Halifax Up 1.4%

[New_Renter]

according to forex

http://www.forexfactory.com/calendar.php

Edited December 8, 2009 by ZR_Seanie

[t350chunder]

Anyone got a tumbleweed Emoticon?

[buytoilet]

Anyone got a tumbleweed Emoticon?

[bear_or_bull]

Confirmed:

http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media1/research/halifax_hpi.asp

House prices increased by 1.4% in November. This was the fifth successive monthly rise with prices more than 4% higher over the first eleven months of the year.

Prices over the period September to November were 3.7% higher than in the previous three months. This is the biggest increase on a three monthly basis since November 2006.

Prices have increased by 8.5% since reaching a trough in April 2009; an increase in the average price of £13,174. This follows a decline of 23% between August 2007 and April 2009.

Bank of England industry-wide figures show that the number of mortgages approved to finance house purchase – a leading indicator of completed house sales – increased, on a seasonally adjusted basis, for the eleventh successive month in October. Approvals were 79% higher than in October 2008 and were at their highest level since March 2008. Despite this improvement, approvals remain 56% below their late 2006 peak.

A generation turned over by low interest rates and a politically active asset owning class.

(Edit to note: the last three months can be annualised at circa 15% p.a. growth. That, my friends, is V shaped)

(Edit again: If this continues through April at say 1% per month then the annual increase April to April will be around 14%... ... ... Another month when I believe that social change has already happened, I just didn't notice the tipping point).

Edited December 8, 2009 by bear_or_bull

[Guest KingCharles1st]

B.ullshi.t factor up 1.4% more like

Edited December 8, 2009 by KingCharles1st

[Jister1]

Comes in handy when you are in the nile!

[Turnbull2000]

******** factor up 1.4% more like

Wow, the figures keep going from strength to strength. My view of 2007 prices restored by late next year is looking increasingly realistic.

[righttoleech]

It beggars belief. The propaganda is working. MPs house collections purchased with 'tax free' (to them). expenses are rising in value, and Bliars portfolio is doing very well thank you. It is surely unsustainable in this climate of debt and impending cuts, but nothing would surprise me now. Truly evangelical this pwoperdy porn.

[bear_or_bull]

Wow, the figures keep going from strength to strength. My view of 2007 prices restored by late next year is looking increasingly realistic.

What do you think happens after that?

(And they are already at 2007 in Wimbledon anyhow...)

[Bruce Banner]

Wow, the figures keep going from strength to strength. My view of 2007 prices restored by late next year is looking increasingly realistic.

[interestrateripoff]

And it will be feeding growth in the economy, HPI is good for UK growth.

[OnlyMe]

The Halifax overlending bailed out bankrupt bank housing lending index is showing a rise.

[Mammon]

Wow, the figures keep going from strength to strength. My view of 2007 prices restored by late next year is looking increasingly realistic.

Even we dont see peak prices until 2011, i think we will still get double digit growth next year.

Halifax index in the 180Ks for sure.

[FreeTrader]

Updated inflation-adjusted fall-from-peak chart:

[Note: November RPI is estimated]

[Lander]

It's great isn't it?

The UK population now have the benefit of even more expensive houses and paying for the crap on Rbs and lloyds' books.

Win, win.

YAY, less disposable income for everybody!

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

Do these people ever release data by region? That's where the real meat is. These figures are superficial to the point of meaninglessness.

[BlackSwan]

Has anyone noticed that every month that prices go UP we are told it is due to increased affordability!

Since when does increased affordability go hand in hand with rising prices??

Also, we are told that many cant move due to punitive rates of interest on new mortgage deals alongside interest rates for FTB's and fixed deals that are broadly the same as previous years. However, since LARGE deposits are required how can there be "increased affordability"? In many cases, people are being asked to pay near peak prices at near peak-period interest rates, but this time needing a whacking great deposit. I ask again, how can this be construed as "increased affordability"?

There are are only two ways that increased affordability will be a reality - lower prices and/or significantly lower interest rates. The only people able to benefit from the semblance of "increased affordability" are those with large amounts of equity in their homes who can take advantage of low(er) interest rates at the moment.

Thus these figures can only reflect the sale of houses between those who already own and have owned for some time. This is shwon in the very low number of mortgage approvals.

I believe it is time that these measures of "house prices" are shown seperately - i.e. an index for FTB's and an index for homeowners.

[Turnbull2000]

What do you think happens after that?

(And they are already at 2007 in Wimbledon anyhow...)

Despite some nasty tax rises and public sector cuts, I think the focus will be on sustaining the restored peak. I can see government housing policy (Labour or Tory) being targeted towards shared ownership mortgages, LTVs of 95% and higher and a more standardised affordability criteria to allow greater proportion of a couple's income to be allocated to repayments.

