John Doe

Land reg, acadametrics and home.co.uk have always been more reliable IMHO. However, Nationwide have tightened their lending criteria (they were always much tighter than most), so I would think this would result in them lending more to better "risks" and, as such, would skew the figures up somewhat (much like when only rich people can buy, which sends the "average" price up).

Not a patch on Glasgow on a saturday night

"Don't bogart that joint my friend"

Fair points Pix (and all very true), but its a UK site, about UK houses and populated by people earning UK pounds. So, for your average Joe, working, living and paying down their mortgage in the UK, the price in yen, CHF, or Au is largely irrelevant, unless perhaps they took out a big mortgage sized loan in 2000 say, and bought gold, and then paid the interest and capital down over the next 11 years (to where we are now). So yes, of course home buyers are paying the hidden falls in their property values through increasing prices in everything else, but they don't see it that way, no matter how much people try to tell them, nor will they. It would be like trying to tell them that, compared to copper prices for example, their home values have fallen by 75% over the last year. They would say "Eh?" then "so what?" or the old "what's that got to do with the price of eggs" (ironic eh) Remember the old "the pound in your pocket" etc? They lapped it up then, and they are now. Plus ca change.... I guess in the end, it doesn't really matter for most people. Their home is their only investment. As long as they can pay their mortgage, they have a roof over their head and, once paid off, it's theirs. To them, you might even say, that they are living in their "Buy and Hold" investment.

That's right, some of us deflationists realised this a few years back. The game is rigged. Indeed, those that bought in 2004 (especially those with practically 0% trackers) will be able to overpay by so much they will probably be mortgage free by 2015! Think they are going to worry about a 10%, 20% or even a 30% fall in their property price (IF it ever happens)? Not a chance.

Then I had better put this on those 3 threads too, as your data is seriously flawed. Did you not see the big changes in boundary that was shown previously? Whole boroughs that were classed as being in Greater London, were moved to other areas, for example the 1969 transfers of Knockholt to Kent and Farleigh to Surrey, You cannot look at this data in isolation as it is meaningless unless you keep the original borders. If you take these factors into account, you will not see the big drop like the one you present. Indeed, it might even show a rise. You also forget that during the 40's to 80's, industry attracted workers to the big industrial cities, like Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool etc. Then, as Thatcher decimated these places, people went to where the "new" jobs were. London and the S.E. Then, over the last few years, immigration has reached record proportions with most newcomers going to London. This is the main reason for the big rise in the last few years. You really need to look at the whole picture, and not just take snip-bits that suit the argument of the day.

Er actually, a lot of the rise in population was due to emigration reducing, and beisdes, everyone knows that most of the "NINJAs" come in under the radar and aren't included in the official stats. Oh and (I think everyone agrees now) there wasn't a 70% reduction in the London population However, if you really think there will be a 70% reduction in the population of London without a major natural disaster etc, then pass that big fat blifter you're tuggin on this way dude

You are forgetting the boundary changes, which have had a large effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greater_London_boundary_changes

Agreed, that was my point. If London had a 70% population reduction in the 1970's, as was suggested, it would have been the end of London, and probably the rest of the country too. So, it didn't happen, and it's a pretty good bet that it won't happen (Baring a natural disaster or something similar). Especially not with 250,000 net immigrants arriving each year, even in the midst of a massive economic downturn, most heading to the South East. Detroit, AFAIR was a heavy industry city, (cars etc) and was hammered when the mass workforces, numbering in the 100's of thousands in some car plants, were effectively all thrown out of work back in the 80's. I remember reading Michael Moore’s stuff back then, "Downsize This" and watching "Roger and Me" (both worth a look). These places (Detroit and Flint Michigan) were absolutely decimated, much like parts of the UK under Thatcher, but on an even bigger scale.

70%! That is more of a reduction than Detroit, the city with the biggest population decline in the modern western world! I can tell you that is figure is totally wrong, (and that's 100% correct ). 7% maybe. But AFAIR, that was more to do with rebanding the areas of central, mid and greater London at that time.

