Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
the_dork

Where are we now? Some general thoughts

Recommended Posts

Recent lurker, I used to post here a bit when I was considering buying and like many assumed the crash was en route. Like many I hadn’t realised the extent to which things could be propped up and waited…my own situation then changed dramatically when I inherited (through my now wife) a small but grotesquely expensive flat in South London (value circa 450k now). I have lived there since 2014 having been at home before that and briefly renting a couple of rooms in fun house shares around North London.

We earn about 70k gross together which is about average for London but obviously perfectly comfortable with no rent/mortgage costs though we would like to have children soon. I will also inherit half a terraced house in Enfield (astonishingly also ‘worth’ 450k within 10-15 years based on current life projections), obviously I hope my mum lasts a bit longer.

We are working in London but could probably find work elsewhere within our fields with fairly minor salary drop. Most of my friends have left London and indeed the UK so ties are limited and London becomes more unpleasant by the day. I’d happily take the capital gains tax hit we’d pay, and try to make 7-10% on the stock market from the sum with a view to buying a larger family property a bit further out in a few years or renting somewhere appropriate, at least in the short term.

I use the above introduction not to boast (I’m embarrassed about it and don’t talk about my situation IRL other than with good friends), only to declare my biases and changing perspective. I don’t have the direct skin in the game than I used to but this allows me to analyse objectively I hope. I would still take a house price crash though as per below I'm not sure the national picture is as distorted as some will thinkl

I think the UK housing market is grotesque by any measure and this, rather than some philosophical conversion to socialism is behind the rise of millennial Corbynism. I would just like to raise a few points as I see them before I get more involved in some of the specific threads. Feel free to shout me down and tell me why I’m wrong 😊

  1. The housing specific crisis is primarily a London/Southeast issue. This is, not coincidentally where many of the best paying jobs are in finance, IT, construction etc as well as the more interesting positions that youngster try to break into in arts, politics journalism etc.

     

  2. Related to the above, single earner ratio to average house price wont come back, even in the lowest value areas. Dual earner lending is here to stay and to my mind, a ratio of 3-4 to that isn’t infeasible, given building cost (take out the land which is ultimately what house prices reflect and can ultimately be negative, say in Wales/North East England) of a standard terrace/semi-house is depending how you measure is probably 130-170k...the UK is the most unbalanced country in Europe and it wouldn’t take much in terms of tax incentives/govt direction to mitigate this though there isn’t really a political will for this as the current system ‘works’ on some measures.

     

  3. Building won’t much change house prices. We have about 27m residences, broadly defined. To get say a 10% decline in a year, ceteris paribus, would require 2.7m new buildings (10x the current rate). You are adding too small an amount to the broader stock that without addressing other issues won’t much change prices, though could arguably be a good idea for other reasons. Even doubling the stock (a disgusting thought in my view) wouldn’t cause a halving of property prices without considering the other factors.

     

  4. Low interest rates have driven capital growth in recent years. I know this is quite a common position on this forum but it rarely seems to be discussed in media or by otherwise quite well informed people I know. Not only has this made ‘property’ more attractive in relation to rival places for people to dump cash, it has changed the dynamics on renting and most importantly, made buy to let (for a time and before some relatively minor tax changes) easy money for those who could best access the loans, ie. speculators with lump sum capital. Again, there could be good unrelated reasons to keep rates at historic lows for such a long time (I’m inclined to think not), but from a property point view this is the main factor

     

  5. Demographics/Immigration. I think 4) is the main driver but I’m still amazed by the amount of people who don’t think this has an impact on housing. TBH, I’m inclined to support fairly open immigration within the EU at least but to pretend that adding a certain amount of people each year, whether ‘net contributors’ or low wage serfs (not something I personally care much about) has NO impact on values is madness to me. As I said to a friend of mine when trying to explain, would 100m people moving here tomorrow have any impact on demand/supply of housing? Would 10m? Then so would 1m? (I believe we’ve had about 3-4m over ten years. There are good and bad reasons for supporting/opposing immigration, whether French quants or Somali cleaners but don’t pretend it doesn’t affect the topic we’re discussing here.

     

  6. Linked to the above, I don’t think people have grasped the impact of capital inflow to London, though this ultimately derives from the above issues-no one would speculate/invest in a static capital growth market. We can’t all live in Nine Elms newbuilds but when for some reason prime London property has become the safest investments in the world (again, this is lunacy to me), this filters out. So top 1% earners who would have bought in Chelsea buy in Highgate, the next tier down look at Finchley instead of Highgate, to the point where average earners have to pay 450k for a terrace in bloody Enfield!

