Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Unmoderated

  1. 3 hours ago, PropertyMania said:

    Look at any period in history: house prices do not follow inflation! Prices generally fall as inflation rises because it means interest rates hikes are on the way and the housing market is highly sensitive to that due to leverage.

    How can we explain what happened in the 1970s? Very high inflation and very high house price growth. 

    Besides, I'm not too fussed about the price. The reason for borrowing all you can and using it to buy assets is that the real value of that debt is being devalued. Give me a decade of 3% inflation and tat debt pile has fallen in real value by over a third. at 4% nearly half!

    If you wouldn't hold cash due to inflation then just take it further and short chase - hold debt. 

  2. 1 hour ago, Locke said:

    Yes -for now. Every investor feels like a genius in a bull market.

    Didn't mean to suggest you were. In fact, quite the opposite and I was agreeing with you. HPI shouldn't get us down in the dumps; HPC shouldn't make us euphoric.

    Yes - there's a common theme around fund managers that have a lucky streak.... Neil Woodford for example. 

    Then we are agreed :)

  3. Just now, TheCountOfNowhere said:

    If people are £30K is was never affordable even if they have £7,5K in savings.

    The bankers have very clever put the people of the UK in a corner.  We have no option but to work a life time now to keep them all going, the worse they make it, the more difficult it is to do the necessary thing to end it.

    I agree with this - my thinking is they've set us up on a treadmill so we're the little units of tax income tax paying drones they need us to be to cover the costs for all the other crap they want to throw money at. They start now with the hapless 18 year old by strapping them with £50K+ just to get a fairly mediocre degree (for the most part) then it's rent or live at home for 15 years to save up enough money for a deposit on a slave box with a 40 year mortgage that you'll finish paying off on your 75th birthday. 

  4. 14 minutes ago, Locke said:

    Depends when you ask. Yes, they have avoided collapses for a long time, but many families have been completely ruined in the past.

    I do agree with this. I think we shouldn't let rising house prices figure ruin our day and we should similarly not let drops make them. That's just an addictive emotional rollercoaster.

    I was thinking about this today too funnily enough. I have a good friend with close to £100K saved up and lives in accommodation provided at nominal cost by his employer. The only thing stopping him from buying is fear that the worst would happen - although his job is as safe as it could possibly be and he'd be able to rent the house out (he probably would do this anyway). We have another friend in an identical position but he bought a flat back in the late noughties. He's considered a little slow on the update but he's 'won' that particular property race. Discussing this in general with another group of friends (all former colleagues and chartered accountants) we've come to the conclusion that the most 'successful' people are either those too dumb to realise the risk or those with rich enough parents that they'll be fine regardless. 

    I'm not suggesting we do ride the emotional roller coaster, I'm merely pointing out that one month of falls on the back of ridiculous rises doesn't mean a crash is coming no matter how much we'd all appreciate one.

  5. 3 hours ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

    Why would you even attempt to buy under such circumstances.

    lose 9K last month, how much next and the one after ?

    There's nothing worth buying through most of the country.  Put yuour feet up and wait ill after Christmas.

    Because money is dirt cheap. It's actually free in real terms and there's no shortage of people operating to make that self fulfilling prophecy come true. One could try and time the market but how has that worked out for most people? 

    Full repayment mortgages for 70% LTV are below 1% for a five year fixed!!! If you believe we're in for a dose of inflation it's madness not to buy something, live in it for five years and pay the mortgage and you'll be laughing in five years versus renting. 

    One swallow does not a spring make and one month of declining prices (especially against a backdrop of improving employment figures, rising inflation and the cheapest money ever) does not a crash make. 

  6. 3 hours ago, Locke said:

    If you work through the numbers, it's actually worse than you would intuit, because rises mean than falls are more significant. The larger the rise, the more precipitous the position.

    If a price rises by 50% then falls by 50%, it is at 75% of the original figure



    Yes agreed though annual rises will also be showing the monthly falls too. Interesting there are fairly small falls in the South East and much larger in places further afield where people maybe ran from London to the South West or West Midlands. 

  7. Would vote Tory but the tax rise is a joke and all to pay for people who imho can afford to take the hit and are still getting a 2.5% pay rise this year for doing FA other than surviving another year. I'll be increasing my pension contributions now to ensure my total tax contribution doesn't increase from this year's levels ever and I'll be moving to accelerate my end game of gaining enough capital from extending my existing home that I could buy my next home outright with the tax free gain. 