£120,000,000? That's nothing, that's what they have to add to the borrowing every 8 hours or so. £120,000,000,000 a year is more like it!

UK 'safer' than Germany

If you need to ask that question, you don't know the British very well That would be music to the BoE's ears. Besides, why attack the currency now? There is no disparity they can play on like before when we were tied to the ERM and there are far more obvious (and easy) targets all around?

I see your point and yes, one day, far from now, rates will increase. But, as I have pointed out many times before, we are not Italy, (or Greece, or Spain.....) We have very, very long dated debt (14 years average maturity!), and a central bank that can print money and buy bonds to it's hearts content. We don't need to rollover 100's of billions of pounds next year (as these others do). So no pressure there either. We even have bailed out banks which can be told to buy debt when required. We are totally different. Besides, looking at that yield curve, I would be very tempted to move the rest of the short term debt to 15-20 and even 30 years.

What, I see is rates dropping with QE. So QE means lower rates, which means cheaper mortgages. The yield curve looks quite healthy. How is that bearish?

Wow, so much for the slowdown in net migration some thought would occur due to the UKs economic prospects. Official figures (not including all the unofficial entrants) show another 250,000 net increase in 2010! More people, less housing, hmmmmm, wonder if that will have any effect on rents/prices? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15868793

Hey, I've just found this thread and noticed that on several occasions you had been pasting my comments from other threads here and then responding to them. Please let me know when you are going to do this as otherwise, not having time to check all the threads and boards all the time, it doesn’t offer the chance of rebuttal. Thanks in advance. JD

Here we go. As predicted. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15810966 Could have been worse, could have been 100% And Rightmove saying asking prices crashing down, get them sold before xmas people! http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Property-asking-prices-cut-tele-3996305210.html?x=0

Yep, this one does. Looks good. Cheers

Lights in the woods, changing DNA with your voice, the dark works of reptilians and greys (both space aliens I presume). What could be controversial about that?

But BaB, while I agree with your sentiment, that's an extreme example (more than 3x the average), after all, the average UK house price is ~ 160k and there aren't a huge %age over that (much like the average wage is ~ 25k, but only ~13% actually earn more than this). Can’t see it myself, population growing, immigration, less homes being built. These are all facts, no matter how much we don't like it. Sure, one or two will move home, but heh, the number of people actually in work in the UK has been rising for ages (albeit with the odd month where it hasn't). Also, the number of young unemployed has been rising since 2004. They were never the strong buyers (average age of buyers has been well above 26 for a decade has it not). So, several years of flat or slightly falling prices to bring things back into line with wages is surely a good thing, isn't it?

Woah BaB, no argument with those points, but we are where we are. So what is the difference between a young couple paying (more) rent to a BTL landlord, (which itself keeps floors under prices) and the same young couple paying a long term fixed mortgage, (as I have always advocated)? A big fall in prices would screw the country more than it already is. Everyone knows this. Rather, a gentle flat line, small drops even, for several years while wages catch up would be the best possible outcome for all concerned. With unemployment rising and growth likely to be flat for 2 years, it seems sensible to try and avoid a full collapse. Like it or not, that would be in no-ones interest. Careful MS, they might just take you up on that.

No, it's true. Osborne will announce it in the pre budget speech on the 29th Nov. They will underwrite the deposit part. Grab them house quick! Only kidding. As always, the devil will be in the detail. They will probably only help about 10 people per year or something like that. Besides, what's wrong with the idea of helping people who are capable of easily paying more rent than an equivalent mortgage would cost, just because they don't have a massive deposit? (As long as there are safeguards built in and they don't just give it to anyone). As we keep trying to explain to Dr B, it really is different here

Exactly, it never fails to amaze me that people do not grasp this simple reality, nor realise that higher house prices just mean bigger mortgages for them, and bigger profits for banks, estate agencies and anything else that is based on a % of a house price (surveys, solicitors etc etc). Have a nice trip! (Lucky sod, and don’t forget, don’t kiss in public )

Quiet day at work Tallim? Nice analysis, just forgot about one other possible factor. House prices rising over the next 5 years