Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Jonnybegood

Members
  • Posts

    905
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jonnybegood

  1. Remember 3-4 years ago when all those 12mth 0% credit cards were being pushed at us from all angles, not just that they also had 0% on balance transfers with a zero transfer fee.

    Then the companies introduced a balance transfer fee of between 1-3% and reduced the overall 0% period from 12-18mths to 6mths max.

    Then the last year it was 3mths on purchases if you could get it.

    Well now a number of companies are back offering 0% on purchases for up to 12mths and now Virgin are the first in a while to offer 0% on balance transfers for 9mths with no transfer fee.

    Surely others will follow, the same happened last time round.

    Folks we are back to the good old days, well down Gordon.........QE is working look.

    http://www.easier.com/view/Finance/Credit_...cle-263658.html

  2. Due to the nature of this website it is mainly bears who post, however what I have seen in the real world and from many posts on here over the past 12mths is greed from both those selling at the top and those buying at the bottom.

    When people were asking high prices for their property they were slatted on here as greedy etc, then prices starting falling, flats upto 60% and general property upto 30% at auction and around 15% average on the open market.

    In the early days of panic, bank bail outs, banking shares nose diving, large redundancy announcements, overnight pulling of credit, daily gloomy reports in the media house prices took a hit with many bargains popping up here and there from overstretched BTL, new builds etc.

    But I was still hearing from those looking to buy, it may fall further, 20%, I will wait for 30%, still not the time to buy, this is only the start etc.

    Now many are moaning that prices are rising and the bottom maybe missed (at least for now).

    I do not think the last of falls have been seen but any price falls over the winter months may only be enough to wipe out any gains made over the spring/summer months and with fewer transactions over winter and less property being marketed the falls will be based on a very low sales figure.

    When you are looking to buy the timing is everything, I still believe that property needs to fall an average 25% in total from peak but this I feel will be over a period of 5 years to 2012, those who currently rent have maybe sacrificed buying a few months ago in favour of a further 10% fall, which will almost be wiped out by the continuing rent that needs to be paid over the next few years before that 10% further fall is realised.

    The same can be said for the stock market as many of good buying opportunities seem to have passed and people are now kicking themselves they did not stock up on banking shares.

    I bought a new TV 3 months ago and a mate of mine at the time said he would wait for it to fall further, it has in fact increased in value by £120.

    I don't think its wise to wait and buy when everyone else tells you too, because by then its too late.

    Buy when you feel you are getting value for money and most importantly you can afford to buy it, greed both ways up or down will end in tears.

  3. Been thinking what impact property falling back to 3.5x single local income would have around the country.

    There have no doubt been times when this has been the case but this was in the past, we must look forward, the past teaches us a lot but has no guarantee of what the future might bring.

    People are living longer, the age of retirement is getting greater, the population at an all time high and is increasing, communication and transport links far better, these few examples of things that never happened in the past.

    So is it possible now every town and city across the country to provide an average property for 3.5x the local average wage.

    I just don't think we have enough property to allow it to happen, there will always been those who would snap up 2 or 3 properties and there is just not enough nice places to live to support all those on average wage to buy that average property.

    It means that every town and city should have average type property, maybe a 3 bed semi in nice area for £100k (£80k up North and maybe £130k further South).

    Just can't see how its sustainable when there is a chronic shortage of this type of property in areas that people who buy want to live.

    So does it just mean that the average property for many towns and city is a 2 bed flat or 2 bed link property and the above average 3 bed semi.

  4. PASSPORTS TO INCREASE 7%

    Last year Mr Darling was calling for restraint on pay increases to keep inflation under control, then they go ahead with a whopping 7% increase on passport fees.

    From September adult passports will be costing £77.50

    Full article here

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...ard-scheme.html

    Fees for British passports will rise across the board from September, ministers announced today.

    Charges for a standard 10-year adult passport will increase by 7.6 per cent from £72 to £77.50.

    The price of other types of passport will also rise, with the most costly being the adult's "Premium" guaranteed same-day service, which goes up £15.50 to £129.50 for a standard passport.

    The fast-track adult passport - which is processed in a week - will cost £112.50, also up £15.50.

    A standard child's passport will cost £49, up £3.

  5. Be careful, many potential buyers do become very wary when a price in a street is significantly below others.

    Its like going to buy car, you view at three dealership along the same stretch and one out of the three is selling an identical car 15% cheaper, many people will then go for the middle price as a safe bet.