    Play the game right back at them. 

    So it's Greens for me unless something very drastic changes. 

  8. 9 hours ago, reddog said:

    One or two?  I know on a lot of Barratt style estates btherr are a lot of parking beefs because only one car parking spot is provisioned for, but a lot of people have 2 cars.


    I recon just after petrol cars become illegal, the prices on the used market will start to rise because some people won't be able to change their vehicles.

    I think this was an issue that came and went? I'm getting planning on my place for 4/5 beds and architect is telling me I']#m lucky because I have enough parking (4 cars out front and additional parking via service road at rear). Apparently that's an issue for planning these days. 

  9. 18 hours ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

    Im not maxing out my mortgage, I said I'd have a 50% mortgage on a house.

    The mortgage will be approx 20% of our net worth.

    You'd need to be a loon to put all your eggs in one basket with prices the way they are.


    Why the heck not? Rates don't really tick up until you get to 65% LTV and even up to 75% LTV are pretty much free money in real terms!

    I used to think like you but being prudent and doing the 'right' thing only gets you screwed over. 

    Personally I think you have to be a loon to not borrow as much as you can at a 1% fixed for 5 years and use that money for other things that will make you more than 1%. 

  10. 16 hours ago, Insane said:

    They are gone this has been debated for many years and there are many and different reasons given. Including the unions demanded to many rights and too higher wages for apprentices. Or the Government's killed them off due to reduced incentives to companies taking them on another reason given is companies don't want to train they want ready made and successive Governments did help them in that by mass immigration of people already trained. I was speaking to a one man band plumber a few years back who said he looked into taking on an apprentice but the Red Tape was to involved. 


    Yes it was it was free but only the top people were offered this free higher education. Why do you say supporting a cohort that had it all for free there are many who had free Uni still in the work force. 


    Well this is the Question where is all the money going In my life I have seen tax's only going one way which is up. We are constantly told how big the national debt is , how we have to raise tax and implement cuts but how do we know all this is true. I look at the situation quite often and I am baffled


    . People earn big money in all different ways I earned big money working in manufacturing I did the night shift sometimes 6 nights a week including 12 hour shifts and now illegal I would go in at 10pm on a Friday night then finish at 2pm on Saturday afternoon it was gruelling boring work but it paid well. When that job finished again in Manufacturing I worked the 12 hour continental shifts nights and days plus I did plenty of overtime it was a very wealthy company and paid very well but if it had not paid that well they would not have kept the staff as the job was awful and we worked with dangerous chemicals. A high proportion of people who worked at that place died young. 

    If you look back at the factory jobs we had in this country decades back I think they were paid a lot more than what was realised , but there was a high price to pay which was a higher tax bracket like the graduate but also bad health in later life and on average an earlier death. Nothing is free there is always a cost somewhere not always a financial cost. 

    Yes people will be dependent on those with degrees who work in R&D ect but those in R&D will also be dependent on others with less skills but are also vital to the processes of an economy. Which means it is a constant moving negotiation on who gets rewarded with what ?   

    Thanks for the responses. If I were to simplify it I'd simply say that education makes society better off so it seems fair that society foots the bill. People pay progressive tax rates according to their earnings so if they go to uni, become a doctor and earn £250K/year as a top surgeon then great, the country, the patient and the surgeon wins. It does seem rather unfair though to make that surgeon pay £10k a year for five years in order to train to save lives wouldn't you say?

    Sure, some degrees are beyond worthless but I would favour an apprenticeship scheme which I think may be gaining popularity - there is the apprentice levy added to ERS NI now at 0.5% which can be reclaimed for spending on trainees.

    Back to the then and now though - there has been little change in tertiary education as a % of people across the past several decades so it might well be the case that fewer went to uni but those that didn't seemed to have gained some other qualification.  

    However, the value of a degree has been inflated away. But..... to become a chartered accountant (as I am) you must embark on a training scheme. You can take a none university route of course but overwhelmingly the prestigious courses with paid time for accounting college require minimum education of X numbers of UCAS points gained at A-Level and a 2:1 or higher at degree. 