I'm sickened by this state of affairs, but what can you do? The mentality of politicians or the public at large is not going to change anytime soon, so younger generations should expect to be taxed to support higher housing costs. There will be another fallout from this (hugely uncompetitive workforce, consumer spending falling rapidly as indebted generations become the majority), but that remains a good few years away yet. And since when did a government truly consider future implications? They don't and they won't.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Turnbull2000

[bear_or_bull]

Has anyone noticed that every month that prices go UP we are told it is due to increased affordability!

Since when does increased affordability go hand in hand with rising prices??

Also, we are told that many cant move due to punitive rates of interest on new mortgage deals alongside interest rates for FTB's and fixed deals that are broadly the same as previous years. However, since LARGE deposits are required how can there be "increased affordability"? In many cases, people are being asked to pay near peak prices at near peak-period interest rates, but this time needing a whacking great deposit. I ask again, how can this be construed as "increased affordability"?

There are are only two ways that increased affordability will be a reality - lower prices and/or significantly lower interest rates. The only people able to benefit from the semblance of "increased affordability" are those with large amounts of equity in their homes who can take advantage of low(er) interest rates at the moment.

Thus these figures can only reflect the sale of houses between those who already own and have owned for some time. This is shwon in the very low number of mortgage approvals.

I believe it is time that these measures of "house prices" are shown seperately - i.e. an index for FTB's and an index for homeowners.

Affordability: because people can't tell the difference between affordability and initial cashflow. The affordability of homes is at a generational low. Those buying today will pay more than anyone else in the 20th Century to put a roof over their heads, but most of the payment is in the future. People can't understand that. They look at the montly payments and think "great. no problem. pile in", without realising those payments need to be made forever, and inflation isn't helping reduce them. Buying a 1 bed expecting it to turn into a 5 bed is a serious mistake, but people don't understand. And low nominal rates seriously help the investor. Result: we are slowly turning into a society of property rich families and those that rent from them.

You quote about lowering interest rates to increase affordability means, unfortunately, that you don't get it either. And presumably you think about it quite a bit, so those that just read the daily hate have no chance.

The figures represent the fact that asset rich families are still rich. They've been bailed out, so can go shopping. It's a bimodal economy.

There will never be an index for FTBs because no one cares about them. They don't vote, they don't riot, and they don't understand. So they will be farmed.

[bear_or_bull]

Despite some nasty tax rises and public sector cuts, I think the focus will be on sustaining the restored peak. I can see government housing policy (Labour or Tory) being targeted towards shared ownership mortgages, LTVs of 95% and higher and a more standardised affordability criteria to allow greater proportion of a couple's income to be allocated to repayments.

So cheap money and longer dated credit, and less housing equity for some. I see that as possible, although not given as it depends on not just political will by the bond market also. But that doesn't explain where it leads. Not that anyone knows, I was just curious about how people thought about it. Can we function as an economy like this? And if so, for how long?

EDIT: For instance, at current interest rates how long is it before even the cashflow (montly payments) as a percentage of take home reaches the recent peak?

Hard to see where we go from there.

Edited December 8, 2009 by bear_or_bull

[Bruce Banner]

Even we dont see peak prices until 2011, i think we will still get double digit growth next year.

Halifax index in the 180Ks for sure.

[abharrisson]

Do these people ever release data by region? That's where the real meat is. These figures are superficial to the point of meaninglessness.

The national stats are not perfect by any means , they are useful only to give you a steer on the vector of the market generally.... please please don't go looking for regional stats, you'll find them ( nationwide, land reg etc etc ) but they are truly meaningless, often based on the sale of two chicken sheds three months apart with one of those chicken sheds having been done up and then subsequently sold for twice the price..... regional stats are truly meaningless and not even useful in my view in giving you a sensible vector.

Anyway... the halifax november stats shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone .... it was clear from the data already released that prices would be shown as rising... the real question is when will the next negative month appear... dec ? ( doubt it), Jan ? ( possibly), Feb ?( very likely) , March ( if it hasn't happened by now I suspect you can forget the pattern of prices to reflect a classic crash and overcorrection).

Personally I don't reckon prices will show a fall in Jan's figures ( released by the by in mid feb), I think they might show a small fall in feb ( figures released mid -march), but I do think after that what we'll see is relative stability... no huge falls, no huge rises.... I think prices will effectovely cling onto whatever cliff they have reached by then and the ground is more likely to come up to meet them through wage rises and inflation over time rather than them fall to meet it through an adjustment..... in the end its the same result but we get there by a very different path that I really don't think will result in the bargains appearing in the market that everyone had hoped....... the good news I suppose for those who don't like BTL'ers is that under that scenario they will effectively suffer death by a thousand cuts, they'll find a way of clinging on while prices aren't falling too sharply but eventually will run out of resources having burnt all their remaining cash trying to stay in the game.