    It is different with houses as each as its own appeal, but often if looking through a local property rag cheaper property is often overlooked if far cheaper than others.

  6. I think its inevitable that public sector pay will be frozen.

    When previous wage negotiations were being drawn up the economy was alot different, many public sector workers knew there were jobs in the private sector, now that has changed and when you have a good pension, mortgage to pay off and a family to feed a job is a job let alone asking for a pay rise when everyday you hear of job losses and people pay being cut.

    To get away with a frozen pay and retain all benefits over the next 2-3 years I think you have done well, the problem the public sector faces is that they are now going to be more accountable as people start to ask the questions.

    There are many sectors that are over manned, jobs that have been created out of thin air over the past decade, with less taxes coming in and less activity in the economy i.e. new pubs , new buildings , new land developments , building work on property there will be less money going to local councils and manning at current levels will be questioned.

    I don't think the cuts will be obvious, they will be brought in sector by sector department by department so not to upset all in one go, workers retiring or leaving through ill health will not be replaced, any new starters offered different terms to current employees.

    The government are in a better position now to carry this out, public support in the main will be in favour of a freeze with little opportunities outside of the public sector many I feel will have to bite the bullet.

    You simply cannot have a bankrupt government giving pay rises at a time when private sector pay is falling and possible tax rises being asked for to cover it.

    Just count yourselves lucky if your pay is only frozen for the next couple of years

  7. Have you something against people who rent? Are renters chavs? Are chavs renters?

    When kids go to school, should they not mix?

    No I have nothing against those who rent and treat their property and neighbourhood as they would if they owned the property.

    But unfortunately as already mentioned quite often private streets / estates suddenly become overrun with rented property, the community feel of the area goes and from one year to the next you do not know who your neighbour is.

    I am not saying all renters are the same, the majority look after and respect their neighbourhood its just all to often you see overgrown gardens, mattress on the front lawn, rusting car on the drive in the property that is rented.

    Quite quickly the image of the area can change for the worst.

    As for schooling when I went to school I kept the same circle of friends right through, when you have families come and go in a area it can difficult for children to bond, you don't their parents or their background.

    I am all for kids mixing, but it is important they get a good start in life

  8. Back 11 years ago when me and the missus were last looking to move we drew up a shortlist of 5 areas we would consider moving in the 30 mile radius.

    The criteria was right type property, good schools, transport links, local community and local for a good pub and few shops.

    In the end we found somewhere that ticked all the boxes but all 5 areas were of a high standard and it was very hard to choice between them.

    Then last weekend we had friends around who moved out of the area 8 years ago and are now looking to come back, they find themselves in a similar dilemma as we were 11 years ago, however they can only find 3 areas that meet the criteria and those 3 areas now clearly have a premium, when i asked about other areas that cost less the main reasons they say they are not suitable is the chavvy appearance , lots of rented accommodation and the mixing at school with the other kids.

    It just seems that over the last decade areas that used to be acceptable to settle down with the family are no longer due to various different reasons, nobody wants to pay good money and have different neighbours every couple of years with no community feel, decent hard working people don't want to be rubbing shoulders with chavs on a daily basis, but it seems that the BTL era has in many cases turned decent private estates in rented chav areas.

    Where we live there is a community feel with very few rented properties, due mainly to the age of the properties (greater maintenance) and purchase cost.

    The only 3 rented properties I know of have long term professionals in them, so they are as good as owner occupied.

    The majority of the property around here I would imagine is owned outright and people tend to take pride in their properties appearance, average age is around 45ish.

    It is not very often a property comes on the market but when it does its not on there for long, prices within a 10 miles radius are down 8% on 2007 prices but very hard to establish as very little for sale.

    The way I see this going forward is a widening of the gap between the want to live and do not want to live areas, it seems the number of decent areas is rapidly falling and people even today are willing to pay a premium to live in these areas.

    Some areas have been overdeveloped and along with it brought its own problems, however many established areas do not have this problem and manage to retain their community feel, it goes back to the supply and demand argument.

    I do not think we have a shortage of properties, just a shortage of the right type of property in the right type of area, this is obvious by the large number of apartments for sale at 50% less than 2007 prices.

