John Doe

Although it is looking at the NSA figures! Aug-10 £166,507 -1.7% Sep-10 £166,757 0.1% Oct-10 £164,279 -1.5% Nov-10 £163,133 -0.7% Dec-10 £162,249 -0.5% Jan-11 £161,211 -0.6% Feb-11 £161,183 0.0% Mar-11 £164,751 2.2% Apr-11 £165,609 0.5% May-11 £167,208 1.0% Jun-11 £168,205 0.6% Jul-11 £168,731 0.3% Aug-11 £165,914 -1.7% Ouch! That must be why all the for sale are turning to sold up here, what with the big discount etc

And some here like to imply that I am an EA

Now now Dr B, as you know we are all expecting falls over the next 5 or 6 months, but last month was 0.3% up, so over 2 months 0.15% per month, so hardly crash cruise speed (yet), even by your own definitions Just for balance, mortgage approvals rising again, even a whole whopping 3% more than July last year! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14715129 Yep, isn't that what some of us have been saying for some time now?

There was a piece on TV last night saying about 60% of the "mansions" being bought in the UK were by foreign buyers (many of whom don't even visit them, let alone live in them). The argument is that London is a safe haven compared to say Egypt, Lybia etc etc, so all relative. No tax (except £23 a week council tax) and no capital gains IF the prices rise. Then there was some LibDem talk of a mansion tax again to specifically hit these types of property buyers. Even Redwood (Tory) agreed (But then again, it was only a LibDem and Redwood saying it, so not very likely I'm afraid).

Not sure about that as we had a deep fall over nearly 2 years. I think a lot of bull s**t themselves Also, if you look the falls in percentage terms, they are about the same up to mid 2009 yes? Also, the US started reducing rates a long long time beofre the UK. (Old Merv held out for quite a while).

Why gold, of course Yeah but, No but (Vicky Pollard voice) ,because actually the US hit ZIRP Dec 08, that's 3 months before the UK (March 09), and the EU was only 1 whole month behind. As for Brown policies, the US had a fair few of their own too.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I read some of it some years ago, but to be honest, not all. That, (amongst other things, not least the IR drop in 2005) convinced me to jump back into the market after STRing a year or two before. STR'd again after NR went down (got out just in time). Yep. Can't see nominal rises for a long time, unless of course they start lending 100% to everyone at 2.5% (Wouldn't put it past them mind ). But one day, maybe many years yet, the lending will start again. It's their nature.

It was actually taken from a report from the National Housing Federation, however, that aside, I didn't even highlight the bullish bits of the report, like the 20% rise in prices predicted over the next 5 years, as I thought that was rubbish. But, if you want more evidence, worthy of serious consideration, then read one of the most comprehensive studies into the supply and demand effect over the long term, from HM Treasurey (written by Kate Barker, ex BoE) in 2004. http://www.barkerreview.org.uk/ Are we better that that? Where are the serious reports that deny these conclusions? Hehe, and you tell me to "come on". Should I treat that "soundbite as if it's worthy of serious consideration". Again, it doesn't matter why they aren't being built, it's just the fact that they aren't being built that matters (and will matter). I have also said many times, it's the planning laws that don't help, in particular for self builders. Then again, a report later on 5 live drive had all the negative arguments about land banking and empty homes (made by the Campaign to Protect Rural England in this report) absolutely trashed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b013ywkh Roughly about 6.05pm from memory. Sounds like a good idea to me.

It seems the evidence just keeps on mounting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14708841 Of course the supply of credit has a big effect, but over the long term the more houses built = lower prices. Less house built = not so low prices. (Note I never said higher) Do people really think that the banks have all learnt their lesson, and that credit will never return? Really? If the extra homes are not built now and over the next several years, this will most likely create another boom and associated problems in the future (albeit after a possible bust in the meantime).

Why spoil a half decent post with this last line? Nowhere have I ever said property only ever goes up, indeed, quite the reverse. All my posts say falls are ahead. I really don't know why you persist in these attempts at baiting, when we are actually agreeing on quite a few things. The simple fact is what really sets us apart is that the US, Eire and Spain all had huge oversupply. If you keep ignore this (amongst other things), then you are not looking at the whole picture. Did Canada and Australia have a big oversupply? If not, then my arguments are actually given more weight. Also they have s**t loads of commodities, or do you think that has no effect as well? That's right, but the current situation could go on for many, many years, slowly reducing the amount of outstanding debt, or do you not accept that is a possibility? Remember the old saying "Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent"?