     

  7. Benefits/Tax. Social housing in my view would be a fair system for the masses with clearly defined rules and obligations, investment of surpluses over time. Unfortunately it has become a lucky lottery to arbitrarily gift a small % of the country secure tenancies at below ‘market rent.’ It is the lack of social housing that has led to growth in housing benefit, and whilst I believe in ‘hating the game’ not the player, the bill is astronomical and again represents an artificial forced transfer from a good chunk of the working population to another (often non-working, or part time etc thanks to Labour’s mad tax credits) The changes to BTL by the Tories were surprising to me but again shows how they have to at least pretend to compete with Corbynism in limited ways though dropping stamp duty completely would be regressive and awful.

     

As per my introduction, I didn’t realise when I first signed up the extent to which our whole political/economic edifice depends on the housing market. I am not particularly left wing but it seems to me that the Tories are now a status quo party who won’t make any radical changes and will always be outflanked anyway now by the Corbynists. Clearly Brexit is the defining issue of the next couple of years but I can still see more chaos after that though it seems change is finally on the agenda.

My own ‘solutions’ such as they are:

  1. Limits on immigration, at least for a set period-this has been public majority view for so long but it would affect businesses in the short term so the government has wimped out.

  2. Land Value tax. There are whole threads on it here, it’s not a panacea but it would help encourage ‘shelter’ markets rather than ‘property’. We also have a significant issue of under occupation which the current system doesn’t provide enough incentive to change.

  3. Densification around city centres and transport hubs. Without LVT this could be an arbitrary gift to existing landlords/property owners and I would like to move away from London/Southeast being the be all and end all.

  4. Normalisation of interest rates to C20 rates/models. Not going to happen any time soon

  5. Build to rent social housing. These units couldn’t be re-sold at ‘market value’ but the rent could cover build costs over say 15-20 years. As with all social/affordable housing I’m not sure how this could be done fairly without giving some groups an arbitrary benefit but if a good chunk of the population would benefit it’s a theoretically good system.

  6. Changes to tax/benefit system as explained above. Not directly related but I’m more in favour of a conditional benefits system than our current system allowing a small % to live not much worse than the bulk of the working population without working themselves.

Sorry for the length, wasn’t intended but I haven’t posted for a while and some of this is a bit speculative! Looking forward to joining in again

 

EDIT: just changed the worst of my abysmal wording, I'm not a natural writer sorry

Edited by the_dork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say one simple way to make London much cheaper would be to limit housing benefit to those who are working full time or were in the last 6 months.


That would greatly reduce demand on rents and save a fortune.  It would of course make some BTL's lose their tenants

Edited by iamnumerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the_dork said:

Even doubling the stock (a disgusting thought in my view) wouldn’t cause a halving of property prices without considering the other factors.

 

Doubling stock would more than half prices...I would argue that doubling stock would make housing free to occupy.  The owners of housing would be prepared to let people live in them only in return for them being looked after.  The alternative would be empty housing, decay and dereliction.

People in southern England have no experience of what life would be like with adequate decent housing.  This is why the focus is on interest rates and credit - they appear to be the only variables.  The scarcity of housing is a constant and few can envisage a world with surplus housing.  This is why BTL is so popular....BTLers expect there will be occupational demand.  If they didn't expect occupational demand they would wouldn't go near BTL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wayward said:

Doubling stock would more than half prices...I would argue that doubling stock would make housing free to occupy.  The owners of housing would be prepared to let people live in them only in return for them being looked after.  The alternative would be empty housing, decay and dereliction.

People in southern England have no experience of what life would be like with adequate decent housing.  This is why the focus is on interest rates and credit - they appear to be the only variables.  The scarcity of housing is a constant and few can envisage a world with surplus housing.  This is why BTL is so popular....BTLers expect there will be occupational demand.  If they didn't expect occupational demand they would wouldn't go near BTL.

I know someone in Southern Spain who was living rent free for some time because his "landlord" could not find anyone who would pay rent.

