Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

arby1

Members
  • Content Count

    177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About arby1

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. i understand, i was replying to the comment made about 250% certain that we're in a bubble, although i changed that to mean 100% certain. I also wanted to draw a distinction between over-valued and bubble. If something is over-valued, maybe it can just remain stable for 10 years until everything else catches up, a bubble pops. I understand about standard deviations, and I agree even more with you when you were talking about the possible outcomes, when i talk about the bubble popping, do i mean a 10% fall, or a 70% fall with a wholesale debt amnesty? I don't know. It would be interesting to see what this Professor was thinking when he quoted 93%. 93% of what outcome? (and then his confidence intervals too, just to keep people happy!)
  2. To the person earlier stating that it's 250% certain London is in a bubble- you're not really helping your argument, you just come across as nutty as the people who insist property always goes up and you'd better jump on the ladder while you still can. saying 93% is in some way trying to quantify something, but what is he trying to quantify? If it's simply that houses are overvalued, then maybe the figure could be higher (I'd say approaching 100%), but the definition of a bubble is something that pops. If it never pops, then is it a bubble, or did it just take longer for everything else to catch up? So i read it as him saying there's a 93% chance that the bubble will pop, and surely we'd all agree that there's no way that could be 100% certain, we've seen how the government are prepared to do almost anything to prevent it and so many people here said in 2008 that it was 100% certain that prices would fall and not recover in our lifetime. We were wrong. So why would be be so 100% certain of anything so soon after?
  3. it's just not going to work, you'd need more than 2" to improve the situation on the wall much, but even if you did fix that, then you'll start to realise just how much sound is transmitted through the floor/ceiling.
  4. i do agree with what you've said though- that the term home owner is used much too loosely and I would certainly hope he would know the difference! HHowever, there is something to be said for speaking the language that the intended audience understands- I'd rather he gave a clear message that the majority understand rather than fighting so much over semantics that the main message gets lost. I'd guess that the vast majority of actual home owners are either smart enough to already know this or have lucked into their position and would pay no attention to what he's saying anyway
  5. he didn't guarantee rates until 2015, again, that was a media interpretation of what he said. Also, even if he did absolutely guarantee rates until 2015, that would make his statement above even more pertinent by stressing that even though the next two years might be secure, don't fool yourself into thinking it will be that way forever.
  6. I don't see where he said what you're stating- it appears it is the newspaper headline that makes the homeowner statement, while he only talks to those with mortgage debt- so he's saying exactly what the people need to hear- be prudent and don't take on too much debt- these rates won't last for 25 years.
  7. that's a pretty poor point though- somebody selling their home in a rush to fund a life-saving operation might disagree that they have a choice in accepting the offer, or somebody who requires the money to emigrate and start a new job oversees, or to simply not end up bankrupt as they are already financially committed to a new place and wouldn't be able to afford both. Sure, you probably think they still have a choice, and of course they do, but people who have other options and aren't desperate won't be using these companies in the first place.
  8. payday loan companies/adverts wind me up, but so do people saying they should just be shut down immediately. They serve a purpose, but often they can be mis-used. There's a difference. If i needed £100 today, and a mate lent it to me but said he wants £101 back tomorrow we'd probably think that was a good deal, but it works out at ~4000% apr; the type of rate we say is criminal and these companies shouldn't be allowed to charge. They should be better regulated, and tougher lending criteria applied, but the fact is some people do have short-term cashflow problems that will be solved with a payday loan for a few days. It's the ensuing sprial that pulls people in if they were lying (either to themselves or the lender) about being able to repay it quickly.
  9. I believe the number of unsuccessful student applications is higher than 8.9%, so it's possible there will be no change to the number of students in attendance next year. What may change is the ability of unis to discriminate if they're forced to take the majority that apply just to get the numbers (= money) through the door. Basically, this combined with the surge last year means this is a bit of a non-story but worth watching over the next few years. It will take years for any change in mentality to fully filter through.
  10. we often accuse the goverment of implementing policies thinly disguised to stop house prices falling (and one can understand why when houses make a large proportion of a bank's assets). Well, just thinking, when, as this thread seems to suggest, we reach the point where goverment can't keep all the plates spinning, what options would be left to keep house prices high? Would it be possible for some valuation to be applied in a similar way as houses are assigned bands for council tax? ie, all houses are assigned a value and they can't be sold for less than this value. While i appreciate this is a crazy 'solution', the hundreds of billions being thrown about show that the goverment understands the seriousness of it all and would they be desperate enough to try totally bonkers things? What else could they do? Provide x% subsidy to the seller which the buyer automatically pays back through PAYE in the same way as the student loan system? Remove mortgages from bankruptcy so you are liable for losses till you die? Just spent 2 minutes thinking on this; what else could they do if desperate enough?
  11. it is amazing how things have changed in the last few months. I got a 5-yr fixed rate deal arranged a few months ago: 3.39% with no product fee. Now there's nothing near that rate and the ones that are closest all have a £1500 product fee. I just can't get my head around people that buy simply because they get a good 2-year deal. Surely they realise that they're at the mercy of mortgage rates for at least 15 years (by which point they should have paid down enough that they can weather any movements- assuming no MEWing!)
  12. site:housepricecrash.co.uk housepricecrash "arby1" "idiot" yields 30 results site:housepricecrash.co.uk housepricecrash "lepista" "idiot" yields 268 results now i want to make it clear- that was done very tongue-in-cheek; I know that as you have WAY more posts than me then of course that would be the result. All i'm pointing out is that your argument earlier finishing with 'I rest my case' is a pretty poor case. Just like when you stated a 'fact' earlier in the guise of a question then said, 'rhetorical question', implying that you know the truth. It's not my job to prove the BBC isn't biased, if you believe it is, then either say it is in your opinion or you try and show it with the facts, don't just state it as fact. Anyone who makes a stand should be sure of it else all other arguments that may be valid are weakened. And again, my opening line was a joke- certainly no offence intended.
  13. why don't you just use your memory: you were a member here when twice a month everyone got so excited when the BBC chart got updated with the latest Haliwide numbers showing huge drops. They covered each month's data from both lenders in detail on both the way down and subsequently the way up. Since that point, every few months there's been a thread, 'why hasn't the BBC covered the latest LR drop?!'.
  14. it shouldn't be a rhetorical question though. The BBC prominently displayed the graph every month when it showed both the halfax & nationwide declining up to 20% year-on-year. At that time they still didn't give much mention to the LR even though that showed much less of a drop. You can't have it both ways. There are plenty of fights to be had out there, but the BBC have been pretty consistent with their coverage for a long time. The probable reason why they don't show the graph now is that it's just full of random monthly wiggles which doesn't really say much to most people.
×
×
  • 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.