Who knows where they get their crazy ideas? Madame, please! One can take the slights to far sometimes! Joking aside, these guys have been spot on for the vast majority of the crises (and before) so when they come out with things like this, I do worry (more). http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Britain-In-Debt-Danger-Zone-skynews-3750095640.html?x=0

But Meralti, the fact is that the UK has not seen anything like the falls in other countries. I think there are several reasons, low IR's being one of them, however, there are low IR's in the US and Eire and Spain also, so that really doesn't set us apart does it? I have put forward several other possibilities. You rubbish them and mock me, yet when I ask you for your reasons, you ignore the question. The arguments you say have been done to death have not been shown to be false when analysed at all. For every person saying they don’t show a correlation, there is another who shows they do, and I’m sure you are aware of this if you really are researching the field. If you don't like the reasons I think has stopped bigger falls, that's fine, but please don't dismiss them out of hand unless you have better ones. Do you have better ones?

I used to think that way, and still think government spending should be cut, but now I think the problems we have are so great that a "good" recession now could spiral down far deeper than anyone would actually want, with severe consequences. For example, on a smaller point, I used to think a quick public sector cull would sort out the deficit, but now I see no point in making compulsory public sector redundancies when the tax payer ends up paying for these people anyway, while they are unemployed. Rather, use voluntary and natural wastage over a longer period. I'm not sure if it means the expected QE3 (bond buying) or rather stimulus packages, which if directed into infrastructure etc, would not be such a waste and not so inflationary. The deleveraging hole is a b**dy big hole to fill.

How much more bearish do you want? To quote a certain fella that goes by the name of John Doe Sorry, you have to be a real bear for that info, walking the walk, not just talking the talk

PS, now I' at home and had a chance to re-read your post properly, I thought I'd better clarify a couple of points you made. 1) It was Mark Twain that said "Buy land, they’re not making it any more", not me. What I have actually said is that it's the restrictive planning laws that are one of the problems. 2) Population growth (not just immigration) will lead to problems in the future. Just to make sure you are not "misrepresenting" things, or attributing things to me that I haven't actually said, again

So you say, yet compared to the US and Eire and Spain etc etc, prices here haven't fallen anywhere near as far, have they? Diferences between those places and the UK? Or perhaps you think that there is some other reason? And that is? It doesn't matter what you think should be right, it just is what it is, and that is what one must accept. Not the wishes of others. Besides, you should really read my posts properly, as all I am actually saying is that the reasons I outline appear to be stopping a bigger crash, not stopping prices fall. So, without resorting to personal insults, (as there really is no need, as it just makes you look vindictive, and spoils otherwise interesting posts), I will put my points, and read yours with interest. History will tell. Oh and we can all find headlines http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030510/House-prices-biggest-leap-19-months-year.html

Why, I always do Dr B . That sounds a fine set of proposals, if the situation comes. PS I see Douche doure has updated his Great Dow Highs of 2007 thread. Always worth a read, talking of learning things. http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=2199&pid=224983&st=260entry224983

Please don't get me wrong, I don't know exactly what will happen (no-one does, no matter what they tell you), it's just what I think is likely to happen considering where we are and what has happened so far. For instance, I have always said IF rates were forced to rise early, all bets are off. But it's very unlikely this will happen considering where we are. With the serious slowdown (again) now being observed in the Western economies, I really don't think inflation will stay high either, as even with the printing and ZIRP, a credit crunch, by definition, is deflationary, and the deleveraging hole they have to fill is still bigger than the printing (so far). I hope things will not get so bad that they will have a debt jubilee, I just don't dismiss it out of hand. (Indeed, US and Eire are doing this in a small way already, and the restructuring of Greek debt (and Eire) is default by any other name, and essentially the first steps of this policy too). I think beneath the surface, things are extremely bad, but, they have been for a very long time, and the world has muddled through with booms and busts regardless of this. Your point about a slow grind is probably closest to my thinking. Manageable (yes fiddled) inflation (<5%) over a number of years, whilst scaring the population into not daring to ask for pay rises. IR's being kept really low for the same period.