This is because there excess credit caused demand which builders tried to met, building more homes.  It did not happen here, just caused prices to rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the_dork said:

Recent lurker, I used to post here a bit when I was considering buying and like many assumed the crash was en route. Like many I hadn’t realised the extent to which things could be propped up and waited…my own situation then changed dramatically when I inherited (through my now wife) a small but grotesquely expensive flat in South London (value circa 450k now). I have lived there since 2014 having been at home before that and briefly renting a couple of rooms in fun house shares around North London.

We earn about 70k gross together which is about average for London but obviously perfectly comfortable with no rent/mortgage costs though we would like to have children soon. I will also inherit half a terraced house in Enfield (astonishingly also ‘worth’ 450k within 10-15 years based on current life projections), obviously I hope my mum lasts a bit longer.

We are working in London but could probably find work elsewhere within our fields with fairly minor salary drop. Most of my friends have left London and indeed the UK so ties are limited and London becomes more unpleasant by the day. I’d happily take the capital gains tax hit we’d pay, and try to make 7-10% on the stock market from the sum with a view to buying a larger family property a bit further out in a few years or renting somewhere appropriate, at least in the short term.

I use the above introduction not to boast (I’m embarrassed about it and don’t talk about my situation IRL other than with good friends), only to declare my biases and changing perspective. I don’t have the direct skin in the game than I used to but this allows me to analyse objectively I hope. I would still take a house price crash though as per below I'm not sure the national picture is as distorted as some will thinkl

I think the UK housing market is grotesque by any measure and this, rather than some philosophical conversion to socialism is behind the rise of millennial Corbynism. I would just like to raise a few points as I see them before I get more involved in some of the specific threads. Feel free to shout me down and tell me why I’m wrong 😊

  1. The housing specific crisis is primarily a London/Southeast issue. This is, not coincidentally where many of the best paying jobs are in finance, IT, construction etc as well as the more interesting positions that youngster try to break into in arts, politics journalism etc.

     

  2. Related to the above, single earner ratio to average house price wont come back, even in the lowest value areas. Dual earner lending is here to stay and to my mind, a ratio of 3-4 to that isn’t infeasible, given building cost (take out the land which is ultimately what house prices reflect and can ultimately be negative, say in Wales/North East England) of a standard terrace/semi-house is depending how you measure is probably 130-170k...the UK is the most unbalanced country in Europe and it wouldn’t take much in terms of tax incentives/govt direction to mitigate this though there isn’t really a political will for this as the current system ‘works’ on some measures.

     

  3. Building won’t much change house prices. We have about 27m residences, broadly defined. To get say a 10% decline in a year, ceteris paribus, would require 2.7m new buildings (10x the current rate). You are adding too small an amount to the broader stock that without addressing other issues won’t much change prices, though could arguably be a good idea for other reasons. Even doubling the stock (a disgusting thought in my view) wouldn’t cause a halving of property prices without considering the other factors.

     

  4. Low interest rates have driven capital growth in recent years. I know this is quite a common position on this forum but it rarely seems to be discussed in media or by otherwise quite well informed people I know. Not only has this made ‘property’ more attractive in relation to rival places for people to dump cash, it has changed the dynamics on renting and most importantly, made buy to let (for a time and before some relatively minor tax changes) easy money for those who could best access the loans, ie. speculators with lump sum capital. Again, there could be good unrelated reasons to keep rates at historic lows for such a long time (I’m inclined to think not), but from a property point view this is the main factor

     

  5. Demographics/Immigration. I think 4) is the main driver but I’m still amazed by the amount of people who don’t think this has an impact on housing. TBH, I’m inclined to support fairly open immigration within the EU at least but to pretend that adding a certain amount of people each year, whether ‘net contributors’ or low wage serfs (not something I personally care much about) has NO impact on values is madness to me. As I said to a friend of mine when trying to explain, would 100m people moving here tomorrow have any impact on demand/supply of housing? Would 10m? Then so would 1m? (I believe we’ve had about 3-4m over ten years. There are good and bad reasons for supporting/opposing immigration, whether French quants or Somali cleaners but don’t pretend it doesn’t affect the topic we’re discussing here.

     

  6. Linked to the above, I don’t think people have grasped the impact of capital inflow to London, though this ultimately derives from the above issues-no one would speculate/invest in a static capital growth market. We can’t all live in Nine Elms newbuilds but when for some reason prime London property has become the safest investments in the world (again, this is lunacy to me), this filters out. So top 1% earners who would have bought in Chelsea buy in Highgate, the next tier down look at Finchley instead of Highgate, to the point where average earners have to pay 450k for a terrace in bloody Enfield!