  9. This is a big mistake in my opinion, sends out the wrong message.

    One of the main attractions of the site is the banter between bulls and bears, both groups with equal posting rights.

    Now this has been taken away from many of the Bulls it really is quite sad, people on here talk of nanny states and the increased surveillance we all encounter everyday, now its here on the very site we all openly discuss these issues.

    Cannot really see what they have done to warrant this action!!!!

  10. Without even thinking about the question to much I can think of a few advantages:

    1,Bigger choice of rental property at pretty good prices

    2,Many run down properties were bought up and improved, improving the look of a street / road and providing someone with somewhere to live that otherwise would stand empty and rundown.

    3,Children whose parents pass away get a better price for any property they sell

    4,General economy benefits, i.e. Private nursing homes charge more, employ more staff etc

    Just a few off the top of the head

  11. There are possibly millions of households in the UK where, for the past forty years, no one has ever failed to make money from successive house purchases/sales.

    By luck, chance or intelligence - they bought at the right time and sold at the right time. I am one such.

    Bought for 8K 1974 and sold for 20K 1978. Bought for 20K and sold for 85K. then bought for 65K cash, could sell for £220K even in this market. Through a lot of luck and a little bit of intelligence.

    Unless someone in the immediate family has been badly burnt on housing, blips, dips, recessions, HPI and HPC have mattered little.

    It's not just ten years of HPI that sustains the 'can't-ever-go-wrong-with-bricks-and mortar' mantra.

    It goes far, far deeper than that. HPI is the personal experience (not of just the last decade) but of generations within families.

    That's part of the reason sellers aren't selling unless they absolutely have to. Because making what sellers consider the right amount of profit on a sale is what they know everyone else has always done. It's the natural order of things, in their thinking.

    With peak price fixed in their heads as 'what my house is worth', anything much less is abnormal, wrong and unacceptable.

    Graphs, bubbles, cycles etc don't even enter their heads. Their experience, and their parents, is that house prices only go up. You can talk about price drops in the 80's and '90's until you are blue in the face. It didn't happen to them or theirs, so it wasn't real.

    Yes - there will be some sellers, because of MEWing, debts, job loss, and the 3 D's. But there is a huge rump behind them who won't sell until years of HPC have occured. Once ideas are fixed, and validated by personal experience, they take a hell of a lot of changing.

    Depressing, but that's my experience.

    That probably sums it up for me, why we will never see 50% mainstream falls.

    That pretty £500k cottage in the village is not going to fall to £250k whereas that £250k BTL flat with no emotion attached could quite well fall to £125k.

    Parents even today are telling their kids, its fallen 20%, quick its a bargain snap it up while you can, it will be back up to full price before you know it.

    Long term you can't lose, not on property.

    They say this through personal experience as very few have been badly burnt over the last 40 years, only ever paying £10k - £30k each time in order to step up the ladder.

  12. The housing market correction is being drawn out for as long as possible, 2 maybe 3 or 4 years of small rises and falls then further falls then further rises then further falls.

    You look at most property sale checkers and looking back 2001/2 seemed a pretty good time to buy, IR on offer were good, job security high and banks happy to lend, and property some 50% less than at peak.

    Now back in 2001 I personally was earning £14k less per annum than I do today, I have not stuck to the same job but gained promotion and been rewarded for it.

    Some have not seen this kind of increase in their wages but I doubt very much anyone doing the same job and same number of hours would be earning less today than 2001.

    It's called wage inflation ONS data show its been running at 3.5% on average per annum since 2001, so people out there are earning more than before, so its to be expected that property prices are not going to fall back to 2001 levels when we all earned less money.

    You compound 4.5% per annum (3.5% WI plus 1% general increase) to the average uk house price in 2001 (£95k) and you will find that today that average price would of risen to £136k and by next year £141k.

    By 2011 £147k and by 2012 £154k.

    So you see the longer the correction is drawn out the more realistic the headline uk average house price, that is the aim.

    If I was to say to you in 2001 that a £100k house bought today will be worth £180k in 12 years time would you of put the money in a fixed term 8% bond or bought a house.

    Compared to other investments / assets property does not strike me as a wonderful return.

  13. Yes, it's a rather dubious figure, that 'average' salary.

    If I was honest I would say it is slightly on the high side, but it can't be a million miles away, I mean if it says £30k, its not going to be £23k, more than likely somewhere in the region £25k - £28k, which compared to average property prices still makes Wales fairly near to the golden 3.5x single income to buy the average property.