Yes, it is magic. (See my french lessons are working, Je faire du progress toute les jours! ) But just watch what they will pull out the hat if things get really dire. Debt jubilee? I wouldnt rule it out if things are as bad as I (and many here) believe! I actually read her speech as being along the lines of Bernanke, basically they are all on the same hymn sheet. No more printing directly, but time for other approaches, including mortgage re-pricing, debt forgiveness and s**t loads of gov spending while slowing down the cuts. Stimulus, stimulus, stimulus. . He has been in the financial markets for 30 years. (due out in February 2012), which argues that the credit crisis has only just begun.[/i] I'm sure he will give a balanced veiw then His "Glacier Fund" wouldn't happen to make lots of money if prices fell would it? He says house buying more than 40% more expensive than renting. WRONG, it is buy all accounts now, cheaper to buy than rent in 80% of the country. Even if it was equal, this 40% statement is nonsense. He is basing over-value on earnings and not affordability. In this ZIRP environment, this is the WRONG comparison. He says what s**t we are in, then how Osborne is the darling of the market, then thinks rates are going to go up Big mistake. Rates ain't going nowhere for a long time (and that is because things ARE bad). Please ladies and gents, let's have some balance

Er, I never said anything about outside US did I? Talk about seeing what you want to see Met So lets have another look and see if what I said isn’t true. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f857244-d0d0-11e0-8891-00144feab49a.html#axzz1WPGpDTau What she said was (and I will highlight it so it is clear) She quite explicitly says “writing off more of the principle on mortgages” does she not? That's mortgage let off as I said. She quite explicitly says “refinance mortgages at lower rates” does she not? Again, as I said. That's capital injection into banks, as I said, did I not? I don't imply anything in my post, I just said quite clearly that she said, "More mortgage let offs, new lower rates for mortgage holders, capital injection into the banks etc etc" That is EXACTLY what she said, is it not? So, if you insist on childishly implying that I am (or was an EA) in these very personal attacks, at least do it when (or rather if) I ever actually try to misrepresent views, rather than when you just don't like the facts, again

I think we might soon see more gov intervention. Did you hear Lagardes latest speech as IMF head? Wow! More mortgage let offs, new lower rates for mortgage holders, capital injection into the banks etc etc http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14699093

Moi? Just a glass or two, purely medicinal However, the figures are, of course, correct if using my flawless night time logic (based loosely upon the Sancerre school of thought, with a splash of Pouilly Fume thinking thrown in). Clearly, I must have been assuming single person households for all the new 120,000 houses, then the remainder of the new population living 350,000/30,000 = ~12 per house , obviously students or East Europeans Looking at your figures, I have found a couple of links showing the number of homes in the uk was 22,000,000 in 2001 So even building 200,000 new houses per year would make it 24,000,000 now, leaving a shortfall of (27,000,000-2,000,000) 3,000,000! That’s quite a shortfall. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_households_in_the_UK Using these figures with your calculations, that would mean 3,000,000 x 2.29 = 6,870,000 people. So if solving the crisis, using your, admittedly ingenious, plan of squeezing 6 extra people into some of the existing housing stock, it would need 1,000,000 poor unsuspecting households to take up the slack! So, maybe 8.29 bed houses rather than bungalows is the way to go? just kidding

I didn't mean radical like that, I meant radical as change (as you pointed out, they don't like change). Or, perhaps even radical by actually using common sense to make policy. Now that would be radical for a UK gov. Not sure about now, but most of the one beds with young people in on benefits etc were local authority or housing association back in the late 80's early 90's. Back home there were a few dodgy landlords around the city centre that had cheapish bedsits, but they weren't as good, or cheap, as the LA and HA ones, it was mainly students and divorcees that rented these.

Or buy 2 bed flats as suggested. I agree the plans make good sense, but UK Gov's talk lots, but tend not to go through with radical plans. We can but hope.

Sorry LB, I didn't understand your previous post, you are way too subtle for me sometimes Not sure if everyone thinks that way (I would love to find a good job abroad, and am actively looking. The whole Doe house is even learning French!), but the vast majority I know seem to be happy to stay here. Jees, many of my friends from my former life* haven't really ever left their own city! (except maybe for a day trip or two). When I left many years back, many of them really couldn't understand why I'd want to leave and they all thought I'd be back within a few months! Weird! It does worry me that without building lots of new houses, we are storing up trouble. Housing should be affordable. The average person on the average wage SHOULD be able to afford the average house. Greater supply can only help. * Former life being before I went back to school etc, not as exciting as your former life (lives) definition The same USA with hardly any benefits? Perhaps if the Gov actually bring in the measures mentioned by Pal (instead of keep talking about them, then doing U-turns), this would have an effect. Until then, I don't think we can be compared with the USA.