Tired of Waiting Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) The FT asked the following question: " Property: House prices are now slipping. Will this continue through 2011 and how much should we care? " Replies from: HSBC, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Barclays Wealth, BNP, Paribas, Nomura, ING Capital, Société Générale, UBS, PwC and MPC members, etc. LINK: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c47a06c-175a-11e0-badd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz19zwggaWQ . Edited January 4, 2011 by Tired of Waiting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Protect Rural England Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 The FT asked the following question: Property: House prices are now slipping. Will this continue through 2011 and how much should we care? http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c47a06c-175a-11e0-badd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz19zwggaWQ Tired of Waiting. Your time has come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScrewsNutsandBolts Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 The FT asked the following question: Property: House prices are now slipping. Will this continue through 2011 and how much should we care? http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c47a06c-175a-11e0-badd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz19zwggaWQ A quick read would suggest that no more than 1 or 2 out of 67 respondents said possible rises. Some said stagnation. Very large majority seem to say further falls. Good news as far as I am concerned... just hope it comes true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Tired of Waiting. Your time has come. I am looking forward to the day that he changes his name to "Glad_I_Waited" (in a happy sort of a way). If we follow the classic pattern outlined by Reinhart and Rogoff, the bottom of this cycle in the housing market should happen in 2013 to 2015. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Protect Rural England Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I am looking forward to the day that he changes his name to "Glad_I_Waited" (in a happy sort of a way). If we follow the classic pattern outlined by Reinhart and Rogoff, the bottom of this cycle in the housing market should happen in 2013 to 2015. If Glad_I_Waited does appear, I do hope his sense of humour returns, especially when he is hit with a Land Value Tax, a huge noddy box development at the end of his garden, a CGT bill when he sells his primary residence and of course the IHT bill his heirs will be sent when the time comes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 I am looking forward to the day that he changes his name to "Glad_I_Waited" (in a happy sort of a way). Thanks Lucky. This new forum name is actually a very good suggestion! I was even tempted to change it now! I'll think about it. If we follow the classic pattern outlined by Reinhart and Rogoff, the bottom of this cycle in the housing market should happen in 2013 to 2015. Yes, quite possible. And I remember you mentioning before that usually most of the falls happen in the first couple of years. It makes sense. Was it 60% in the first 2 or 3 years? If so, we may go for it (buy) a few years before the very bottom. Life is short, etc. Besides, there is also the timing question regarding interest rates. It may make sense to lock in a 10 years fixed rate whilst rates are low. I still think that the most likely political-economic scenario is inflation. Though I'm still unsure about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FedupTeddiBear Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) If Glad_I_Waited does appear, I do hope his sense of humour returns, especially when he is hit with a Land Value Tax, a huge noddy box development at the end of his garden, a CGT bill when he sells his primary residence and of course the IHT bill his heirs will be sent when the time comes. Land value tax - as prices will have fallen, this will hopefully be low. If this replaces council tax, good. Will prevent further ridiculous HPI. New development - bring them on! I wouldn't complain! CGT bill - as property values are unlikely to rise much for a long, long time - ditto for LVT. Pardon my ignorance if wrong , is this not applicable to second homes only? IHT bill - see above. Edited January 3, 2011 by FedupTeddiBear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 Land value tax - as prices will have fallen, this will hopefully be low. If this replaces council tax, good. Will prevent further ridiculous HPI. New development - bring them on! I wouldn't complain! CGT bill - as property values are unlikely to rise much for a long, long time - ditto for LVT. Pardon my ignorance if wrong , is this not applicable to second homes only? IHT bill - see above. Good post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurag Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I'm suprised at Blanchflower's response, after his dire Guardian article a few months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I'm suprised at Blanchflower's response, after his dire Guardian article a few months ago. What we should care about is not sacrificing environmental welfare benefits in order to build more houses. We should use brownfield sites for this. David Blanchflower, Dartmouth College and former MPC member Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurag Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) I thought it was name then comment? I thought he said this: David Blanchflower, Dartmouth College and former MPC member House prices probably have a further 20 per cent to go based on house price to earnings ratios. And more if there are increases in interest rates as folks on trackers are hit hard and that would cause prices to fall further. We should care especially if house price declines cause consumption to fall. Edited January 3, 2011 by laurag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I thought it was name then comment? I thought he said this: Looks like you're right. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 "What we should care about is not sacrificing environmental welfare benefits in order to build more houses. We should use brownfield sites for this." It was this "Mike Wickens, University of York" who said that. http://www.york.ac.uk/economics/our-people/staff-profiles/michael-wickens/ I bet he already has his own house. I'm a little surprised, and very disappointed, that someone with a degree in economics, and someone that has written papers in econometrics (therefore very good in maths), hasn't bothered to do some very simple calculations and realise how little land human housing uses, in relation to a country's size. But I am not too surprised, as "culture" and one's perspective (class? in his case?) usually infiltrates one's opinion, even for academics, many times subconsciously. The best way to find out if it was an honest oversight or if the person was/is consciously being misleading is to present the logical argument. Honest people will happily accept the mistake, and change their views. Whilst people with a hidden agenda will try to use all sorts of rhetorical tricks to avoid/obscure the discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryMove Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 It was this "Mike Wickens, University of York" who said that. http://www.york.ac.uk/economics/our-people/staff-profiles/michael-wickens/ I bet he already has his own house. I'm a little surprised, and very disappointed, that someone with a degree in economics, and someone that has written papers in econometrics (therefore very good in maths), hasn't bothered to do some very simple calculations and realise how little land human housing uses, in relation to a country's size. But I am not too surprised, as "culture" and one's perspective (class? in his case?) usually infiltrates one's opinion, even for academics, many times subconsciously. The best way to find out if it was an honest oversight or if the person was/is consciously being misleading is to present the logical argument. Honest people will happily accept the mistake, and change their views. Whilst people with a hidden agenda will try to use all sorts of rhetorical tricks to avoid/obscure the discussion. One of the others who thought prices would rise is a seriously optimistic guy! Or perhaps because he has a VI, what with his house for sale for 7 months and accepting offers of £120k (approx 15-20%) below where it was originally priced! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 One of the others who thought prices would rise is a seriously optimistic guy! Or perhaps because he has a VI, what with his house for sale for 7 months and accepting offers of £120k (approx 15-20%) below where it was originally priced! Which one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryMove Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Which one? I will PM you as it seems a bit harsh to name names on here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 I will PM you as it seems a bit harsh to name names on here... That reminded me, we had a thread here suggesting that journalists should declare their interest when writing about house prices. It does make sense - and not restricted to journalists only, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottbeard Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I'm a little surprised, and very disappointed, that someone with a degree in economics, and someone that has written papers in econometrics (therefore very good in maths), hasn't bothered to do some very simple calculations and realise how little land human housing uses, in relation to a country's size. Isn't Prof Wickens just saying that we just shouldn't respond to high house prices by a knee-jerk reaction of building shoebox houses on every available field? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted January 4, 2011 Author Share Posted January 4, 2011 Isn't Prof Wickens just saying that we just shouldn't respond to high house prices by a knee-jerk reaction of building shoebox houses on every available field? Doubt it. Usually people who opposes to new houses already have their own houses. And usually they prefer to believe that their opposition is based on some higher moral value. Very typical. Another typical thing is that, since they can't have a grounded and coherent argument, they tend to use rhetorical, emotional language instead, such as "shoebox houses" or (and!) "on every available field"... 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.