    While it does seem like a great big con how else would you get a career in todays market? Even if it's been devalued it just means more people have it so you need to work even harder to stand out. 

    What stood out for me was that my professional qualifications were significantly more difficult than uni. Used to be a degree opened things up but a CA/ACA/ACCA/CIMA is gold plated.... it's just getting there. 


  11. 17 hours ago, Si1 said:

    so straight out of university she had 10-20k to drop on a flat deposit in a bubbly market presumably with family standing behind her incase it went pear shaped?

    She had an excellent job right out of uni with big 4 accounting firm and had done a placement year there too (well paid). She also worked through uni (as did I). I actually graduated with £10k in an ISA :D.

    As for bubbly market.... it doubled in price lol. 

  12. 1 hour ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

    According to this fella...



    If the Bank of England does not raise interest-rates in response to 4% inflation when will it do so?

    The BoE has no intention of raise IRs.

    I'd say they were more likely to go -ve.

    There is no good end for this for anyone sitting in cash waiting for the price of houses to come down.

    They will only come down, IMHO, when the who system collapses, you are not collecting on your money/savings at that point and your wages, if you have a job, will be worthless.

    Hi Count, I agree. I'm maxing out my mortgage (much against the ethos of us here - but if you can't beat em) just to extend the house and/or buy a classic car, or something that I think will appreciate in value. I even would consider putting the max into my pension and subsidising my living expenses with the borrowed money and take the PCLS to clear the mortgage in 20 years. 

    I was spreading the good word back in 2007 and 2008 and thinking how lucky I was being a new graduate at that point in time. I even tried to talk my GF at the time out of buying a flat in London for £200K thinking she was onto a loser. Turns out I was the loser. The flat double in price in about 5 years and she ended up renting it out, plus her now husbands flat too while they bought a lovely new house together. Sold the flats to cover the renovation costs and sitting pretty. Been burned once, hard and long by this so as soon as I could buy something I was remotely happy with I jumped. 

    The tax rises made me suddenly feel that anger and frustration I used to feel, the same feeling that led me to find this site all those years ago. The sheer unfairness, the way the game is tilted so unfairly against those without property and those born at the wrong time, or those simply unwilling to take on so much debt. 

    Although building and materials costs are crazy right now I still intend to max out as much as I can borrow. If prices comes back down next year I'll look to make significant changes to the house. If not I might just tart it all up and sell it, downsize and do what I can to max out my pension and pay less tax and get more free time. 

    If the system ever does collapse I'll not be a target with a modest little home somewhere and hopefully I'll be semi self sustainable. 

  13. 42 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

    Well you can't - the topic here isn't Suicide but rather Euthanasia i.e. what if you want to die but can't physically do it: can someone legally help you or not?  At the moment in the UK they can't, but that doesn't feel right.

    Ah good point well made. I concur. Provided there's appropriate safeguards there then people should have that right. I think Terry Pratchet ended up with a one way plane ticket to Switzerland in the end. 

  14. 1 hour ago, MancTom said:

    I would argue this is impossible. We seem to have a major reorganisation to "streamline" every 5 years or so and it never achieves anything (if it did, why are we where we are with the NHS?). Not impossible in principle, but in practice because the people doing the reforms are politicians and its rare they have much talent nor real experience of work in relevant areas nowadays. Would be better to somehow remove the politicians. I recall a BBC programme where a CEO of a big company came in to a NHS trust up north and found all kinds of inefficiencies (but the people with  real power would not listen to him).

    You might then argue privatise it to get CEO like him in charge. But just as likely is you get some spivs who run it down even more whilst extracting vast profits for themselves.

    I know a former CFO of a very large FTSE 100 company (a friend's father). When he took early retirement he offered his services free of charge to his local NHS Trust. They were not interested. 

    NHS is actually a pretty efficient beast for its size and nature but there's always improvements to be made. I was in hospital a month or so ago (A&E with the GF) and honestly came away thinking they need more funding. The building was a state and fairly grim. I wouldn't think I'd recover well in such a depressing environment. 

  15. 22 hours ago, Roman Roady said:

    Eat well avoiding processed sugary food, exercise moderately aiming for the 10k daily steps, refrain from stress (if you job is driving you crackers, give it up), try to hit your ideal weight (although the BMI concept is flawed IMPO), try to stay within the recommended weekly alcohol consumption limits, and...GIVE UP SMOKING.