    Another point if the information comes from the ONS then they would be using the same techniques across the UK, so whatever the figure for Wales it is calculated the same way in Surrey , London, Manchester etc.

  14. If the average male salary in Wales is pushing £30K then perhaps we really are living in the miracle economy.

    WTF? Those are figures I would associate with the City.

    I have been saying it on here for a long time, people really do underestimate what people are earning out there in the real not cyber world.

    Wales is no different when it comes to many of the public sector jobs, a copper in Wales earns similar if not the same as a copper in Surrey, same for teachers, doctors, dentists, firemen etc etc.

    The private sector is shrinking and there lies the biggest difference in wages across the different parts of the uk, not public sector.

    Not sure but would of thought that Tesco , Sainsburys etc pay the same across the uk as well, a guy who is decorating the house at the moment was telling me his brother who works night shifts in Tesco stacking the shelves is earning over £20k per year.

    So £30k average wage does not seem that far off the mark.

  15. HPC is finished.

    Only the deluded loonies of this site keep saying another 50% drop is on the cards.

    We are not far away, certain areas are nearer the bottom than others.

    I would say a further 8 - 15% on average depending on area and property type should do it.

    Don't expect many bears to reply to this thread, the facts are staring them in the face but they tend to ignore them when it does not mention a further 50% to go.

  16. Before I begin, don't want to hear about individuals only earning this and that and houses here cost this much, these stats are all based on averages and from official sources.

    Believe the stats or not its the only figures we have to go on and they must be getting the data from somewhere, its the same stats and data that have been used for years.

    Data taken from the Latest LR & ONS/WAG release

    Incomes: http://www.statswales.wales.gov.uk/TableVi...px?ReportId=113

    House Prices: http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/lib.../hpi162009e.pdf

    Average house price Wales = £122,241

    Average male income Wales = £28,340 x 3.5 = £99,190 Mortgage

    Average house price Cardiff = £138,647

    Average male income Cardiff = £32,656 x 3.5 = £114,296 Mortgage

    Average house price Swansea = £112,890

    Average male income Swansea = £25,948 x 3.5 = £90,818 Mortgage

    Average house price Bridgend = £120,008

    Average male income Bridgend = £30,628 x 3.5 = £107,198 Mortgage

    Average house price Carmarthenshire = £116,787

    Average male income Carmarthenshire = £27,144 x 3.5 = £95,004 Mortgage

    Once you take off the 10-20% deposit it seems that 3.5x income mortgages will buy you an average house in Wales.

    When you consider the high level of duel income households competing for these properties you can see why prices in Wales do not have that much further to fall or may even of bottomed for a large number of areas and property types.

  17. Thanks for all the responses.

    What I was trying to get at is in general joint mortgages based on 2.5 - 3X joint incomes are no more risky to a lender than lending to a single female on 3.5x single income.

    Some responded with but there is a second income that comes into play if the mortgage is based on only the single income, but the question was. What is the difference buying as couple or borrowing separately and buying 2 different houses.

    If the lenders continue to see it the same way I do then joint mortgages of 2.5 - 3.5x incomes will continued to be offered and based on average wage gives couples access to funds of approx £140k, enough to buy an average property in the uk at present.

    What it means is that prices will always be inflated to this level as there are people out there who are not really stretching themselves to buy and will always be there putting in offers along side others on this forum who still waiting for prices to fall 50%.

    There are lots of variables as people have already mentioned, loss of income etc, however none of us are gifted to predict future and many go on the past experiences to best guess the future.

    So many bears often bring up the past, 15% IR etc but tend to ignore that wages every year have been increasing, especially after previous recessions but suddenly now think its totally different and we will get years of wage deflation.

    Personally I know many of my friends in well paid jobs that have been asked or forced into taking pay cuts or deferring bonuses between 3 - 10%.

    However many have been guaranteed that when things pick up and profits in the various companies improve the money will made up / refunded and additional payments made to reward those who have stayed with the company, I know Lloyds have offered a number of their employees loan notes instead of bonuses that can be redeemed at a later date, this all points towards wage inflation once the worst of the recession is over with many who have kept their jobs in far better financial position than what they were before the recession kicked off.