     

  7. Benefits/Tax. Social housing in my view would be a fair system for the masses with clearly defined rules and obligations, investment of surpluses over time. Unfortunately it has become a lucky lottery to arbitrarily gift a small % of the country secure tenancies at below ‘market rent.’ It is the lack of social housing that has led to growth in housing benefit, and whilst I believe in ‘hating the game’ not the player, the bill is astronomical and again represents an artificial forced transfer from a good chunk of the working population to another (often non-working, or part time etc thanks to Labour’s mad tax credits) The changes to BTL by the Tories were surprising to me but again shows how they have to at least pretend to compete with Corbynism in limited ways though dropping stamp duty completely would be regressive and awful.

     

As per my introduction, I didn’t realise when I first signed up the extent to which our whole political/economic edifice depends on the housing market. I am not particularly left wing but it seems to me that the Tories are now a status quo party who won’t make any radical changes and will always be outflanked anyway now by the Corbynists. Clearly Brexit is the defining issue of the next couple of years but I can still see more chaos after that though it seems change is finally on the agenda.

My own ‘solutions’ such as they are:

  1. Limits on immigration, at least for a set period-this has been public majority view for so long but it would affect businesses in the short term so the government has wimped out.

  2. Land Value tax. There are whole threads on it here, it’s not a panacea but it would help encourage ‘shelter’ markets rather than ‘property’. We also have a significant issue of under occupation which the current system doesn’t provide enough incentive to change.

  3. Densification around city centres and transport hubs. Without LVT this could be an arbitrary gift to existing landlords/property owners and I would like to move away from London/Southeast being the be all and end all.

  4. Normalisation of interest rates to C20 rates/models. Not going to happen any time soon

  5. Build to rent social housing. These units couldn’t be re-sold at ‘market value’ but the rent could cover build costs over say 15-20 years. As with all social/affordable housing I’m not sure how this could be done fairly without giving some groups an arbitrary benefit but if a good chunk of the population would benefit it’s a theoretically good system.

  6. Changes to tax/benefit system as explained above. Not directly related but I’m more in favour of a conditional benefits system than our current system allowing a small % to live not much worse than the bulk of the working population without working themselves.

Sorry for the length, wasn’t intended but I haven’t posted for a while and some of this is a bit speculative! Looking forward to joining in again

 

EDIT: just changed the worst of my abysmal wording, I'm not a natural writer sorry

Great post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Wayward said:

Doubling stock would more than half prices...I would argue that doubling stock would make housing free to occupy.  The owners of housing would be prepared to let people live in them only in return for them being looked after.  The alternative would be empty housing, decay and dereliction.

People in southern England have no experience of what life would be like with adequate decent housing.  This is why the focus is on interest rates and credit - they appear to be the only variables.  The scarcity of housing is a constant and few can envisage a world with surplus housing.  This is why BTL is so popular....BTLers expect there will be occupational demand.  If they didn't expect occupational demand they would wouldn't go near BTL.

But if interest rates/lending were such that those who could borrow against their existing wealth including property could bid more than those without wealth, would they not out bid them and rent out to them?

It's fairly hypothetical so let's stick to 2.7m houses being built next year, though I refuted my own thesis slightly by focussing on the national stock rather than London/southeast. What do you think would happen in such a scenario with no other changes to current system and policies?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the_dork said:

But if interest rates/lending were such that those who could borrow against their existing wealth including property could bid more than those without wealth, would they not out bid them and rent out to them?

It's fairly hypothetical so let's stick to 2.7m houses being built next year, though I refuted my own thesis slightly by focussing on the national stock rather than London/southeast. What do you think would happen in such a scenario with no other changes to current system and policies?

 

They could do but there would be more houses than tenants and so they would lose their shirts.  (Also S24 would make that tricky plus stamp duty changes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Locke said:

...or potentially lose it all. Just bear that in mind.

if you understand trading before you trade you in all probability wont lose it all. I sold my house and am in rented and used the cash from the sale and generated 60% return in 20 months. its not beyond the bounds of reality to make 7% p.a.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hurlerontheditch said:

if you understand trading before you trade you in all probability wont lose it all. I sold my house and am in rented and used the cash from the sale and generated 60% return in 20 months. its not beyond the bounds of reality to make 7% p.a.

What did you do out of curiosity?

