Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BelfastVI

  1. On 13/04/2017 at 11:20 AM, willie said:

    I noted a few days ago the Bel tel trumpeting that NI house prices have risen 5.7% this last year.  How does that sit with today's figure that the NI economy is 5% lower than 2007?



    "The NI economy is 5% lower than 2007" NI House prices are 45% lower than they were in 2007 

  2. Indeed a certain proportion of properties are purchased by single people and their income feeds into this ratio.

    I am not in any pain over this. I just find it surprising how we sometimes here ignore data. especially data based on 95% of mortgages. Have you any evidence to show us that this information is incorrect and should be ignored. I understand the CML to be well respected but willing to listen to evidence to differ.

  3. 19 hours ago, yadayada said:

    They can't be too robust in their analyses  if they produce disparate results. 

    Average salary and average household income are very different metrics. I wonder how exactly one relates to the other? What percentage of couples have very different incomes?


    They have the data from 95% of mortgage transactions. they will know the price, the borrowed amount and the income. I dont particularly see the difference in one party on £30k and the other on £10k, both parties on £20k or one income of £40k. There will be slight difference in taxation and more importantly difference in spending and current debt, even amongst couples with the exact same incomes. All of these things lenders pay more attention to than they previously did.

    I have no reason to doubt their ratio of 2.88 for First Time borrowers.

  4. On 06/04/2017 at 0:25 PM, darkmarket said:

    The fact that nobody here can say how these figures are arrived at reflects poorly on their work. The UU, to its credit, at least publishes a reasonably thorough analysis of its own methodology.

    Using words like 'typical' in this context instead of a defined average just creates confusion and diminishes confidence.

    Feel free to contact them and ask for their definitions.

  5. 2 hours ago, 2buyornot2buy said:

    Thanks but I'll just stick with the NIRPPI simple mean and the ONS average median salary they use. It's around 4.8 x average salary. 


    It works for me. 

    You can use what ever ratio you want, made up or otherwise or you can use the actual average that are gathered from 97% of mortgages in NI and importantly separate the FTBer loans and ratio's from that of mover's.

    The average borrowings for a FTBer house in NI is 2.88 not 4.8

  6. On 04/04/2017 at 10:28 AM, 2buyornot2buy said:

    Yes. 2.88 times total household income. 

    Is that an average of all applicants? 

    Total mortgage advanced divided by total household earning or the median or mean of all multiples? 


    The CML uses the phrase 'typically' i.e. First-time buyers in Northern Ireland typically borrowed £95,000. I assume that is similar to average. They offer a contact point if you wish to direct your questions to them. [email protected]


  7. 4 hours ago, darkmarket said:

    Thanks for your anecdote, but what little evidence there is suggests otherwise.

    This is getting a little off-topic, but the point remains that buyers need to be wary of attempts to mask the ongoing decline in market conditions when looking at Belfast apartments.

    Your welcome. 

    I think buyers always need to remain wary of all advice they hear or read. You seam to be limiting this discussion now to apartments in Belfast. The example you give earlier was of upmarket houses in Malone. 

    Your earlier post referred to a 'falling market'. I haven't seen evidence for this apart from a recent UUJ Report which shows one quarter falls. In another month we will have the NIRPPI report which covers all the sales transactions in NI. Your recent post refers to 'the ongoing decline in market conditions'. Not sure if you are referring to the same thing.

  8. 2 hours ago, 2buyornot2buy said:

    I think regulatory enforced borrowing caps is the way to go. 3 times earnings plus 1 when you bought, 5+ joint when the current generation tries to buy. 

    We're still, as a society, very much in a credit bubble. 


    The critical figure is for First Time Buyers. The CML recent release places the income multiple for First Time Buyers (Q4 2016) at 2.88. For Movers it was lower at 2.44.CML NI Q4 2016 Link

  9. On 31/03/2017 at 6:27 PM, darkmarket said:

    The agents behaviour is one thing, but both platforms have progressively introduced changes to mask the decline in the market. You won't find much data on price reductions in NI because it was removed. The agents only have to provide the latest offer price to complete the trick.

    The most certain data is the NIRPPI as it will show the actual sold price and will give endless comparables with previous quarterly and annual trends. So you will see very clearly, albeit a quarter later, the movement in house prices in NI.

    What you appear to be looking for is the difference between 'asking prices' and 'selling prices'. This can be very useful early indicator between the markets aspirations and reality. At the end of the market I operate in (mid market) there is certainly no sign of price reductions. However I don't know about the upper end. Lots of properties have been sitting there for a long time. If people have had to adjust their aspirations to match reality well that's just the market. Lowering prices to get a sale is business. Advertising that you had to do that is bad business and can scare away interested buyers.

