spivT Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 6 months does not a trendeth make. I don't like the fundamentals. following a graph without understading this is for fools. i think it's enough of a trend to make a convincing argument against a new nominal low in avg. prices. What the 'graph' would do into 2010 and beyond is anyone's guess, but the fundamentals DO NOT in my view point to a crash on the level of what we saw in 2008 and first half of 2009. Infact, a negative YoY figure at any point over the next couple of 12 months is unlikely in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 i think it's enough of a trend to make a convincing argument against a new nominal low in avg. prices. contradicts What the 'graph' would do into 2010 and beyond is anyone's guess, but the fundamentals DO NOT in my view point to a crash on the level of what we saw in 2008 and first half of 2009. Infact, a negative YoY figure at any point over the next couple of 12 months is unlikely in my view. which again contradicts open your mind to the idea that RICS data is indicating an upward trend from the lows in the early part of the year.And that it should not be dismissed becuase you don't like the news. contradicting yourself nominal nominal nominal if you understood the term you wouldn't use it as a bullish argument. amusing and slightly tragic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 ...the fundamentals DO NOT in my view point to a crash on the level of what we saw in 2008 and first half of 2009..... Your view of the fundamentals is the same old simplistic bulls*** of "lots of demand, little supply, they're not making any more land etc". A proper look at the fundamentals (price/income ratios, rental yields, demographic shifts, fiscal and monetary policy) says something different entirely. Of course, whether the crash resumes in 2010 or gets delayed into 2011 is a different matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0q0 Posted January 16, 2010 Author Share Posted January 16, 2010 Your view of the fundamentals is the same old simplistic bulls*** of "lots of demand, little supply, they're not making any more land etc". A proper look at the fundamentals (price/income ratios, rental yields, demographic shifts, fiscal and monetary policy) says something different entirely. Of course, whether the crash resumes in 2010 or gets delayed into 2011 is a different matter. Property fundamentalsism! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spivT Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 Your view of the fundamentals is the same old simplistic bulls*** of "lots of demand, little supply, they're not making any more land etc". A proper look at the fundamentals (price/income ratios, rental yields, demographic shifts, fiscal and monetary policy) says something different entirely. Of course, whether the crash resumes in 2010 or gets delayed into 2011 is a different matter. price/income ratio's are an outdated measure. a further 15-20% drop from here could make a cash rich buyer forget about rental yields don't you think ? That's assuming any govt. would let it get to that stage [i've checked, they won't] fiscal policy says they are trying to combat unemployment. monetary policy says there will not be many forced sales. Put the two together and what have you got ? 2010, 2011, it's all crystal ball stuff. But, put it this way, 2008 was the first time we had a month where the YoY figure went negative according to the nationwide data for the decade, and during that period even the few negative MoM figures recorded in 2005 couldn't turn those YoY figures into a negative. Maybe theseare the fundamentals, the fundamentals of a decade where most of the time prices rose. And where into the new decade we might again not see a single YoY negative for some years because of the gains recorded at the tail end of 2009. And if the predictions of an extented period of low IR's come true. That's some scary shit, and i don't necessarily subscribe to that viewpoint but that's what most of the noughties looked like and that was mainly without interest rates at 0.5%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 price/income ratio's are an outdated measure. a further 15-20% drop from here could make a cash rich buyer forget about rental yields don't you think ? That's assuming any govt. would let it get to that stage [i've checked, they won't] nominal or real? still confused? fiscal policy says they are trying to combat unemployment. monetary policy says there will not be many forced sales. Put the two together and what have you got ? unemployment and low forced sales? = a slow lingering death for housing wealth. enjoy. I will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 price/income ratio's are an outdated measure. a further 15-20% drop from here could make a cash rich buyer forget about rental yields don't you think ? Not this one . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spivT Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 nominal or real? either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spivT Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 nominal or real? still confused? unemployment and low forced sales? = a slow lingering death for housing wealth. enjoy. I will. when did you STR then ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 Nevertheless, they should have to release their data sets for independent scrutiny. Yes, very good point. From what we've discovered about the banks over the past two years would it surprise anyone to find that they've manipulated the figures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 price/income ratio's are an outdated measure. I guess bank economists and NuLab will agree, but I'm interested to know the reasoning for that assertion. Seems fundamental to me. And what do you make of the price/monthly rental ratio? 120 is the accepted number, but is that outdated too? And why? Finally - what means of valuing would you recommend? I suspect this is "new paradigm" thinking, which will be shown to be horribly wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 just had my comment regarding auction sales published. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 Clip credit: HPC Quiet Guy http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/article6989743.ece Sadly, it is impossible to judge the full extent of the distortion in 2009 because neither the Halifax nor Nationwide will release figures showing how many transactions their surveys are based on — and crucially, the proportion of borrowers who are first-time buyers. I've said before that current house price surveys are not representative of a normal market. House prices are currently skewed due to an unrepresentative sample of buyers and houses being sold as compared to the pre 2007 market. Were we to be in a normal market with properties being sold to more ftb's the average price would certainly be lower. For that to happen though needs a motivational factor to enter the market such as a change of government/withdrawl of artificial stimulus and handouts to the over borrowede. This will happen in June. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted January 17, 2010 Share Posted January 17, 2010 price/income ratio's are an outdated measure. They're a good starting point, people after all need to earn the money to pay the mortgage. a further 15-20% drop from here could make a cash rich buyer forget about rental yields don't you think? A 20% fall would move gross yields to maybe 6%, still ******** by historical standards when you consider the necessary running costs. "Cash rich buyers" didn't get to be cash rich by being stupid. That's assuming any govt. would let it get to that stage [i've checked, they won't] You've got the contact details for DC and GB? Whilst you're at it you should probably check the IMF's view as well. The country's bankrupt, there is nothing any government can do long term to prop up the property market. If they try to inflate their way out we'll simply see IRs at 12%+, which will really help the property market. More to the point, politically an HPC would be much more preferable in 2010/2011 than 2014/15. fiscal policy says they are trying to combat unemployment. monetary policy says there will not be many forced sales. Put the two together and what have you got ? A bankrupt country and a bond market strike. Which means drastic spending cuts and tax rises at the same time as interest rates shoot through the roof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.