Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

hewligan

New Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About hewligan

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. I was forced to read a poem once about a little baby nestled like a comma. That was worse, but only very marginally so!
  2. Okay, a new one from the weekend. I viewed a couple of houses, one with an EA, one with a tenant showing us around. The EA house was too small, but he started to chat away to me about houses and how before Christmas offers were going in and being accepted at between 10 and 12% off. Now he said that offers are going in 10% off, but being accepted at 5% off. I said that this was perhaps because asking prices had fallen. He didn't like that. Next he told me that now was the best time to buy (it always has been, according to EAs), but then followed up with "house prices have stabilised now". Anyw
  3. How about "In a democracy, should the leader not seek election from the people?"
  4. Okay, my story (fresh from 10 minutes ago): I viewed a property on Thursday that the wife had previously viewed. It has been on the market for 6 months, dropping 10% asking price in that time. I put in an offer today for about 25% below the current asking price, so 35% below the initial asking price. I based my offer on: 1) It is what I want to pay 2) It is what next door sold for in 2003 3) It is a slightly smaller plot of land than any other on the street, being on the corner of the road 4) It is roughly double what they paid for it in 1996 This morning, as I was getting ready to submi
  5. I don't think his argument is crazy. His timing may or may not prove to be wrong, but I think that there is certainly a CHANCE that inflation may pick up, and if that occurs then certain asset classes do act as good inflation hedges. If you can secure a house that you want to live in for a long time for a good discount and lock in a low rate for a long period, then why not? Some people on here seem to think that you would be crazy to ever buy a house. Others think that prices had got too high but that at some point it may make economic sense to enter the market. For me, I am close to puttin
  6. It shows nothing of the sort. Why is Nationwide cobblers on months they are up, but an excellent source on months they are down, and then conversely Halifax are excellent this month because they are down, but useless in January when they were up? It is crazy that you can just discount info that doesn't agree with your view to reinforce your view. BOTH indices will be volatile for a while, probably for a few reasons: 1) transaction levels are low 2) their own share of that low level of transactions is thus lower still 3) we are in the traditionally more-upbeat spring period Both indices ar
  7. I am very annoyed at the government and their irresponsibility, but I would never have considered attending THIS protest. It has been hijacked by a smattering of fringe groups. It has no clear message (what was it, climate change? anti-capitalism? anti-Brown? property-rights? Anarchism? anger at bankers? Anti-globalisations?), and is weakened for it. A few days ago they were touting how this was going to be the end of capitalism. In the end it was a damp squid. They were a bunch of idiots! What a lost opportunity to actually construct a single clear message to protest under and actually brin
  8. I wondered about that myself. I have been looking at mortgages myself (kid just got accepted into a very tight school with 6 applicants per place, and my wife is very keen for us to at least start looking to buy, albeit with a possible lag of a year or so), and I noticed that the Nationwide and Halifax are actually quite low in terms of competitiveness right now. Given that you can find (although not necessarily secure) a much more competitive mortgage rates from places like Natwest, PostOffice, etc., and lower entry points (deposit %) from places like Northern Rock, who exactly is using Halif
  9. I expect to see a lot of posters saying that this rise doesn't matter, etc..... Well, it does matter a little, and until next month it probably matters a lot in terms of sentiment. The numbers aren't controlled by some great conspiracy of shadow forces. A rise is a rise, so take it for what it is and lets not spend a lot of wasted intellectual energy trying to find reasons why it doesn't matter. If you accept that the numbers matter on the way down, then you have to accept that a rise also matters. Of course, it is not a trend, just like a single day rise or fall in the FTSE does not establis
  10. Okay, lets use an example. You spend £400k at peak, and sell today and lose £100k. You have lost some wealth, but actually could be better off if you are selling to buy a larger house. Also, the person buying your house has just saved £100k (or at least had to borrow significantly less). So while individual A may lose out if they sell and don't purchase similar or bigger property, person B has gained. Net effect to the economy is thus not as simple as saying a £100k loss. His point was that one man's loss in this situation is often another man's gain, and thus the economic impact overall is di
  11. Look guys, I was at this conference (only just got back to the office), and he was very clear on his point. He said that there was no direct relation between house price falls and overall falls in wealth. He was pointing out that while one person would lose (the person selling out or downsizing), another person, or possibly many, would gain (first time buyers and people moving up one rung on the ladder). He also said that a fall in house prices does not actually signal a destruction of value - the houses still yield their utility. He said that with stock markets, if a fall reflects a fall in
  12. My wife watched it last night (I was sitting next to her reading 'The Great Crash 1929'). At the end of the show as they were showing the house she asked me what I thought of it. I looked up and said: "it looks like a cheap office building, not a home. What did it cost them?" When she told me I laughed. It was a glorified shoe-box, with cheap looking exterior, and they spent £650,000 on THAT!!!
  13. It should definitely be taught in school. I have a postgraduate diploma in Economics, and a Masters in Economics and Economic History, so obviously a bit of a vested interest, but bear with me: Economics does not have to be about maths, or at least not over-ridingly so. One of the worst aspects about the LSE (where I did my Masters) is that they basically team Economics as a mix of greek and math. That is sad, as you tend to miss the historical and psychological elements of economics. However, lessons in supply/demand, and then some economic history lessons (teaching, for example, the oligopo
×
×
  • 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.