London house prices have fallen for the 10th month in a row.

[winkie]

 

[Mossie]

9 hours ago, SOLZHENITSYN said:

In your view it hasn’t. Other people may be allowed to see it differently. Other people may take a different view as to what defines this forums ‘best’ of times. Why does FS have to fit into YOUR view of what is best? Secondly, I don’t neeed to EXPLAIN anything to you thanks.

Anyway. Enough. Else I’ll Be accused of trolling next.

FS and others are right to challenge them 

There's at least one self-selected 'authority' on house prices who was feeling pity for buyers and owners in 2012, with the house price crash about to come, while others were saying to hold back the pity.   

Then the authority got blindsided by HTB, and more BTL, with house prices zooming up 40% and more in many areas, over the years.  Some 'authority'. 

That's why you have to treat individuals as adults and it's entirely on them when they go to view a house and arrange a mortgage, or take BOMAD; it's their choice and they know more about what is right for them then anyone else, and it is their adult choice.

And now feeling it's HPC again soon to come, sets out wanting us to welcome in-financial-trouble BTLers, and 'HPCers to do what they are best at' and find out when the BTL landlords who may come are in financial trouble.  Change things from BTL landlord investors as having chosen to do what they do, to apparently led into it by others and the banks. 

No one who has more concern for their BTL chums if a HPC were to happen, using them as a human shield, (having callen HPC quite a few times now only for prices to keep zooming from 2011 to 2018), vs my priced out full-working situation and that of my family and friends, is a friend to me.

If they feel so sorry for their BTL chums, then maybe they should spend more time trying to convince them to sell up now, against these high prices, rather than waiting for a HPC, if it ever comes, and announcing them tricked into it or that the banks being to blame, or whatever other scapegoating they have in mind for their BTL landlord chums.   They're happy to tell others to 'go for a walk', so I am happy to tell them to tell their BTL chums to sell up now, and that they won't find any 'make believe' answers from me if they turn up on HPC claiming that someone else is responsible for them being BTL landlords and their financial trouble. 

I am going to counterbalance that point of view, and say the BTL investor has to lump whatever position they are in, IF there is ever a a HPC.   These authorities here claiming pity and sympathy for housing owning side, and now BTL side, throughout years of prices zooming ever higher.

My 'HPC best of time' will be the young able to afford to buy houses at far more sensible prices, and far fewer BTL investors, with all the damage that comes with so much amateur landlording and house price speculation, with tenants way too often treated as something to be tolerated by the landlord providing them a home.  Other best of times was the HPC in 2008, and the excitement here, before all the policy measures and QE and base rate falls, and scheme after scheme.  Now the 'authority on house prices' tells me he admires my courage for having money in the bank at that time, when I was a priced out renter, and only choice open to me.  To save and hope for a HPC.   I'm not here to await a HPC, and then if it comes, give hugs and find explanations for any BTL landlords who turn up claiming they've been hard-done by.  That really is my point of view, and one I hold firmly too, especially against those who think HPC forum is just to shoot-the-sh1t and nothing really matters.

Those on the very left used to be able to muster up hard-done-by tales for owners of just one home, now they do it for multiple home BTL landlords!   Adults can make their own housing choices in buying and in BTLing.  All on them.   Those who think someone else always to blame, and think them not capable of making informed decisions, often portray themselves as 'for the good'.  I see it more as a total disrespect to other people, and suggests that are too in love with their own selves.  Some of them have thought them the best and that others can't see the truth of things, right back to Labour getting into power and happy throughout the housepricebubble of 2000 to 2007.
 

Quote

 

About Us
HousePriceCrash.co.uk was born on 26th October 2003. The proud parents were a small group of individuals who were extremely interested in the house price crash subject but could not find a site or portal that was dedicated to this very important issue.

After studying news articles online and researching statistics for months on end, we thought it was about time that one of the potentially biggest economic boom bust events in living memory had a site all of its own where everyone could have their say.

Throughout, the aim of the site will remain the same to act as a counterbalance to the huge amounts of positive spin the housing market receives in the main media and provide anyone involved in the market with up to date data and commentary.

[Bruce Banner]

7 hours ago, Mossie said:

..........tenants way too often treated as something to be tolerated by the landlord providing them a home. 

I would argue that, in most cases, the landlord is not providing them a home, quite the opposite.

Using cheap borrowed money, subsidised by the government,  the landlord has outbid the tenant who would otherwise have bought the house (or one like it) and is charging a rent high enough that the tenant can not save for a deposit and is therefore locked into a life of servitude.

[North London Rent Girl]

2 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

Using cheap borrowed money, subsidised by the government,  the landlord has outbid the tenant who would otherwise have bought the house (or one like it) and is charging a rent high enough that the tenant can not save for a deposit and is therefore locked into a life of servitude.

