Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IMHAL

  1. Thow is missing the point - the point being that higher interest rates = pain = less money to spend = redundancies = reposessions etc etc etc..... If you want lower inflation then you must destroy demand. Without the pain of recession /demand destruction then wage spirals will rule and we will have greater inflation. Can't make an omlette without breaking eggs as my manager said to me whilst handing me my P45. HAL
  2. Yes - it is now time to thank Gordon - he has played a blinder by starting to help first time buyers be able to afford houses by lowering house prices - house prices will now go down to sensible levels. We knew all along that that canny Scot/Britisher was pro the poor and working class and now at last he has come to our rescue by helping to deflate what is an essential in life - housing. There are people who will suffer - so Gordon will have to be strong and not bow to those greedy rich landlords who act as a tax on the working class or those self serving estate agents or those capitalist builders - they will start screaming when Gordon rebalances the housing market - after all we don't mind paying extra taxes for good causes only if we have money left after paying our rent or our currently outrageous mortgages (if we could afford the house in the first place). So Go Gordon Go! Here's to sensible house prices - make that about 3x average salary please! Lets face it everyone one else hates him - so I thought I'd go all contrarian. HAL
  3. And I wonder what their excuse will be when CPI inflation reaches 5% (i.e. real inflation is at 15%)? These guys just don't seem to get it - if inflation is out of control then pain has to be inflicted and this means higher interest rates and redundancies - otherwise its all just Zimbabwenomics. Talk is cheap - lets see some action from our highly paid economists. HAL
  4. I agree - and that is why I can hardly bring myself to read the sheer drivel that appears in the Times. They really should stick to reporting the event on Corrie and other TV soaps. The Times yoyo's between house prices are decoupled from inflation when the going is good to house prices affect the economy when times are bad - as far as I can tell they just have one policy 'cheap money at all costs' - hardly economic literacy is it. To think that the Times was a serious paper before Murdock turn it into a comic - what a great shame. HAL
  5. Caught in the same predicament - my policy is lend a little and then no more - only lend what you can comfortably afford to lose (on the premise that you will not get it back ever) - in ths way you have done your bit. It they continue with the pressure then you need to explain to them that you will need the money and offer to talk about their finances to see what they can do on their own - that might lead to talk of IVA/bankrupcy or if they are fortunate to some kind of saving plan/cost cutting. Still it is better to be bankrupt early rather that to go down with all your cash too if that is the inevitable outcome. If they do not see the logic of this then I am afraid you need to chose your family more carefully Its the right balance between helping and being a muppet. HAL
  6. I strongly suspect that even having a deposit to get 80% LTV will be good enough to act as a vulture fund as the property market will be carrion by then - a stinking mess that smells so bad that no one will want to touch it. HAL
  7. Also - dont forget that 2005 was a flat year so we should theoritically be mm's away from 3 years negative just after that! HAL
  8. Well lets do a back of fag packet calculation. Lets assume september 07 was the peak. Also lets take 6 months before that point and also after the peak as the period that buyers will be affected: - 6 months of 100k transactions/month = 600k - 9 months of ~60k tranasctions/month = 600k Total transaction 1.2m If we assume that there are 4 houses in a chain and that only the bottom of the chain is affected because they typically have no or little equity and that there are no second home buyers and that second time buyers have greater equity (unlikely but conservative guess). Then we get about 300k have fallen into negative equity. If we where to add second home buyers as those requiring large LTV and assume that those also on the second rung have mortgaged to the hilt then the numbers grow considerably. Also if we add thoe that have MEW'd to the hilt then we get greater numbers. So they could argue the case that about 250k have moved into neg equity - just - but it does very look low ball. I would expect to see 1/2 million on neg equity right now. HAL
  9. My adive is leave £5k in the fridge for the buyer as a thank you - the first time buyer will need it when your property reaches is true value in about 1 years time (read about half of what it is being bought for). Also if you have managed to get a discount on the one you are buying then what is your gripe? Or are you an idiot? You will have less to pay in mortage payments - you should thank the furst time buyer. What an a55! HAL
