mmt

The number of new cars has increased massively in the last couple of years. I suppose the logic is: house prices up -> confidence up -> more borrowing ok -> new car. I notice also that new cars are also priced much higher but with extremely low rates available on credit (e.g. 2% over 5 years).

Taking the first in your list: 47 Kings Road, London SW14 8PF http://www.zoopla.co.uk/property-history/47-kings-road/london/sw14-8pf/21778057 Street view now shows this property now to have been substantially extended. My assumption is that there is a fair bit of extension going on in that list - side returns, rear extensions and basements.

Properties evaporate unless Landlords own them. Well known fact.

I wonder if the speculators will abandon London for e.g. Dublin? One looks dangerously toppy the other bottomed out.

It is quite apparent that people are reducing their asking prices after just days on the market. Like you say - no interest, no viewings. Quite a reversal from the sold in a week, sealed bids, above asking, queues round the corner shenanigans of 2013/2014.

I think that at one point in the 1970s wage growth was over 30% with interest rates being in the mid 20%s. Yes, it may have been a stretch for them to buy on day 1, but 2 or 3 years down the line their earnings had grown so much relative to their debt that they were ready to upsize again. A relative of mine told me that they doubled their mortgage every time they moved.

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/markets/chris-blackhurst-london-fails-to-learn-old-lessons-as-it-gets-greedy-about-property-again-10195638.html

Some people did alright.

I also know nothing about NI. There is a NI thread on this site. What's interesting about that thread is that you can jump into the middle of it and you'll see people saying "I can't see how prices will fall much more than x%". People obviously thought that market had fundamentals it didn't have because not even ZIRP could save it. Maybe it's a case of once a market gets so overheated it is hard to stop it snowballing?

So there was an argument going on here a few days ago about low rates putting a floor on prices falls. Why did that not happen in Northern Ireland?

So this is why Rightmove have released the "highest ever (asking) prices" press release today? Got to keep the bubble dream alive until May 5th.

At the moment there is this argument that because rates are so low the "old" affordability metric basic on salary multiples is irrelevant. I saw Javid using this argument on newsnight when he was promoting HTB. Only the monthly payment is relevant apparently (and the deposit, but the govt. has got your back on that one).

Submit yourself for re-education.

Why were prices crashing before they lowered the BR to 0.5%? Was it sudden mass unemployment? Had the mortgages suddenly become unaffordable? Had loads of extra houses suddenly appeared or masses of people fled the country? No, people were sh1t scared of falling prices.

Saw this elsewhere but I don't recall it being discussed here: http://www.home.co.uk/company/press/the_central_london_house_price_bubble_bursts.htm

Are you not getting the warm wet feeling of trickle down?

My understanding is that annuities were compulsory under the old rules from the age of 75 and only if your current investments didn't generate an income of £20,000 a year. That seems like a sensible policy. This "pension freedom" on the other hand looks totally shortsighted. It will be interesting to see if they really do withhold benefits from those who run out of money. Unlikely in my opinion.

This is a fallacy isn't it? In the past, when rates were much higher, affordability over the longer term was still better because disposable incomes rose rapidly (e.g. in the 1970s). It is wrong to argue that houses are historically cheap now vs then just because interest rates are lower.

Not being appropriate or not being popular. So it's fine to tax earned income but not unearned income.

And apparently this is all fine because mortgage payments as a % of income are "within historical norms". Unfortunately, interest rates are not. There is trouble ahead.

Transaction volumes for London by year: year | transactions ------+-------------- 2006 | 102409 2002 | 102269 1999 | 98788 2001 | 97271 2007 | 97089 2004 | 94169 2000 | 90556 2003 | 86740 2005 | 82358 1998 | 80712 1997 | 79826 2013 | 69266 2014 | 66197 1996 | 63318 2012 | 56696 2010 | 56026 2011 | 55434 1995 | 48800 2008 | 47462 2009 | 44587

Anyone got any insight into how the repeat sales regression model really works? How hard is it for this index to turn around if we assume that properties sell on average every 5-7 years? The same property sold last year might sell for less this year, but it may not return to the market for many years but an identical house next door might sell for less than last years price but more than it's sold price 6 years ago = prices still rising on repeat sales of the same houses. LR claim repeat sales is the best model, but is it not obviously the case that (hedonic, I think it's called) model is better because it looks at similar properties (not the exact same property). Any insight?

http://www.propertywire.com/news/europe/uk-house-price-index-2015032310293.html

The LR index has qualitative adjustments, though how this is done is not stated. The methodology is described here: http://pro.landmarkanalytics.co.uk/Land-Registry-House-Price-Index-Methodology-1995.pdf Not sure if they can adequately account for the rash of side return extensions and bifolding doors though.