  10. 18 hours ago, 2buyornot2buy said:

    Recovery to what though. The articles all suggest the recovery end point is a return to peak. Anything else is a failure. Still the same mentality, house price inflation good, house price super inflation = super good. House price rises reported with gusto, house price falls buried in page 13 womans section. 

    They are dying to wheel Helen Carson back in. 

    There was plenty of 'property doom' in the press during the downturn. However the reporters were just reporting on the indexs and the trend associated. Some reported with, in my view too much glee, others will disagree.

    All Market recoveries end in a peak of some sort, i.e they can't go on for ever. All falls end in a bottom of some sort. i.e they can't go on for ever. I do not expect prices to go anywhere close to the 2007 peak for a long, long time and never in real terms. The trick is to keep that inflation slow and inline with inflation and income increases. Increasing supply is one was of helping. But sadly...

  11. I have no doubt we can all find examples where vendors were too greedy or too stubborn to place their property on at the right price and sooner or later have either had to withdraw or adjust.

    However the NIRPPI records the sale price of all properties and it has shown this figure to increase for the last 3 years or so. We can't start doubting that.

  12. 17 hours ago, darkmarket said:

    Just a few typical reports, while it's a stagnant or declining market following QE- and prop-fuelled unsustainable rises:


    All these reports are referring to the rise in prices after the almost 50% fall. The rises they are referring to are consistent with those in the various indices at the time. Again I don't see any "apparent desire to repeat the last bubble". Indeed some clearly point out that we don't want to go there.

  13. 22 hours ago, darkmarket said:

    During 2016 there was a lot of media hype suggesting a 'recovery' and an apparent desire to repeat the last bubble, but that narrative isn't consistent with the UU index.

    Don't recall any Media hype indicating a desire to repeat the last bubble. Indeed I cannot recall any commentator suggesting any such desire.

    When we look at the consistency of the index's I would point to the 15 month straight increases in the NIRPPI. Perhaps you don't consider that to be consistent with a recovery. I can't predict what comes next but I would term the last 3 years as a recovery.

  14. Come back UUJ all is forgiven. We will never call you 'polly' again.

    Joke aside.

    The main difference -the UUJ report (although only the opinion of those pesky estate agents) is more recent data reflecting a sample of what the agents are selling at the moment (or in that quarter). The NIRPPI Report, although more accurate is recording the all 'completions',(indeed data collected up to a month after completion). So what you are seeing in the NIRPPI figures for say Q4 2016 is actually the out workings of the sales activity that occurred in Q3 2016. So the , long slated UUJ report, whilst opinion based, and a much smaller sample is actually more recent data. Its reflective accuracy can only really be tested by the following NIRPPI report to see if the lower priced transactions, recorded by the agents are reflective of the whole market when they enter the Land Registry as completed transactions.

    In defence to the media, not something I say often, the emergence of the NIRPPI has demoted the attention given to the other reports. For example even we don't bother listing the Nationwide Reports whilst a few years ago there were pages of postings here with many members submitting charts and graphs on the trends etc. 




  15. whilst the article is from 2013 it states " 85% of homes in the capital's centre sold to overseas buyers as weak pound sees foreign interest soar"

    Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2340858/85-homes-Central-London-sold-overseas-buyers.html#ixzz4ZW4e0rqJ 

    I doubt if the interest is soaring now but, if correct it shows that in recent years the top end of the London Market was driven by overseas demand.

  16. I agree. Prices simply cant continue to increase at 6% or 7%pa and expect nothing negative to happen. Our Gov, for what it is dosn't care but yet its individual members all join the NIMBY army to block and frustrate almost every planning application. we could easly be building twice as many houses as we currently are but are prevented. Then small price rises start and people jump in again fueling more and more price rises.  

  17. 10 hours ago, darkmarket said:

    QE is the primary factor in all the current asset bubbles, from stocks to housing. The BoE is also responsible for ensuring that credit is cheap, which is the biggest prop of all. A small proportion of London property is bought by non-resident investors, the bubble is driven by excessive credit in the domestic market.

    The new owner-occupiers reduce demand for rental accommodation by an equivalent amount resulting in a neutral outcome. The increased tax is currently serving one function of masking price drops by impeding transaction volume.

    More overpriced houses in Belfast without any jobs nearby won't stop London being overpriced. What will help everyone, except short-term speculators and those who borrowed too much, is the market correction that's beginning to unfold and eventually reaching NI with the usual delay.

    A high proportion of the £1m+ properties was, up until Brexit purchased by overseas investors, many with no intention of ever living here.