    Prevention IS better than cure.

    Agree - though good article out stating 7K steps is the magic number this month :)



  16. On 05/09/2021 at 23:25, Insane said:

    Right so the other countries the UK is aligned with are they also educating people for the sake of it ? To keep them off the job market ? Or are there roles open to them due to their higher education?

    I do know it has been said about the ex communist Eastern European Countries was the one thing they did do was educate their young however they were very little openings for them once they had got educated so much of this higher education was pretty pointless. 

    To say in the UK people are paying twice is rubbish they pay once when they take up higher education. If  people then go on to earn more money they will pay more tax that is a separate issue. Many people who have been to Uni don't earn more. There are also many people earing more paying more tax who never went to Uni , so on your standard that someone having been to Uni earning more and thus paying more tax are paying twice , someone who pays more tax due to higher earnings who never went to Uni ( I fall into that list ) are paying once for something they never had. 

    Yeah, it's a cynical thought I've had too. Preserve employment numbers by soaking up people into universities. The point is more that this is competitive pressure in a global market. The perception is you need a degree or a professional (proper one) to compete in a global industry for a decent job. 

    I agree you can overeducate a workforce for sure. But what's interesting is the shift in type of courses. The total number of people in tertiary education has not changed as much as I had thought. Certainly not from 10% to 50%. The other issue is where is the on the job training or apprenticeships that used to grace the young?


    On average £130K more earnings over their lifetime. Even at a lower tax rate plus NI that's £39K, in other words it is the cost of a four year degree at £9k/year. 

    Historically the relationship was always that education was free but because you tended to earn more it was fair that you paid more tax. The degree lead to a higher paid job then as it does now. However, now you're clobbered with paying for your own education and then paying into a system when you graduate that supports a cohort that had it all for free. 

    Although you might be an outlier an anecdote is not the singular of fact and the facts are that tertiary education was either free, or paid (apprenticeships) compared to today where you pay (a fortune) and there are precious few apprenticeships available. Back then if you went on to earn more then fine, you paid more tax but that was most likely due to the effect of that education so the system was paying for itself. Now it doesn't - why not? where is all that money going? 

    What you describe is a unique position where someone pays more for not going to university IF they end up earning as much as someone who did go. Question for you, how did they earn that much? Was it by working with technical people who started off on a graduate scheme after going to uni? Or building a business and employing university graduates? Even a humble builder requires civil engineers, building control and permission not to mention using materials that have been processed by companies employing people in R&D who... guess what... went to university. 

    No man is an island and education has far wider reaching benefits than those individuals. Yet as a society we've chosen to socialise those benefits and privatise the costs. 

  17. 2 minutes ago, Huggy said:

    Okay, you've gone for the 'where have I said?' opener. In response (and I don't like using these because communication is always a bit nuanced, even just in text) I would ask where have I said you were mocking those who can't buy (in bold above). What I actually said was:

    Rather than people who can't buy, we were both referring to people who won't buy. Who you then said (in the second bolded part of the quote), that you were actually mocking. I know who you were mocking, you know who you were mocking, and I disagree that they should be mocked unless it's purely from a fortune telling, prediction point of view, in which case that is silly and as paranormal as tealeaves and ouija boards.

    Re the drink driving example. You haven't actually explained what was wrong with it, just that my facade was dropped, and I am unable to construct an argument because of it? I have thick skin and so logical fallacies aside, if you don't like an extreme example where many arguments are well tested, try the National Lottery one instead which avoids that moral high ground that you detest.

    For reference, the drink driving comment was "Not getting into a bad situation is pretty much always a good idea. Drink driving isn't good just because you didn't get caught this time and saved £20 on a taxi."

    The Lottery comment is "Not getting into a bad situation is pretty much always a good idea. Gambling on the Lottery wasn't a good just because you won. Even if you are a multi-millionnaire now"

    Of course it might well end up as a positive or negative result, just like drink driving, chucking it all on red in Vegas, or buying overpriced houses. I'll still shout until I cannot shout any more that they are all bad ideas all of the time.

    I'll explain. The DD example is a strawman at it's finest. You've opened an analogy with a pre-known and almost universally agreed 'bad position'. The point with buying or not buying a house and whether that's good or bad is impossible to answer since it's an individual level decision. 

