Change Of Tactic Pinned Topic

[Ignorant Steve]

Read the pinned topic by Webmaster re changing tactics.

Seems to me that accepting we need to promote the idea that we need yet more new houses proves that the STR decision was flawed at best.

Don't want to go into the old arguments that alternative investments subsidise the decision as that's done to death. I assume a decent proportion of STRs on this site will have the nous to invest imaginatively and make STR a success.

Not sure how building more family homes helps FTBs as they would traditionally buy flats where there currently is a glut anyway.

Building more homes cheaply by the thousand seems to be a re-hash of a John Prescott "solution".

[Converted Lurker]

Read the pinned topic by Webmaster re changing tactics.

Seems to me that accepting we need to promote the idea that we need yet more new houses proves that the STR decision was flawed at best.

Don't want to go into the old arguments that alternative investments subsidise the decision as that's done to death. I assume a decent proportion of STRs on this site will have the nous to invest imaginatively and make STR a success.

Not sure how building more family homes helps FTBs as they would traditionally buy flats where there currently is a glut anyway.

Building more homes cheaply by the thousand seems to be a re-hash of a John Prescott "solution".

Steve, you`re a bright lad, you know for this forum to have any legs the title and focus has to change

[non-FTBer]

Read the pinned topic by Webmaster re changing tactics.

Seems to me that accepting we need to promote the idea that we need yet more new houses proves that the STR decision was flawed at best.

Don't want to go into the old arguments that alternative investments subsidise the decision as that's done to death. I assume a decent proportion of STRs on this site will have the nous to invest imaginatively and make STR a success.

Not sure how building more family homes helps FTBs as they would traditionally buy flats where there currently is a glut anyway.

Building more homes cheaply by the thousand seems to be a re-hash of a John Prescott "solution".

I don't think FTBs want to buy a flat at all.

What they probably want is a reasonable size family home... they only buy flats when they cannot stretch to a larger property.

[Ignorant Steve]

Steve, you`re a bright lad, you know for this forum to have any legs the title and focus has to change

Definitely, maybe.

Clearly a fundamental problem with this site is its name. Bit like opening a restaurant called "ourfoodisshit" and wandering why only copraphiliacs (copraphagists??) attend.

But why chose to promote the building of cheap family homes? All that does is reinforce the fact that houses are under-supplied and therefore prices will rise longterm. And all that will do is encourage yet more parents and grandparents to subsidise their offsprings first home. Those members of society without access to rich relatives will become the new rentier class.

This site needs to focus on the economic fundamentals that either prove or disprove whether houses are over-priced or not.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Ignorant Steve

[Michael]

Although a shortage of property doesn't explain why prices have tripled in 6 or 7 years.....

this doesn't mean there isn't a shortage.........

[lulu]

I don't think FTBs want to buy a flat at all.

What they probably want is a reasonable size family home... they only buy flats when they cannot stretch to a larger property.

I think there is a mix in what a FTB might want. I personally would be happy with a one bedroom flat that was in a reasonable part of the city I live in (when I say reasonable I dont mean luxury Penthouse neither a hovel in a crime infested "up and coming" area - just somewhere middle of the road where i am not going to mugged on my way home and not need to step over drugged up teenages on my way up the stairs). at the moment the only way I could afford such a flat would be with a 5/6 times my salary (at least) worth of a mortgage - I am not prepared to take the risk of IR's going up so I personally would just like to see prices to go down a bit - whether that would be interpreted as a crash I dont know and dont care.

Other FTB's who god forbid might want to start a family may well want a small house though.

[Guest Baffled_by_it_all]

Is anyone arguing that prices WON'T rise long term. I think that's a given. The same way a can of coke cost 50p and not 15p like when I was a young shaver (not that long ago) it's called inflation isn't it?

What we're taking about is the SHORT-TERM rapid surge opposed to the long term steady increase and whether that's sustainable. I think that's called a bubble.

In terms of whether as a FTB I'd prefer a flat to a house, surely you want as much space as possible, within a fixed budget. At the moment you're getting neither something large nor something cheap.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Baffled_by_it_all

[AFineMess]

In terms of whether as a FTB I'd prefer a flat to a house, surely you want as much space as possible, within a fixed budget. At the moment you're getting neither something large nor something cheap.