How much are you taking off the table now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, for the young mostly their hard work no longer pays, they can never catch up with those that have money given to them, passed to them, they have inherited.......trust funds and free rent in the best places.....

Saying that the highly qualified, the educated the worldly wise may not want to engage with capitalism accumulating more, they do not have to live in a certain place or do a certain job, they can live a life with many choices......a gain for some a loss for others.......brain drain.😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, winkie said:

At the end of the day, for the young mostly their hard work no longer pays, they can never catch up with those that have money given to them, passed to them, they have inherited.......trust funds and free rent in the best places.....

Saying that the highly qualified, the educated the worldly wise may not want to engage with capitalism accumulating more, they do not have to live in a certain place or do a certain job, they can live a life with many choices......a gain for some a loss for others.......brain drain.😉

That is because in the past the young paid for themselves, now they have to pay for other people to have nice homes.

I remember when I got married and a pro single parent I knew, was given better housing than we could afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

That is because in the past the young paid for themselves, now they have to pay for other people to have nice homes.

I remember when I got married and a pro single parent I knew, was given better housing than we could afford.

Young single parents' children grow up, two people make a child 50:50 responsibility.....the stay at home single  parent  will have lost their best earning years of the past, hopefully their children will now be supporting them passing the responsibility from the state......it is the childless lower paid workers without any chance of financial help from family I have more sympathy for......who will support them when they can no longer pay the rent?

In the past all people who worked hard could buy their own home using their own savings and wages without help from family in the way of private education or cash house deposit or inheritance......only the young better off can now obtain what many more could do themselves 30 to 40 years ago many leaving school at 16......the truth.😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, winkie said:

Young single parents' children grow up, two people make a child 50:50 responsibility.....the stay at home single  parent  will have lost their best earning years of the past, hopefully their children will now be supporting them passing the responsibility from the state......it is the childless lower paid workers without any chance of financial help from family I have more sympathy for......who will support them when they can no longer pay the rent?

In the past all people who worked hard could buy their own home using their own savings and wages without help from family in the way of private education or cash house deposit or inheritance......only the young better off can now obtain what many more could do themselves 30 to 40 years ago many leaving school at 16......the truth.😉

 

That has got nothing what so ever to do with my point.

9 minutes ago, winkie said:

it is the childless lower paid workers without any chance of financial help from family I have more sympathy for......who will support them when they can no longer pay the rent?


😉

 

Really?  then you should support me when I say that they should get homes before those who don't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

That has got nothing what so ever to do with my point.

Really?  then you should support me when I say that they should get homes before those who don't work.

This thread is nothing to do with single parents, over time I can see you have a thing about them, lots of resentment there..... it is always the children that suffer because of the actions, bad decisions and misfortune of their parents, why you take it out on the children.....all children deserve a safe, secure and happy childhood...the children of today are tomorrow's future.....mental health in society is already bad enough......looking after children well is hard work......reap what you sow.😉 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, winkie said:

This thread is nothing to do with single parents, over time I can see you have a thing about them, lots of resentment there..... it is always the children that suffer because of the actions, bad decisions and misfortune of their parents, why you take it out on the children.....all children deserve a safe, secure and happy childhood...the children of today are tomorrow's future.....mental health in society is already bad enough......looking after children well is hard work......reap what you sow.😉 

This thread is to do with the cost of housing.  I believe one thing that makes more expensive is that we have to pay for others.  So it is relevant can you really not see that.

16 minutes ago, winkie said:

over time I can see you have a thing about them, lots of resentment there...😉 

Not true, I have nothing against them - just don't want to pay for their housing.  Please don't assume other people act because of x or y belief.

If the Government took money from me and gave to blond people to have housing, I would be against that.  I don't dislike blondes though.

16 minutes ago, winkie said:

why you take it out on the children.....all children deserve a safe, secure and happy childhood...the children of today are tomorrow's future.....mental health in society is already bad enough......looking after children well is hard work......reap what you sow.😉 

I am not taking it out on their children.  Suggesting that people  who don't work should move to a cheaper area is hardly that radical, children can live outside zones 1 and 2.

16 minutes ago, winkie said:

looking after children well is hard work......reap what you sow.😉 

I know it is, most parents do it and just get child benefit - not free housing.

Edited by iamnumerate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
6 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

I would say one simple way to make London much cheaper would be to limit housing benefit to those who are working full time or were in the last 6 months.