Best summary I've seen so far of obnoxious causes and hellacious consequences!

[Ash4781]

On 18/06/2018 at 10:29, Freki said:

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/market-for-london-homes-over-1m-hits-alltime-high-as-buyers-shun-vanity-prices-a3863971.html

213 homes sold >£1M as of Apr 2018

stock 19,243 as of May 2018

Wonder what their combined asking price - in the billions£.

What the index publishers will do and I think have done is publish regional house price indexes. 

[Bland Unsight]

On 23/06/2018 at 22:41, Jurassic Bland said:

As 8YI (formerly SeeYouNextTuesday) put it, some posters ring like fine china, and some don't.

This forum, at its best, in my time, has never been about a point of view. The joy of it is the conversation; the tendrils of curiosity snatching evidence from the flickering ether. It has been a joy. If you can explain how TonyJ/FS fits into that on the basis of their engagement on this thread then I am all ears. You have the floor.

(Emphasis added)

I wonder if you took the time to read the comments from the @FabulousSophie account on the first couple of pages on this thread before going into bat? It was textbook trolling.

Look at the response to being called a troll; "vicious insults and accusations" (link). And as for the response to it being pointed out that their contribution was off-topic; "I did not realise it is a capital crime  in the eyes of HPCers", "please punish me severely for such a grievous misdemeanour" (link).

I suppose that the later comments I've quoted could possibly be read as hyperbole employed sarcastically, but the same reading cannot be made of their response to being called a troll.

At the very least what you have is someone who keeps posting off-topic and acts out when this is brought to their attention, proceeding to further clutter the thread with further off-topic posts. That's disruptive. That's trolling. Their intent doesn't really come into it.

In your view it hasn’t. Other people may be allowed to see it differently. Other people may take a different view as to what defines this forums ‘best’ of times. Why does FS have to fit into YOUR view of what is best? Secondly, I don’t neeed to EXPLAIN anything to you thanks.

Anyway. Enough. Else I’ll Be accused of trolling next.

(Emphasis added)

You've misread my post. I was highlighting that I am a relative newcomer (2011) and that the forum had a storied past long before I began reading it. I was saying that what I valued most about the forum during the period of time that I've been reading it was all the interesting things that it has brought to my attention. There's no comment on the "forums [sic] 'best' of times", i.e. there's nothing in what I've written that contrasts the forum at one time to the forum at another. In discovering that comparison in my post you're inventing things (possibly because you're not reading them properly?).

As to whether or not you'll be accused of trolling next. So what if you are? How would you react? Would you react as @FabulousSophie has reacted or would you post something measured and civil? If you were to reflect on this thread and decide that you were in error, what then? How would you respond to this post of mine if I had succeeded in winning you over to my side of the argument?

There's a counter-factual universe where @FabulousSophie responds to someone pointing out that the post is off-topic by apologising and posting more carefully in future. In that alternative reality the account in question would walk and talk less like a troll.

[Ah-so]

21 minutes ago, Jurassic Bland said:

 

There's a counter-factual universe where @FabulousSophie responds to someone pointing out that the post is off-topic by apologising and posting more carefully in future. In that alternative reality the account in question would walk and talk less like a troll.

She did apologise, just really sarcastically. Which obviously isn't an apology. 

[Ah-so]

4 hours ago, Ash4781 said:

213 homes sold >£1M as of Apr 2018

stock 19,243 as of May 2018

Wonder what their combined asking price - in the billions£.

What the index publishers will do and I think have done is publish regional house price indexes. 

At the current rate of sales, they'll all be sold by December 2025.

As long as no one else puts a £1m+ house up for sale in the intervening 7.5 years.

[Ah-so]

Latest Nationwide figures out:

London down c.2% year-on-year. Rest of the country up by about 2% over the same period. 

Link: http://www.cityam.com/288256/uk-house-price-growth-slips-five-year-low-two-per-cent

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Ah-so

[Bland Unsight]

6 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

Latest Nationwide figures out:

Link to Nationwide June & Q2 report

[Horseradish]

10 hours ago, Jurassic Bland said:

Link to Nationwide June & Q2 report

How reliable are the nationwide figures compared to other sources? Is there a thread that sums up the differences somewhere? Would be much obliged of a link if there were.