Yes, I want as much space as possible! Not being greedy - both me and my partner are late 30s with no kids yet, but thinking about it. We both earn above average, although we're only scraping by.

The problem with building all these "starter home" 1 and 2 bed box flats is the rising age of the average FTB, coupled with high prices and no real ladder. This means that none of us older FTBs want them, as the place we buy we're going to have to live in for a very long time, and the younger FTB can't afford them at all!

Of course, I can't buy anything at all either without 2 incomes, so it may all be immaterial. Time is ticking, and it's not on our side right now. At the end of the day, if we decide to have kids, that has to take priority, and we'll just have to live as best we can, renting or emigrating.

[FernandoMorientes]

Definitely, maybe.

Clearly a fundamental problem with this site is its name. Bit like opening a restaurant called "ourfoodisshit" and wandering why only copraphiliacs (copraphagists??) attend.

But why chose to promote the building of cheap family homes? All that does is reinforce the fact that houses are under-supplied and therefore prices will rise longterm. And all that will do is encourage yet more parents and grandparents to subsidise their offsprings first home. Those members of society without access to rich relatives will become the new rentier class.

This site needs to focus on the economic fundamentals that either prove or disprove whether houses are over-priced or not.

A rather worrying economic fundamental for me is that the debt owed by the consumer is higher than the national GDP?

I realise this may digress slightly from focusing purely on HPI as it implies overall debt not just mortgage related but a stark statistic never the less do you not think? Maybe it is of no consequence in the long term though I would be interested in an alternative view on this economic fundamental if theres one out there?

Perhaps we could rename the site.....Britains_debt_mountain.com or something similar?

[Ignorant Steve]

A rather worrying economic fundamental for me is that the debt owed by the consumer is higher than the national GDP?

I realise this may digress slightly from focusing purely on HPI as it implies overall debt not just mortgage related but a stark statistic never the less do you not think? Maybe it is of no consequence in the long term though I would be interested in an alternative view on this economic fundamental if theres one out there?

Perhaps we could rename the site.....Britains_debt_mountain.com or something similar?

Debt is a big issue agreed. But it's only one of the ingredients - very high on the list though.

HPC encompasses so many different strands. To pick one whether shortage of supply of family homes or debt or interest rates just serves to distort the overall picture.

If I were to chose just one it most certainly wouldn't be shortage of supply. Everyone knows shortage of supply equals rising prices

[Randall Herbert]

This is a bad mistake IMHO, apart from the fact that this is a very PUBLIC SECRET you are trying to promote!! Sounds suspiciously bullish as well..... New owners not closset BTLrs??

The housing market will correct at its own pace in its own time and for reasons beyond our control. Relax, sit back and watch the show.

[Control Freak]

Well spotted Steve.

This does appear to be rather a volte-face on previous arguments.

What happened to the old chestnuts:

"There is no shortage of housing in the UK, that is just Bullish nonsense - If there was, then why aren't rents rising"

or

"There is no shortage in 'My Area', rightmove has got xxx more houses for sale than this time last year"

Is Webmaster now saying that the Bulls were right all along?

Is the website starting to get stale, and going downhill?

Is there another, ulterior motive? Machaevellian new website owners planting seeds of doubt into the members?

Maybe its' time to spend more time with Consa at ********************* and less time on here.

[Ignorant Steve]

This is a bad mistake IMHO, apart from the fact that this is a very PUBLIC SECRET you are trying to promote!! Sounds suspiciously bullish as well..... New owners not closset BTLrs??

Uh??

Public secret - what's that then?

[Converted Lurker]

Uh??

Public secret - what's that then?

He can`t tell you it`s a secret Sorry Steve

[CrashIsUnderWay]

wouldn't that just cloud the issue???

[undersupply]

Well spotted Steve.

This does appear to be rather a volte-face on previous arguments.

Is there another, ulterior motive?

Ive just sold this website so I can make a new one called "housesupplycrash.co.uk"

[frugalista]

Seems to me that accepting we need to promote the idea that we need yet more new houses proves that the STR decision was flawed at best.

