop.
[/quote]
Beyond a joke:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8792829/BBC-financial-expert-Alessio-Rastani-Im-an-attention-seeker-not-a-trader.html

Stop the sheepling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are two kinds of people, people who think high house prices are good, and people who understand basic economics.
[quote]Current high prices are good because:

[list][*]They help avoid negative equity (where loans are higher than the property's value). This can prevent people moving for a new job or to accommodate a larger family as well as preventing losses to lenders.[/list] [list][*]They provide economic and social stability - plunging house prices prevent people moving and can lead, as in the United States, to areas where no one buys because they are waiting for "a cheaper tomorrow".[/list] [list][*]Many wish to use the equity in their homes or buy-to-lets as a replacement for otherwise poor retirement pension prospects so they need high values.[/list][/quote]

[list][*]Negative equity, a phenomena associated with housing booms, is in fact caused by bank lending policies. It doesn't affect cars or televisions or other things people borrow to buy. These things are never worth the value of the loan secured against them.

Clearly, there is no reason for banks not to allow people in negative equity to swap houses, but they don't. Certainly, this isn't an argument against falling house prices, any more than it is an argument against falling car prices.[/list] [list][*]Computers get cheaper and better every single year, and yet people still buy computers. People buy homes to live in, they are consumables.[/list] [list][*]I'd like to own slaves, should society oblige me? No.[/list]

Economically, in the real world of grown ups, falling house prices are an absolutely unambiguously good thing. Falling prices are the entire point of capitalism. The opposite, where prices can be raised to benefit special interest groups, is monopolism, which is illiegal for most assets (but not housing).

Why do people tolerate economic commentary from people who have never studied economics in their entire lives?

And why do such people feel able to write these things in the first place? Do they write about open heart surgery? Do they jump onto the pitch during FA cup games in order to help out the players? Edited by (Blizzard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The article, in the comparison of the benefits of low house prices versus high house prices, didn't give space to the role of house prices within the general economy and the way that huge debt and high house prices have helped to make the UK and it's labour force uncompetitive both at home and abroad and helped in offshoring jobs etc. How the money directed into housing was in large part very much at the expense of pension funds. Decent pension funds would have meant less need for housing equity on retirement.

Malinvestment in housing has meant far less investment in UK industry and if that hadn't happened the UK would be several steps forward towards a decent traded sector that politicians are now going on about. That was understood in the 80s when house prices multiples were lower than now and that was well publicised at the time and the economy partly rebalanced towards the traded sector before doing the U turn towards housing again and now the UK is perhaps about to do another U turn - or so they say. Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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