[Neverwhere]

On 23/06/2018 at 10:43, Neverwhere said:

And it doesn't look like the new methodology will capture any downturn in new build prices until several months after they begin:

Quote

Existing properties previously registered with Land Registry sail through the system, and normally get processed in a matter of days. New builds, however, can take up to four weeks to process, or sometimes longer, and there is a backlog - consequently they might not get processed for up to three or four months from receipt. This wouldn't affect our forecasts if new builds had the same characteristics as existing properties, but they don't - they are usually more expensive (except for detached properties). So what we are finding is that three to four months down the line the average price for an area starts to increase. This problem is most severe in London – possibly because the disparity between new build and existing properties is highest in the capital. Moreover, because government has been supporting the building of more new homes, and separately the turnover of existing homes has slowed, the overall effect has been to boost the proportion of new build homes as a component of total transactions.

We have therefore introduced a ‘new-build factor’ into our forecasting model, which anticipates the expected uplift in prices arising from new-builds. The result of this change is that our previous projections for prices in the capital have seen an increase, but we calculate that this more accurately reflects the eventual outcome in the market.

 

On 23/06/2018 at 10:47, Si1 said:

That's a silly methodology. It would be better if they tried to subtract the new build premium.

I wonder what impact this is going to have on the Acadata index given their new methodology:

Quote

Luxury London homes being sold in bulk as demand drops

Almost 40 per cent of London new-build sales in the second quarter of 2018 were to bulk buyers, who generally purchase at a steep discount with the aim of setting up portfolios of rented homes for large-scale investors.

[The Spaniard]

On 25/06/2018 at 06:53, Bruce Banner said:

Using cheap borrowed-into-existence bank credit, subsidised by the taxpayer, the landlord has outbid the tenant who would otherwise have bought the house (or one like it) and is charging a rent high enough that the tenant can not save for a deposit and is therefore locked into a life of servitude.

As you see, I have edited your post a little.

From the perspective of our parasitic rent-a-currency banking system, the more competition it can instigate among its captive population of money users to use its product, that is to take on debt, the better.

The BTL mortgagors are a sizeable cohort of such competitors.

[spyguy]

On 27/06/2018 at 18:21, Horseradish said:

How reliable are the nationwide figures compared to other sources? Is there a thread that sums up the differences somewhere? Would be much obliged of a link if there were.

Traditionally, NW figures are only good for London/SE.

Whatever NW were, they are a massive BTL bomb ready to explode now.

 

[maverick73]

6 hours ago, spyguy said:

Traditionally, NW figures are only good for London/SE.

Whatever NW were, they are a massive BTL bomb ready to explode now.

 

Why are the europeans congrated up north? I thought that was a London thing ?

[simvastatin]

10 minutes ago, maverick73 said:

Why are the europeans congrated up north? I thought that was a London thing ?

You get much better housing for crap wages

[Bland Unsight]

28 minutes ago, vincent said:

You get much better housing for crap wages

There's a detailed argument in The Pinch by David Willetts (pages 223-227) regarding how high housing costs are arguably the cause of immigration and not the other way round if we accept that some economic migrants are more prepared than the native population to be under-housed. By going under-housed an economic migrant can increase their disposable income (relative to someone facing the same rental market but unwilling to go under-housed).  If they are evaluating that improvement in disposable income in terms of its value as a remittance to family elsewhere then the benefit to them may be significant. If housing costs are already high they will be reflected in wages hence higher housing costs means greater potential to increase disposable income by going under-housed. For this reason economic migrants will be drawn to places like London where housing costs are higher.

Willett's gives an example of a time when British society experienced people going under-housed in order to increase their ability to remit disposable income overseas.

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Jurassic Bland

[simvastatin]

1 hour ago, Jurassic Bland said:

There's a detailed argument in The Pinch by David Willetts (pages 223-227) regarding how high housing costs are arguably the cause of immigration and not the other way round if we accept that some economic migrants are more prepared than the native population to be under-housed. By going under-housed an economic migrant can increase their disposable income (relative to someone facing the same rental market but unwilling to go under-housed).  If they are evaluating that improvement in disposable income in terms of its value as a remittance to family elsewhere then the benefit to them may be significant. If housing costs are already high they will be reflected in wages hence higher housing costs means greater potential to increase disposable income by going under-housed. For this reason economic migrants will be drawn to places like London where housing costs are higher.

Willett's gives an example of a time when British society experienced people going under-housed in order to increase their ability to remit disposable income overseas.

 

I always assumed it was the other way around 

[Bland Unsight]

4 hours ago, vincent said:

I always assumed it was the other way around 

Everyone who talks about migration is involved in politics, even if they are honest brokers just trying to find the truth of things. That said, if there are more honest brokers than the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford then those more honest brokers need to get their message out. Just my ignorant opinion, but I've never seen any attempt to knock down the Migration Observatory numbers.