    I think the issue is the perception that buying a house is some massive gamble when, put simply, it's a game of financial maths adn doing what's best for you. You want to rent because you've a neuroses about prices collapsing the second you buy something then that's ok. If, on the other hand, you accept that a paper gain or loss is just that and you can afford to make the repayments as stress tested (and if you've concerns about rate rises you can fix that rate) then also fine. 

    Drink driving to save £20 it is not. That's always a dumb idea whether you get away with it or not. 

    As for me, and as posted above, I got a stream of borderline abuse for being a mug and capitulating 4 years ago. Best thing I've done after quitting smoking and getting qualified I'd say. It's nice to be able to move forward from everything's so unfair and the world's against me to look forward to improving my home, quality of life and financial position. You couldn't rent a flat for what my mortgage costs on a three bed detached with lovely garden, log burner and nice walk into a decent market town with plenty of pubs and restaurants (no need to drink drive OR waste £20 on a taxi!). 

    You might well be on here arguing until the day you buy or the day you die. I wish you luck. 

  18. 2 hours ago, Twenty Something said:

    In your rush to make up a situation to be offended by, you have completely missed the point, though I do like the word perspicacious and haven't heard it in a while. Where have I been mocking those who can't buy? I've posted a number of times that I have sympathy for the anger that some have. Where have I been lauding home owners as seers? Where have I claimed to be a financial wizard? As a recent case in point some 15 hours ago:

    My response:

    Then of course in true taking the moral high ground style, you drop your facade with the drink driving comment. Keeping it classy - the realm of nuanced insults is often populated by those unable to construct an argument.

    To explain things for you, my comments were entirely mocking those who have spent years, sometimes decades predicting things with 100% certainty that have of course failed to materialise. Instead of learning and achieving any sort of enlightenment, they continue to post things such as dancing with sheeple did to me about how I've fallen for <insert whatever fashionable term it is this week>, and if only I'd listen to them I'd see the light. No skin off my nose of course what some random on the internet thinks, but this is what I am mocking. Posters who have spent decades being wrong, but for whatever reason are unable to change or to grow. People so invested in the end of the world that when the economic downturn does come, they will be whooping and celebrating as the 'sheeple' as they call them are put through the wringer. The disdain and condescending nature that the regular posters have for their fellow countrymen without realising you can only be wrong for so long before you yourself start to look a little silly. 

    If you're going to give it out, then accept you will get some back. Many here are far from perspicacious when it comes to the economy / house prices, something easily proven with a bit of a search. As for yourself, I doubt we'll go through another 20 years without a house price correction, so you'll be proven right at some point of that I have no doubt. Indeed, if we wait long enough, we will all be right. To re-iterate for clarity, if you are priced out then you have my sympathy as things are far from ideal currently. If you're sat on a large pile of cash waiting for the crash, you need to give life a bit more thought in my opinion. 

    Great response. 

    I announced on here that I'd bitten the bullet (about 4 years ago). A stream of vitriol ensued. I was a moron, credit was tightening etc etc. I bought a fixer upper in a good town but on a bit of a cut through road that I knew was being turned into a dead-end and a relief road built (doing it now!). The biggest issue I have with the place at the moment is that I want to extend it but because of the sheer demand for work and the shortage of some materials the quotes I'm getting are a little crazy. The upshot though is I remortgage for £350K and my repayments are £950/month for a five years 0.99% fixed! This is a nice problem to have and I'm glad I've moved on from the anger I used to feel when I was renting and everything felt so unfair and stacked up against me. 

    I, like you, have much sympathy with many in a precarious housing position but as you've pointed out it is within your control to change that. 

  19. 22 hours ago, Insane said:

    It used to be below 10% that is where it could and should have stayed but the other 20% joined in have taken out massive debt and now find they are competing for jobs they could have got at 16 or 18 , many of them have degrees that have nothing to do with the jobs they are now competing for. 

    Here's an interesting article on tertiary education:


  20. 22 hours ago, Insane said:

    You talk about it often it is in your DNA to blame the Boomers. 

    It seems you're a geneticist now too? What's the DNA mutation that makes one blame Boomers? 

    What have I blamed them for? When and where did I write it?

    I said they got lucky. To say otherwise is to say they're a superior generation (which we can all agree is nonsense). 

  • 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.