  10. Injin - you are right - government creates the problem - tries to solve it - problem appears elsewhere - tries to correct that by doing more of the same - the problem gets bigger and bigger until it can no longer lay the blame on anyone else - then it says that the problem is real and we all have to work hard to solve it. Me thee and jo, bob and bee all have to bend over and take the up the jacky. The government is getting awfully trigger happy about who it blames - soon someone will expose them for all to see. Wha they are really saying is that we want to bail out the banks increasing the the money supply without any consequences (or most probably without the electorate noticing - if they don't then we also don't have a problem) I like your bloody nose analogy - except that the guy who has just been hit - i.e. the speculator does not really have a bloody nose - he is just pretending and the person who hit him did not hit him at all - he was just pretended to. It is a game that they play when the public get angry - they pretend to care and do a bit of protesting but noting else - its just a game to appease the public. HAL
  11. Yep - as has been debated on HPC over the the last 5 years. I remember when we all thought that the BoE was a puppet to the government - and so it transpired. Now we ask a different question but the answer is staring us in the face. The answer is that this government want to keep rolling the dice and let the party roll - because that keeps the illusion going (but faded now). I have been aware of that since 2005. You get jaded by the sheer incompetence of those that are supposed to protect your interests and then you wake up and the reality is worse. HAL
  12. Boys and girls - this is some high flutin talk. The point that Eric was getting at is that these liar loans are totally being ignored by the FSA - why?? It has been reported by SKY news recently - the BBC reported it years ago - and what are the FSA doing? FSUK all!!! You would have thought that SKY or someone whould have got the FSA to comment on what they had found.... but no. Do people not realise that this is akin to printing counerfeit money and distributing it. If money is released into the system under with the premis that it is an obligation that cannot be met then this is fraud under any monetary system (either fiat or gold based) - why have the FSA not acted? May be we should remane the FSA and call ten "FSUKall use to Anybody" How can it be? What are they doing? (I know the answer to that) HAL
  13. I did notice that the front page of HPC states that the trend line is 2.4% pa whilst the graph posted by Nationwide now states 2.8%???????????????????????? Me thinks that Nationwide have tried to make the exponential rise over the years seem less like a bubble by increasing the trend line. Naughty Naughty Nationwide. HAL
  14. 2005 was a flat year from what I recall - so if we have 5% rise on May 2006 to May 2008 then by October 2008 we should have nominal negative 3YOY figures and when you take into account inflation (or what your money could have earned over the 3 year period in an account) then you are looking at -10% 3YOY falls by October this year. HAL
  15. I hate to say this but the man is an ultra dove - a Blanchflower MkII - he is a dork of the highest order and types like him have directly led to the situation we now face. He is leaving because he knows that the mega shit is about to hit the fast spinning fan. He has made is booty and is now ready to retire from the proceeds of his stolen wealth. I really cannot believe that central banks are governed by self interest groups like this turd. The central banks have once again presided over human misery - with their mantra of 'we cannot tell if X, Y or Z is in a bubble' - 'we are there to pick up the pieces when this has blown over'. I'd love these guys to be brought to account one day - when the full fallout of suffering is brought before them and they are asked to pay for their sins - because they know full well what they do. HAL
  16. Like a dilapidated rundown hut is a special house. HAL
  17. As CrashMonitor says - depends on the price. I think you will find that at todays prices there are not many buyers - that has an will continue to affect prices. Those buyers with a 'special' purchase in mind will buy when that property becomes available and its more likely to be available with less competition when a crash is on. I chose to STR to make a bit on the way down and also to buy a 'special' property when I find one and it becomes available. HAL
  18. A swallow does not make a summer. There will always be those properties that are passed down from generation to generation and that rarely come onto the market. This sound slike one of them. If you want one of these - then the crash is a great time to buy one - because many people are too scared to buy. The difference being that when there is boom on - you will never get first dibs on on of these rare properties. HAL
  19. Yep protected, or a better word would 'somewhat insured' - as if this transpires, gold, land, food, guns and ammo and a private army or collective will be needed to be covered. HAL
  20. Ver goood yes ver ver good. BUT I did not see the conomists complain when we where importing deflation from China and asking that we raise interest rates / keep monetary policy on a tight if even keel! So now that we are importing inflation, becuase we have not set aside money our war chest of money is empty - will will have to pay our dues - payback time! I would have thought that expanding money supply at the scale we have been over the last 10 years would automatically trigger alarm bells - was it really so unpredictable? HAL