Source

Edited July 20, 2018 by Jurassic Bland

[GregBowman]

6 hours ago, vincent said:

I always assumed it was the other way around 

I wouldn’t change your assumption just yet because of a book of 200 pages entirely devoted to baby boomer bashing won’t entertain the notion that the housing crisis is complex with multiple causes from population growth to cheap money and BTL 

Oh no really won’t do old boy how will I get an advance and those glowing reviews in the Guardian?

The say he has two brains be good if he engaged at least one of them

[BorrowToLeech]

11 hours ago, Jurassic Bland said:

There's a detailed argument in The Pinch by David Willetts (pages 223-227) regarding how high housing costs are arguably the cause of immigration and not the other way round if we accept that some economic migrants are more prepared than the native population to be under-housed. By going under-housed an economic migrant can increase their disposable income (relative to someone facing the same rental market but unwilling to go under-housed).  If they are evaluating that improvement in disposable income in terms of its value as a remittance to family elsewhere then the benefit to them may be significant. If housing costs are already high they will be reflected in wages hence higher housing costs means greater potential to increase disposable income by going under-housed. For this reason economic migrants will be drawn to places like London where housing costs are higher.

Willett's gives an example of a time when British society experienced people going under-housed in order to increase their ability to remit disposable income overseas.

 

The flip-side to this is that easily finding accommodation is a massive draw, and BTL makes finding short-term accommodation very easy.  

BTL is perfectly geared to people who are willing to accept poor living conditions, but absolutely need somewhere to stay for a short period at short notice. 

Want to reduce immigration?  

Get rid of all the landlords. 

Edited July 21, 2018 by BorrowToLeech

[byron78]

I do try to avoid blaming immigration for this mess myself. 

Yes, of course more people and less resources in a short space of time have put pressure on the housing market. 

But that's really a failure at government level to help meet demand (be that relaxing planning laws/restrictions, or the state building to encourage private builders to stop land-banking to further restrict supply and further jack up prices). 

I know we have this preconception that the UK is horrifically overcrowded but the truth is it really shouldn't be. We have loads of space left and a lot of the greenbelt around major cities is ripe for development. 

Won't happen though. Posh folk need somewhere to keep their horses. Slipper farmers like their subsidies too much. 

I suppose my point is that immigration, done well, usually has a net positive effect on a country. Even done badly like it has been in the UK I would imagine migrants pay far more into society than they take out.

Don't get me wrong: it's little wonder folk get angry at the people they see putting pressure on services and the supply of things like housing in their local areas. But, for me, we often fail to take the people who should have made sure that wasn't an issue in the first place to task properly. 

Jobs aren't finite in a growing economy. Housing isn't finite if you actually allow supply to meet demand. 

Too many people at the top have got rich quickly out of artificially distorting the housing market (particularly in London). Until we have MPs who don't all directly benefit from HPI it's not a problem I can see being rectified any time soon. 

[dugsbody]

25 minutes ago, byron78 said:

I do try to avoid blaming immigration for this mess myself. 

Yes, of course more people and less resources in a short space of time have put pressure on the housing market. 

But that's really a failure at government level to help meet demand (be that relaxing planning laws/restrictions, or the state building to encourage private builders to stop land-banking to further restrict supply and further jack up prices). 

I know we have this preconception that the UK is horrifically overcrowded but the truth is it really shouldn't be. We have loads of space left and a lot of the greenbelt around major cities is ripe for development. 

Won't happen though. Posh folk need somewhere to keep their horses. Slipper farmers like their subsidies too much. 

I suppose my point is that immigration, done well, usually has a net positive effect on a country. Even done badly like it has been in the UK I would imagine migrants pay far more into society than they take out.

Don't get me wrong: it's little wonder folk get angry at the people they see putting pressure on services and the supply of things like housing in their local areas. But, for me, we often fail to take the people who should have made sure that wasn't an issue in the first place to task properly. 

Jobs aren't finite in a growing economy. Housing isn't finite if you actually allow supply to meet demand. 

Too many people at the top have got rich quickly out of artificially distorting the housing market (particularly in London). Until we have MPs who don't all directly benefit from HPI it's not a problem I can see being rectified any time soon. 

If this site was called rentpricecrash then we might have a clearer picture of the reality and causes of "accommodation inflation".

[adarmo]

On 25/06/2018 at 06:53, Bruce Banner said:

I would argue that, in most cases, the landlord is not providing them a home, quite the opposite.

Using cheap borrowed money, subsidised by the government,  the landlord has outbid the tenant who would otherwise have bought the house (or one like it) and is charging a rent high enough that the tenant can not save for a deposit and is therefore locked into a life of servitude.

+1

[BorrowToLeech]

3 hours ago, byron78 said:

I do try to avoid blaming immigration for this mess myself. 

Sure, but the question was the other way around: is the housing crisis the cause of immigration?