  18. Why were flats about 30k in 1997? Plenty of people had joint income then? There has been a massive overbuild of property since then. Without a focused brainwashing campaign sheeple will again realise you don`t have to pay a leg and an arm for houses? Why would you care about this, unless you bought into the bubble of course? We know Hamish did.

    Maybe thats the reason why so many people own 2 or 3 homes, many of them established landlords who were able to snap up property at unrealistic low prices.

    As far as massive overbuild just drill down to the types of property built over the last decade and tell me if its suitable for the numbers of families chasing housing and in places people actually want to live.

  19. because, without children, the human race will perish.

    Are you saying that no women should be allowed a mortgage, single or joint.

    Or any type of finance for that matter, just in case she suddenly falls pregnant.

    Maybe they should be charged a higher rate of interest to cover the risk involved.

    No women should be allowed financing for a new business, you really are living in the dark ages.

  20. In response to the recent "Questions bulls never answer" posting I have one for the bears.

    The bears keep going on about average prices will revert back to the age old 3.5X income mortgages so in todays money approx £88k.

    With a 10% deposit are we all agreed that we are looking at £100k average UK house price.

    Now what the bears never answer convincingly enough is why this is not applied to couples when I know for a fact even today it is applied in the majority of high street lenders.

    With the average household income currently £38k this would allow couples or joint mortgage applications access to funds of £133k, with a 10% deposit this would mean a purchase price of approx £150k for an average property.

    Some of the classics responses from the past, the women has children and loses her income, too much to lend to single household, always been the way, what if one of them falls ill or made redundant what if they divorce etc etc

    None of these have any substance and in fact 3.5x single income has long gone, most high street lenders have their ways of working out affordability, it works well but was abused over the last 8-10 years so they will tighten up to levels they feel safe and as the illustration below shows lending to a couple if often the safer route.

    So my question is, what is the difference between me and my partner who both earn £50k as deputy heads of local schools buying together with a mortgage of £250k = 2.5x joint income

    or us going our separate ways and me borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy a house and her borrowing £150k (3x income) to buy another house up the road.

    We both pay £876 per month for our separate properties @ 5% interest.

    Plus

    Both pay £100 per month energy

    Both pay £100 per month council tax

    Both pay £50 per month water

    Both pay £20 per month phone

    Both pay £15 per month tv license

    Both pay £30 per month insurance

    Both pay £200 per month Food

    So out of our £3k per month take home pay each we pay out approx £1500 (50%)

    or option 2 we buy together and put our incomes together = £6k take home pay pot

    we pay

    £1461 per month for our joint mortgage @ 5% interest on the £250k mortgage

    £130 per month energy

    £130 per month council tax

    £60 per month water

    £30 per month phone

    £15 per month tv license

    £35 per month insurance

    £300 per month Food

    Total per month = £2200 (30%)

    From the lenders point of view surely option 2 is the safer bet, at least if one of the couple was to lose their job then the other could cover the mortgage payments, if in option 1 there would be no other income to fall back on and the mortgage would not get paid.

    So why in todays society of equal this and that and where often household incomes from the 2 working adults are similar, why would lenders treat joint mortgages any differently from single applications.

  21. There are signs of a possible turning point in the current downward market.

    The stock market has recovered from February lows

    Oil prices are on the rise

    Credit beginning to ease and a bit of competition returning

    Sterling gaining on the dollar

    Production restarting at Car Plants

    UK manufacturing rate of decline slowing

    Car sales up

    House prices up

    Baltic index up

    Losses not as bad as expected at a larger number of companies

    Threat of bank failure seems to have passed

    Plus many more indicators

    But the bears come back with, Bull trap, wheres the funding to plug the gap, unemployment rising.

    Surely if the above keep heading upwards then unemployment will begin to level off or even start falling as confidence picks up and companies start recruiting to meet demand which in turn leads to improved lending, i.e less risk.

    Its just the opposite to what we have seen the past 18mths.

    We don't need to get to 2007 levels of lending or employment, house prices have already fallen 16% officially, with many on here seeing 25 - 40% falls on certain property.

    Borrowing levels going forward will be lower to reflect house prices and larger deposits, thee has also been record levels of debt repayments since IR fell, again shoring up the banks balance sheets.

    What we are looking at is levels to stabilise the market, and I do not think we are that far away.

    Added to this QE and low IRs which take time to work and I think people will start to realise the worst may be over.

×
×
  • 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.