    I agree that the movement of ownership from BTL to Owner-Occupier is welcome but we have to agree it will reduce the amount of houses available on the rental market. There is over demand for rental properties.

    I don't agree houses in NI are overpriced. Reducing the number of house built/supplied places an upward pressure on prices. Increasing the supply places a negative pressure on prices. Nothing we do here will have any effect on what is happening in London and that market operates on its own. it is more influenced by external investor attenuates and that attitude has turned negative.  London and most of England didn't have a significant price correction 2007/2008. NI had the mother of all corrections to match the boom.

  18. 22 hours ago, 2buyornot2buy said:

    First Buy. Help to buy mortgage guarantee. Funding for lending. 0.5% interest rates. 350 billion QE. 



    I think most of the QE went to the stock market and will shortly be sucked out. Most of the price pressure in London came from overseas. The majority of overseas buyers bringing cash in.

    H2B didn't really take off here as the bit (H2B1) that really helped first time buyers didn't cover NI. Funding for lending replaced other avenues that were previously available to banks and the BoI rate is not the rate mortgages are available for.

    whether the private renters are receiving benefits or not doesn't take away from the fact they are paying off LL's mortgages rather than their own. The introduction of the increased tax will reduce the amount of additional BTL properties and may result in an overall reduction which applies further upward pressure in rents. 

  19. 11 hours ago, isafund said:

    How much have 4 bed student terrace houses been going for in Stranmillis student areas? What kind of yield should one be looking for?

    With the influx of new student schemes the traditional student hovel in Stranmillis and the holylands may not appear as attractive to the student (mainly their parents) or indeed to the investor. I would see some of these areas returning to their more peaceful domestic past.

  20. 12 hours ago, 2buyornot2buy said:

    The waiting list isn't a good measure of housing demand. Anyone can join the list. Unsecured tenancies and the increase in a amateur BTLism is a significant factor in its growth IMO. People join the list in the hopes of bagging that secured HA or NIHE lottery jackpot of a house for life. If you're not in you can't win. 


    The props were implemented to save the GB banks. Carney admits without props to shore up the system it might have fallen. The purpose of the various props, were to stop prices dropping and thus save the banks. Without the props, who knows how low NI prices could have gone. 


    Using other over priced UK areas as an example of how the NI market is affordable is a fallacy of relative privation. Not as bad as doesn't work. 



    I can't think of any 'props' that were applied in NI and how they may have 'propped up' the prices which went on to fall 50%.The central bank will act to save banks and the system. that's one of the reasons they are there.

    NI was traditionally about mid table in the affordability scale in the Uk Regions. It once just tailed London at the wrong end of this league. However it is amonst the most affordable now and that is something we have to welcome. We also want to keep it there and as you say not just follow the other regions if they keep growing. To remain affordable we need more supply. Increasing competition to developers like me and increasing the supply of land. 

  21. 3 hours ago, darkmarket said:

    With reference to NI, I said "still no evidence of unmet demand at these prices." That's increasingly true across the UK as well. That's not a reason to build more houses as you suggest, it's a reason for prices to be allowed to correct themselves instead of more props.

    This narrative that 2007 prices are some sort of reasonable benchmark, NI prices are comparable with England's and there's huge pent-up demand waiting for a flood of new housing at 5x joint income on 30-year terms is just a myth.

    The market is a series of props intended to avoid banks having to write down losses accrued around 2007, some people being spared negative equity in the meantime hoping the greater fools will return, endless media bias to encourage consumption and an underlying economy based on handouts and debt with years of austerity ahead.

    There is of course pent up demand for housing in NI. The Housing waiting list is but one manifestation of this. The doubling of the amount of people living in the private rented sector, paying off Landlords mortgages instead of their own is but another.

    NI has now some of the most affordable houses in the UK and whilst building more £650k houses in London will not help FTBers building more in NI will. The failure to build more houses will result in higher land and higher house prices.

    The props you refer to, what ever they were or if they ever existed, didn't work. House prices halved and land fell in value by 90%. and many, many people experienced and many still experience negative equity.

    Nobody is saying that 2007 prices are a reasonable benchmark and I hope never to see anything close to them (in real terms or other) again.

    I simply can't understand how building fewer houses in any way helps.

  22. 16 hours ago, darkmarket said:

    Exactly, and despite all those props there's we still have almost zero growth the last few quarters and transactions down YoY. The much-touted bull market the media were talking up is going nowhere. There's a trickle of supply, a huge amount held back chasing equity fantasies and still no evidence of unmet demand at these prices.

    I think when people cant buy in England because of affordability this counts as unmet demand.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.