[bear_or_bull]

The national stats are not perfect by any means , they are useful only to give you a steer on the vector of the market generally.... please please don't go looking for regional stats, you'll find them ( nationwide, land reg etc etc ) but they are truly meaningless, often based on the sale of two chicken sheds three months apart with one of those chicken sheds having been done up and then subsequently sold for twice the price..... regional stats are truly meaningless and not even useful in my view in giving you a sensible vector.

Anyway... the halifax november stats shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone .... it was clear from the data already released that prices would be shown as rising... the real question is when will the next negative month appear... dec ? ( doubt it), Jan ? ( possibly), Feb ?( very likely) , March ( if it hasn't happened by now I suspect you can forget the pattern of prices to reflect a classic crash and overcorrection).

Personally I don't reckon prices will show a fall in Jan's figures ( released by the by in mid feb), I think they might show a small fall in feb ( figures released mid -march), but I do think after that what we'll see is relative stability... no huge falls, no huge rises.... I think prices will effectovely cling onto whatever cliff they have reached by then and the ground is more likely to come up to meet them through wage rises and inflation over time rather than them fall to meet it through an adjustment..... in the end its the same result but we get there by a very different path that I really don't think will result in the bargains appearing in the market that everyone had hoped....... the good news I suppose for those who don't like BTL'ers is that under that scenario they will effectively suffer death by a thousand cuts, they'll find a way of clinging on while prices aren't falling too sharply but eventually will run out of resources having burnt all their remaining cash trying to stay in the game.

My two pence is this:

- Prices will no longer show any significant negative months

- Prices will rise, but employment will bump along the bottom, as will retail

- Mortgage availability will increase (I can already get a 4.9x joint income, 90% LTV, no doc loan), it may even increase rapidly after a period in which house price rises are re-entrenched

- This all amounts to a massive, double down punt on inflation. If we don't get it, and I don't think we will, then you're back to square one but with a government that is massively in debt. Welcome to the worst case scenario.

- If this happens we will repeat what has just happened without the bailout. It will be a depression. A very bad one. We can only devalue and print so much.

- Or perhaps it really was just a liquidity crisis and there's no underlying problem. It appears that we're undertaking the biggest financial experiment to find out. It might take years though. Dot com to Sub prime was almost a decade.

[OnlyMe]

The bent bankrupt lending index is becoming increasingly unimportant.

This has nothing to do with house prices and everything to do with this same bunch of loan 'rangers spewing out debt as before, except this time with the asinine central bank and government with an even more direct gun at the head policy.

There was a time when the rest of the lenders followed. But, now there is real pain being felt by most of the other banks and building societies. The state sponsored crap peddling finance houses are the ones participating in pushing out bubble level loans. Meanwhile deposits are falling at other building societies, they cannot even pay 3% on deposits and make the deals works. Good risks are using their low rate limbo bungs to pay off debt, those who can't (and are the bad risks) aren't; as a result their businesses are shrinking and overall the effect must be that the level of risk on their remaining loans is actually increasing overall as they are left with all the chaff.

As the rest of the world economies (not polluted to the same extent with debt) pull out of recession there will be little reason not to take the jump and invest/deposit money within non-bankrupt companies or countries. As inflation continues to erode monetary value here any barriers that exist to such a move will be eaten away.

[non frog]

...The mentality of politicians or the public at large is not going to change anytime soon, ....

That is the issue.

Georgina Hockley, 24, a company secretariat assistant for British retail group Kingfisher, and her partner, Stuart Dean, 29, a product specialist for an IT company, have recently purchased their first home in Reading and plan to use the property as their main retirement income.

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/mortgages/should-your-home-be-your-retirement-plan-1834855.html

Assuming anyone is daft enough not to realise the whole thing is unsustainable you would have to be crazy not to buy a property. 10% capital gains annually when interest rates are 0.5%. For goodness sake buy a second BTL property as well yield of 4% is better than your savings account by a huge margin, even if the tenant is problematic, plus 10% capital growth? You'd have to be as stupid as a dog not to buy into that.

This is all great as long as we can keep it up.

When the confidence turns the falls will be unstoppable. I don't know what will make that change, but I'm pretty sure it will occur within the next 18 months at the latest. Maybe the MEW to SUV lot will start to go bankrupt and the property will be sold at auction rather than held by the lenders in a sub company? Maybe the new UK government will cap housing benefit or introduce capital gains tax for primary residences? Your guess is as good (or maybe even better if you live in the UK) as mine. But something will turn the tide IMHO. The higher the market has risen between now and then the harder it will fall and the more unpleasant the resultant consequences for the UK.