That would greatly reduce demand on rents and save a fortune.  It would of course make some BTL's lose their tenants

You are f*****g kidding me right?

People who work full time can claim HB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

This thread is to do with the cost of housing.  I believe one thing that makes more expensive is that we have to pay for others.  So it is relevant can you really not see that.

Not true, I have nothing against them - just don't want to pay for their housing.  Please don't assume other people act because of x or y belief.

If the Government took money from me and gave to blond people to have housing, I would be against that.  I don't dislike blondes though.

I am not taking it out on their children.  Suggesting that people  who don't work should move to a cheaper area is hardly that radical, children can live outside zones 1 and 2.

I know it is, most parents do it and just get child benefit - not free housing.

So what you are saying is it is the single parents that are the cause of the problem, it is them and their children taking up space in homes others would have access to if not for them living in them...... gentrification of all on benefits, the free ride home blockers, ship them out to other areas so we can live in their homes and enrich the area, our work is more deserving......those that get it all for free whilst the rest no matter how hard they work will never catch up.......I think you are blaming the wrong people.....think about it....create the policies, get the behaviours.😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, winkie said:

So what you are saying is it is the single parents that are the cause of the problem, it is them and their children taking up space in homes others would have access to if not for them living in them...... gentrification of all on benefits, the free ride home blockers, ship them out to other areas so we can live in their homes and enrich the area, our work is more deserving......those that get it all for free whilst the rest no matter how hard they work will never catch up.......I think you are blaming the wrong people.....think about it....create the policies, get the behaviours.😉

I think the problem is caused by many things. However not paying people to live in zone1 and 2 who don't work there obviously would make prices cheaper and be a good for thing .

 

Anyway I have to leave this for now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, inbruges said:

You are f*****g kidding me right?

People who work full time can claim HB?

I afraid its true.  Real wages are so disconnected from the real cost of living for many people that this has been in place for years and its the only thing keeping the lower paid going.  Its not all bad because its good for landlords as they can charge more rent and its good for employers, it helps them to pay lower wages.  Its a complete mess.......

Edited by dougless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎26‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 11:31, the_dork said:

Building won’t much change house prices. We have about 27m residences, broadly defined. To get say a 10% decline in a year, ceteris paribus, would require 2.7m new buildings (10x the current rate). You are adding too small an amount to the broader stock that without addressing other issues won’t much change prices

I agree with a lot of your post, but that highlighted part is incorrect.  If supply of something changes by X% this does NOT cause price to change by X%.

For example,  10 people chasing 9 houses will naturally cause the price to be bid up to whatever £ amount means the poorest person can't afford one.  That's then the equilibrium price. 

However, if you If you now build two more suddenly the price OF ALL THE HOUSES collapses.  Now, 1 house will be standing empty, so it becomes totally a buyer's market.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, the_dork said:

But if interest rates/lending were such that those who could borrow against their existing wealth including property could bid more than those without wealth, would they not out bid them and rent out to them?

It's fairly hypothetical so let's stick to 2.7m houses being built next year, though I refuted my own thesis slightly by focussing on the national stock rather than London/southeast. What do you think would happen in such a scenario with no other changes to current system and policies?

 

Rent them out?  If the housing stock doubled there would be nobody to rent to...This is my point.  People really seem to struggle to envisage a world with surplus stock.

2.7m houses built next year? Outcome = Considerable downwards pressure on rents and prices as competitive bidding by buyers evaporated and sellers bid prices down to sell.  Everything else being equal including credit.  Assuming also built in the places where demand exists.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/09/2018 at 13:02, Wayward said:

doubling stock would more than half prices...I would argue that doubling stock would make housing free to occupy.  The owners of housing would be prepared to let people live in them only in return for them being looked after.  The alternative would be empty housing, decay and dereliction.

Doubling stock in the uk ?

So no green spaces anywhere at all then the uk would become like hong kong or mumbai!!

Just stop immigration

Stop non residents buying in the uk  

Reduce H2B - no govt will just stop it that is fanciful as it would kill the market and developers would not build as much thus reducing the affordable element on the new sites

I do not agree with insane levels of new build - it is destroying  the countryside that is one of the wonderful things about the UK 

it it losing wildlife such as birds bees hedgehogs moths insects which are part of the rich fabric of this country

the roads are insanely congested at all times of day 

personally these things are far more important to me than providing homes for immigrants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 152 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.