Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

_w_

Members
  • Posts

    6,627
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by _w_

  1. Or they will use some clever accounting trick and report that the temperature is 5 degrees warmer than it really is. Perhaps the missing degrees will be accounted for off balance sheet?
  2. A lot of respected people say that there is no surplus of properties here but I'm keen to know whether that is true. Scarcity was the key argument put forward to support the boom that eventually went bust in 1990. And guess what? It turned out to be pure speculative delusion. There was indeed a surplus that took more than 6 years to absorb. I have yet to see any hard data that would help explain why it is different this time. If anything, the tone of these assertions (as if it was sef-evident) and lack of real quantitative data to support them bring echos of the 1980s.
  3. Thanks for the text and reference but I really don't see anything pointing to a bow and arrow scenario. Just quotes from someone about UK's budget deficit at 3%+ of GDP: not necessarily healthy but not something to lose sleep over. Even assuming your scenario of a total breakdown held (and you are not giving much as argument to validate that), it would support not buying: - a breakdown of society would mean no protection of property rights so why buy something like a house in the first place. - The best way to prepare for total chaos in the UK would be to stick to 'movable' or tradeable assets so that you can emigrate or trade your way through the breakdown period. - The worse the slowdown the more would property values fall. You could conceive buying a property outright in 5/10 years time with what would only be a 20% deposit today. We've had numerous credit crisis in the past, 1929 being the worst but also in 1971, 1981, 1990 and now. 1929 aside each was worse than the previous one but none resulted in anything like what you envision. None of these historical events support your theory, and the credit contraction of 1929 was only possible because the kind of steps you criticise now ($200Bn injection e.g. 1.5% GDP) were not taken back then. Finally, where have you learned than it is wise to borrow to the hilt when hard times are coming?
  4. There was indeed a credit crunch at the time. Or more accurately it was towards the end of the credit cruch induced recession of the 90s. The property market had been tanking for 4-5 years and the banks were prudent to say the least. Job wise, call me young middle class at the time, 27 years old. And the 90s recession really sucked for me. I was unemployed for a good 6 months and I can assure you at the time I would have rather polished shoes than be unemployed. Although IMO (not so humble) the property market will be worse this time than it was then, there is no evidence to suggest that the coming recession will be. I'm not totally closed to the nightmare scenario, but think that if banks stopped lending, there would be NO MONEY! Do you really think we are on our way back to bows and arrows?
  5. You are sort of trying to have it both ways. If there is a bad recession, rates will come down. Rates were ineed low post the 1990s recesion. Australia is having a bad case of overheating economic activity hence the high rates. I don't think anyone here is thinking that such a scenario applies or will apply any time soon in the UK.
  6. Bought in 1994, 20% deposit, very competitive interest rate (IIRC 6 or 7% at the time). No doom and gloom in my experience. And the property was dirt cheap.
  7. I didn't need your advice to figure this one out.
  8. Let me put it to you kindly: your post did not convey the image of a company I'd like to do business with. Even more so in the field of accountancy and financial planning that demand level headedness and a hefty dose of maturity.
  9. Are you sure you want to keep advertising your company on this site while writing those kind of posts?
  10. This all sounds to me like a 'buy now or it will be too late' arguments. My BS detector tells me I've heard it many times before . Basing that warning on the complete destruction of the credit system and total financial armageddon is one I hadn't heard before though. Someone must be desperate to find the last 'greater fool'.
  11. That isn't what I get, at least as far as official figures go. Do you have a reference or is it a gut feel?
  12. The thing is the place they are talking about isn't that bad. When you look at the inside of similar flats in the same area it's even pretty good, I would mind living in them. http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/printabl...ting-id=1478418 I researched it a bit and what I think happened is the area was a good family area but all the houses were recently bought by a number of property developers, to be turned into flats. This phenomenon combined with the price crash has turned the neighbourhood into a dead zone. What I wonder is whether these kind of price reductions (300 -> 54 e.g. 82%) could happen here too. There are a lot of properties in the UK that should really fall by that much or more IMO (such as those inner city flats that even HA's don't want to touch). Could people in the US be more pragmatic than they are here, more prone to accept their losses and take radical steps to cut them early? Or should we expect the same to happen here?
  13. But still misplaced IMO. Kicking someone that is already on the floor is no doubt poor taste, but let us not yet again encourage the view that they are not responsible for their own actions. There is so much of that nowadays, it is one of the very reasons people behave irresponsibly: whatever mess people put themselves in it is always somebody else's fault and someone will always come to the rescue. At the end of the day none of them had to take the money (and certainly not for food...).
  14. Found this on Bloomberg. Banks don't even bother to maintain the properties they own, leaving it to the taxpayers to foot the maintenance bills. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home
  15. I totally agreed with you. But still not as calamitous as a 'proper' default.
  16. That is the whole point, officially they CANNOT be. When whining about banks' margin calls yesterday Carlyle petulantly asserted this, which drew an immediate denial from the US treasury. Hence the shaking of the Agency bond market that had been pretty stable until now. Well done Carlyle! Freddie and Fannie were originally created by Congress but are privately held for profit companies. The US government cannot publicly state (or let it be known) that it would guarantee Agency bonds as it would encourage the Agencies to act even more irresponsibly than they already have. Hence their denial yesterday.
  17. Not as far as I know. They're Alt-A because they are 'prime' (or so they say) but don't meet the criteria for Agency (Fannie and Freddie) purchase. So Alt-A and Agency are two distinct markets.
  18. Quite. It turns out that 'homo private equiticus', the master race destined to rule the world, is made up of deluded whining turds. I'm not into genocide but I really hope this particular branch of the human race will face extinction as a result of this crisis.
  19. Not a chance. You can't really default if you hold the reserve currency since you can create paper at will. What would happen is that US interest rates would skyrocket. Chaos would ensue, there is even a possibility gold might go down as a result.
  20. Let's not forget how they got to this situation! These muppets amplified that sick over-consumption, over-indebtedness message. They made the rest of us feel 'inadequate' because we don't have the 60'' plasma, BMW for the nanny, Nike trainers, etc. One thing that we don;t talk about is how many people (teenagers, family breadwinners) contemplated suicide because they couldn't keep up with the irresponsible, over-materialistic, over-indebted, plain dishonnest, status-seeking Joneses. I for one don't feel sorry for them at all.
  21. I expect the banks to pounce on Carlyle. IIRC Carlyle (a fine example of the superior 'homo private equiticus') was recently whining upon experiencing margin calls that "It's not fair, Alt-A bonds always go up, and they're guaranteed by the treasury". They forced the treasury to flately deny it hence the plunge in Alt-A and Agency bonds. Well done Carlyle, by being so brash they signed their own death warrant.
  22. That's my point. Index linked bonds make sense but grow our own food? That's a bit radical as a pure inflation hedge isn't it, doesn't it seems to point more to supply issues? And what has this to do with NS? Why use _that_ branch of the treasury to communicate the message? Discretion? Fear of the ridiculous?
  23. This is a bit scary. Does the government know something we don't?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information