huntersc

You're right, it does change over time but for there to be an HPC that timeframe would need to be short and it's not. No doubt people will be more careful over the coming years which will lead to a stabilisation of prices (that is increases on a smaller scale than we have seen in the past) but it would preclude the notion of a 30% drop over the course of a year.

I think the problem is that the numbers really don't matter. They may matter to you or I, they may matter on a forum like HPC but unfortunately sentiment rules. Unemployment could be at 40% and the sentiment that houses are a good investment and prices will go up will remain. It's a bit like the man with the ugly girlfriend. You know she's ugly, I know she's ugly but the husband just doesn't get it and as long as he believes she is hot they'll stay together. The same goes for a house. A man purchases a house at 8 times his annual wage and no matter what you tell him he believes it'll be worth 16 times his annual wage in 12 months time. He could lose his job, we could have a nuclear war but the sentiment remains, "my house will go up in value". If enough people believe it then it is actually true. The numbers then become irrelevant. Now if the economics got to a place where people HAD to sell and money was tight and various other factors came into play, eg hyper inflation then, maybe we could see massive drops in price (again, 'maybe' is the operative word, even then I imagine people would still want 40% more than they paid for their house 6 months ago) This is why I don't think prices will fall, when people believe then that belief becomes reality. You can throw every number you want at me or them but look at what's happened since 2007. Everything came into place for 50% drops in house prices but what happened? Not a lot.

I've been visiting HPC for over two years and in that time I've seen people say that prices would crash by 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% even 65%. The timeframe of these crashes has been anywhere from early 2008 to late 2009. In that time I've seen the number of topics on house prices fall dramatically. Where we used to see a huge interest in the monthly house price figures from the Nationwide etc and people putting massive importance on them they are now largely discredited as being meaningless. A year long dead cat bounce is no longer a viable argument, the banks collapsing has not happened, millions of people losing their homes due to negative equity is pushing it a bit. So where are we now? I'd like to get back to basics and get people to do two things. 1. State what their original assertion on house prices was when they first got here. Eg 30% drops nationally by 2010. 2. What they now believe, eg 65% drops nationally by 2011. I wonder how many people have been tamed by what's actually happened since 2007. With the worst economic crisis in living memory, the banking world almost collapsing, house prices being out of reach for 90% of the population we are still in a situation where in real terms house prices haven't really moved all that much. I'll start. 1. I didn't think house prices would reduce all that much, I predicted 10% falls between 2008-2010. 2. I believe prices will slow down this year, stabilise next year with a yearly increase of 5% and increase dramatically in 2012 by around 12%.

His point still stands, at £44k for a house most of us could afford 10 of them. There's competition for houses, people are willing to pay the price and take on the debt from the bank so prices rise. I sold a bike on eBay last month, it shouldn't have been worth more than £300 but there was enough interest and it went for £663. Someone was willing to pay. That's the way of the world. You can blame banks, you can blame whoever you want but ultimately it's us, the people that create and partake in this market. £44k is just not a realistic price for a house, as much as I would love to be able to afford to live in Chelsea and own a £7m townhouse that cost me £150k I have to be a little bit sensible and accept that it's never ever going to happen.

Hold on, are you suggesting that putting £600k into a savings account with Nationwide over the past 2 years was a good idea? Honestly? If that's your point then goody for you. Why are people getting so protective here? Putting £600k into one place, especially during one of the most tumultuous times in banking history for a standard fixed rate return is not a wise move, no matter how one wishes to spin it. If the general belief on this forum is that there's nothing wrong with doing so then I think I might be in the wrong place, surrounded by people with little or no clue. If people genuinely think that I'm wrong then so be it.

Superb. I guess my credibility has again increased with this new post? From Mr 1 post to Mr 7 post, I feel so much more confident. Wouldn't it be great if life were like this? The more you opened your mouth the better the crap that emanated from it? Tell you what, I'd be considered Einsteinean if the worth of of our opinion was based on how many times we gave it.

Love his comments on fatties. About time people made more of the link between the economy and chubbers. War on fat is right, costing the US (but also us in the UK) a huge amount. For long term economic prosperity we need to do something about fatties.

Post 5... Medal time? The high street is fine for the odd £100k but for £600k? With your £200k you'd be well advised to go to either Barclays or HSBC and see what off book rates they can offer. You might be surprised. For sure you can split the £200k into 4 and keep yourself nicely risk adverse, and there's nothing wrong with that but my point about about £600k with Nationwide still stands, £600k in one place was very risky especially as the return would be so low. I've been on the site for a week or so, I agree there's some good stuff here but some incredulous stuff too Some of it bordering on loony. Still fun though I had to pick up on the £600k comment because it was offered in the sense of "look at me, I'm so very clever showing how I go against he grain and tell the banks what's what". It plainly wasn't very clever at all.

Post number 4... It depends on what percentage of my total worth the £600k represents. If it were less than say 2% then I'd probably play with a few fixed rate accounts. But in general terms I'd split it into a number of different investment vehicles, both long term and short. If it were an STR fund then perhaps I'd play it a little differently than if it were a cash fund for retirement. I'd definitely look at corporate bonds, VTCs even some high risk exposures like Zopa (for a bit of fun). I might even consider property for a longer term return. I'd also not be taking banks up on their publicly advertised rates, I'd be off book making sure I was getting something a little bit better than that! What I wouldn't do is put £600k in a Nationwide fixed, just crazy! Especially if it's an STR fund, not only is the return ridiculously low, over the past 18 months it's a little risky. You'd actually have been better off with the NR fixed.

Oh look, I now have three posts, does my point of view become more credible now compared to when I had just the one? If I get to 5 do a get a medal? ROFL. In all seriousness, does this Geoff still have £600k in a high street bank savings account? I probably have a bridge I can sell him if he likes.

What's a one year deposit? You mean a fixed rate account? Someone put £600k into a fixed for 12 months? With Nationwide? ROFL. Then he's a plonker, no matter how many posts he has and certainly me having only 2 posts doesn't make it any less so. His wife was absolutely right to be annoyed. I assume they're divorced by now, I certainly would have divorced my wife if she was that incompetent with our finances.

Hold on, you went into a branch and took out £600k? Right, either you're a bit of a plonker or you're lying. Who holds £600k in a Nationwide savings account? I mean, that's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Unless it accounts for a fraction of your total wealth you'd be an idiot to do that. Second, why would you go into a branch to withdraw the money? I assume you actually mean transfer rather than that you went in with a suitcase but even so, anyone that goes into a branch to move £600k is a bit of a loony. I hold less half of that in an account with Barclays and I'd have my Barclays relationship manager or investment adviser over at my house in 15 minutes if I called him on his mobile and said I wanted to move my money or withdraw it. So I call BS on this or you really are a bit of a plonker.