Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

bachelor

Members
  • Content Count

    184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bachelor

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. This is precisely the point I was alluding to. I completely agree with you, Hans. The higher prices go the more unsustainable the whole thing gets. The more people accepting 'help' the more widespread the problem if / when a shock occurs. It's becoming ominously familiar with the good old days of 2001 - 2006.
  2. After a long hiatus from HPC this article has prompted me to post a thought. We know that this 'help to buy' scheme is an insane way of, in effect, keeping house prices high by re-inflating a previous housing bubble which hadn't quite burst. By using taxpayers' money to support lending to prospective home buyers to borrow a large amount of money which they may struggle to repay in the future, it seems to make a situation more vulnerable than secure. So if more people take up this offer of 'help' to buy their own home it makes even more people vulnerable to an economic shock. Added to this, base rates are widely predicted to rise to 3% (or something like that) by 2019 meaning an increased number of people exposing themselves to higher repayments, naturally. Such a prognosis will, of course, depend on wage growth and other such variables. But the point remains: is this stoking up an even bigger problem for the future? One of the last things one should have in a debt crisis is a large amount of debt. It seems old habits die hard. Just a thought.
  3. With rents still low and prices falling, the claim that buy to let is counter-cyclical will be tested over the coming years.
  4. This brought a smile to my face this morning; great news. Year on year negative could be a couple of months away.
  5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7206384.stm
  6. Indeed, a big sign that the retail sector and thus the great British shoppers are tightening up, just take a look at M&S share price today.
  7. To me this is all down to the voting system in the UK which almost always ensures that the party with the largest minority wins. For those who don't know about the voting system here is a simple example. Suppose that there has just been a general election, these are the results for X constituency, (because in British elections it's the number of seats that count, not the national vote). Labour - 30% Conservative - 40% Liberals - 20% Others - 10% Under the current system ('first past the post') the conservatives have won, but clearly they dont have a majortiy (i.e. anything over 50%). This is why there is a disproportional number of seats in the commons to the percentage of votes cast nationally for that party. As a result nearly all goverments don't have a clear mandate to govern. In the last election (IIRC) labour won 33% of the popular vote but recieved over half the seats, hence 'elective dictatorship'. Hope that helps.
  8. Found this on Bloomberg, just imagine if these guys get their way! http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...movers_by_index
  9. More disappointed than angry, we all know that this was not the right decision, however I believe that this is only a short term measure and we will need further rises over the medium to long term - inflationary pressure is too great. Also will the cut be passed on? At the moment it doesn't look like it.
  10. I'm 24 and renting in Kent. Student. Not married and never will be - too risky. Working part time to pay for course fees and saving as much as possible, and will not be buying a house any time soon.
  11. I'm up for that, Sunday afternoon/evening suits me better.
×
×
  • 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.