Steve,

You seem to be saying that one must choose between two explanations for the boom. Either the boom was a result of a planning/supply problem or it is a big speculative bubble, but it can't be both.

Of course it can be both, and is. The initial boom (say up to 2001) was partly a result of planning/supply problems and since then it has been a speculative bubble. So there *is* a big risk to buying now *and* building more houses would help bring down prices.

Of course the most important thing is that planning reform will prevent future booms and busts from getting out of control, which has got to be in everyone's interests.

frugalista

[Ignorant Steve]

Steve,

You seem to be saying that one must choose between two explanations for the boom. Either the boom was a result of a planning/supply problem or it is a big speculative bubble, but it can't be both.

Of course it can be both, and is. The initial boom (say up to 2001) was partly a result of planning/supply problems and since then it has been a speculative bubble. So there *is* a big risk to buying now *and* building more houses would help bring down prices.

Of course the most important thing is that planning reform will prevent future booms and busts from getting out of control, which has got to be in everyone's interests.

frugalista

Playing devils advocate you could also argue that pre 2001 (or whenever depending upon location) house prices rose as a result of the previous booms over-correction and since then have risen due to lack of supply.

There is a body of thought that suggests as the population gets more wealthy the demand for better property rises disproportionately driving bigger than expected price increases.

[zag2me]

There is a huge shortage of supply where I live which has pushed prices of houses up massivley in the surrounding area. Any new builds are welcome, we just need more of them to push prices down again. The oversupply of housing will be a cause of a crash im sure, espeicially in those new build city center flats.

Anyone who STR is gambling massivley on a market downturn, I have no sympathy for people who intentionally tried to beat the market and make a quick buck.

[Converted Lurker]

"we need yet more new houses proves that the STR decision was flawed at best"

Speak for yourself.

Everyone I know who STR, is happy with their decision.

But these were mostly people who knew what to do with their money, and were not "STR-sheep".

Your post makes me think there are:

+ STR-winners, who took the money out, and invested it well, and

+ STR-sheep, who may have sold because they thought it was "the thing to do", and may have simply

put their moneyin the bank, or worse-yet squandered it.

Seems to me that sheep lose whether they invest in property, or sell their property.

They canot think for themselves are are simply waiting to follow the crowd

Actually Bubb, if I was a single guy and having found this place sold to rent (like a sheep) in Nov 2004 I`d be feeling quite smug. I still reckon 3rd 4th quarter 2004 was the peak of the money for nothing, so what if a little bit was left in the deal for the next guy..

[Guest Baffled_by_it_all]

Steve,

Are we getting more wealthy? How do you define that. Bigger property loans and more credit?

Edited April 26, 2006 by Baffled_by_it_all

[Magpie]

+ STR-winners, who took the money out, and invested it well, and

+ STR-sheep, who may have sold because they thought it was "the thing to do", and may have simply

put their moneyin the bank, or worse-yet squandered it.

Seems to me that sheep lose whether they invest in property, or sell their property.

They canot think for themselves are are simply waiting to follow the crowd

Blimey, so now we have STR-sheeple as well as all the FTBs and BTLs who are routinely dismissed this way. Seems there are fewer and fewer people that deserve to be acknowledged as people - and more and more that should be despised as subhuman because they aren't investment gurus.

Besides which, surely a large part of the original STR justification was the theory that property would soon stagnate and fall. Yes, some STRs can do well out of it in any case by investing the money, and good luck with that - but that seems to have been stressed more and more as the real justification for STR as prices have failed to behave as predicted.

Steve's point is merely that if one acknowledges the argument that HPI is being caused by a supply shortage by campaigning for affordable housing, one is effectively agreeing that current market forces are causing HPI rather than it being a pure speculative bubble. Seems a good point to me.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Magpie

[Ignorant Steve]

"we need yet more new houses proves that the STR decision was flawed at best"

Speak for yourself.

Everyone I know who STR, is happy with their decision.

But these were mostly people who knew what to do with their money, and were not "STR-sheep".

Did you not read the next paragraph in my post?

"I assume a decent proportion of STRs on this site will have the nous to invest imaginatively and make STR a success."

FWIW - I'm also happy with my STR decision and also the subsequent house purchase. We all have different criteria by which we run our lives.