  21. Declan's Sloppy Joe's reporting Parlour stikes again: Did I har him correctly when he said that there are 40% less houses up for sale? :angry: Why can he not get it right? He needs to and should have said that there are 40% less houses being sold and that there are 150% more houses on the market.... and this means that houses are going down in price. Why is this human lard bucket allowed to mis-represent the news. HAL
  22. That is how I read it too! Fortunately we are in a collapse and its just about to get much worse. HAL
  23. Thats just another aspect of government intervention that will do no one any good in the long term - I'd personally refuse to be dependant on the state (or anyone else for that matter). I value my independence and strive to keep myself employable and valuable. The government will realise (maybe not this one because they really are thick) that the cost of living in this county has to come down for us to compete in a global economy. That means no or minimal intervention with houses, with taxes to business and wages, and no bloated public sector. NuLabour have depreciated everything in this country, from education to family values and especially considering when it pays to seek benefits rather than take a job. Despicable. But for now - go ahead take the benefits - it will bring the situation to ahead quicker forcing them to make a decision - higher taxes or less public servants and a harder safety net. The sad thing is that the cream of our taxes over the last 10 years have been wasted on high salary public sector non-jobs, failed "folly" IT projects and our future taxes will be wasted on giving those non productive workers a gold plated pension. A true travesty that we are the future generations will have to pay. Thanks for the party NuLabour! HAL
  24. I put to you that the business's first priority is to survive - if it suffers a lack of business acumen then employess can go to another similar company that is more efficient, they should be able to secure higher wages because it is more efficient and can afford it, the original company will go bust - either through lack of resources or because they caved into unfeasible wage demands without becoming more efficient. On the other hand if the original company is operating efficiently and is genuinly having a hard time then wage demand will not be met (if the company has any savvy at all). Then as an employee you have a choice, either accept the conditions or make way for someone else who will. It is wrong for you to generalise like this just because living expenses are rising and to think that an employer has unlimited funds to pay its staff - you have to remember that what these companies are producing are bought by someone and that someone is probably me and you - they would then have to pass these extra wage cost on and we would soon find ourselves going back to our employees and ansking for more just because WE have asked for higher wages. There are a few real issue is this thread: 1/ is that many do not trust empoyers - and for many this is a real concern - they will try to get the most from you for as little as possible - that is true. It is up to you to find out. You must try to get the best for your skills - either from your current or other employers, by finding out your true worth to a company or by increasing your skills so that you become valuable or more valuable to the company. You cannot just say the company has made more money so I demand more - the company has every right to say no as it could find others who are as capable for the same wage - it is a free market for labour and that applies to both employers and employees 2/ this governments relentless increase in public sector jobs and their hefty pay rises has meant that the private sector (where all the wealth is produced) is competing for assets with the public sector (both in terms of employees and what their wages can buy). As the government does not live in the real world and seems to not recognise that when the private sector suffers so to should the public sector suffer by reducing its overhead. What does this mean? - it means that the private sector will bear the brunt initially - they will make less profit (lower efficiency, higher production cost and be less competative compared to the global market place), we pay more taxes in relation to earnings because we are competing for resources from a bloated public sector that has job security and high wages (this bids up or keeps living costs high, house prices etc)- the result is that businesses and employees in the private sector will suffer badly whilst the public sector in their high paid jobs will look like Richard Richies in a few years time. Until or course the government debt looks like it is starting to take on water - it will then have a choice - more taxes and a dying private sector or reduce the public sector. Under a Labour government they will raise taxes and make the private sector drown. The tories will slash the public sector and give business a fighting chance. We currently spend 43% or GDP on the public sector - that has to stop. HAL
  • 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.