I have a permanent short list of 'saved properties' on RightMove.
Permanent, that is, in the sense that it has rarely changed from one
month to the next over the past year. Now things are different! In the
last couple of weeks there have been six properties turning red for
sold, all different - some houses, some bungalows, various prices,
various locations (though all in Lincolnshire). This included one
bungalow, one of my favourites, being sold ten days ago, then coming
back on the market, and today being marked as sold again!

So I would suggest that the housing market IS at last picking up and
that the latest optimism from the Halifax and others is well-founded.

MM

"MM" wrote in message
...
I have a permanent short list of 'saved properties' on RightMove.
Permanent, that is, in the sense that it has rarely changed from one
month to the next over the past year. Now things are different! In the
last couple of weeks there have been six properties turning red for
sold, all different - some houses, some bungalows, various prices,
various locations (though all in Lincolnshire). This included one
bungalow, one of my favourites, being sold ten days ago, then coming
back on the market, and today being marked as sold again!

So I would suggest that the housing market IS at last picking up and
that the latest optimism from the Halifax and others is well-founded.

MM


LMAO - go check out www.housepricecrash.co.uk - the article about the guy
who runs American Express describing the housing market as "the mother of
all bubbles" is interesting and articles from the likes of The Economist,
Moneyweek and others forecasting a crash in prices of up to 60% - YES, SIXTY
PERCENT in the next few years. The housing market is nothing more than a
giant pyramid selling scheme. Easy credit as a result of 911 and the Western
Governments not wanting a global recession has basically indebted the West's
populations to a point where the recession is likely to be the first global
depression since 1929!

Sorry mate, but too many of the World's top economists are now predicting a
huge housing price crash but also a global economic disaster not seen in
over 70 years! Why do you think gold is now worth $500 an ounce!????

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:20:20 GMT, "John Smith"
wrote:

LMAO - go check out www.housepricecrash.co.uk - the article about the guy
who runs American Express describing the housing market as "the mother of
all bubbles"

So American Express is somehow whiter than white and not involved at
all in facilitating this bubble?

is interesting and articles from the likes of The Economist,
Moneyweek and others forecasting a crash in prices of up to 60% - YES, SIXTY
PERCENT in the next few years.

60% in some areas would simply take prices back to where they were a
couple of years ago, not a huge deal with low interest rates and lots
of opportunities for those that didn't overstretch.

snip

Why do you think gold is now worth $500 an ounce!????

Because demand is outstripping supply. A billion Chinese wanting a bit
of bling tends to cause things like this. The same thing is happening
with the copper price as demand for hot water cylinders in Japan is
going through the roof due to them dumping their old outdated combi
systems in the skip.


--

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:38:06 +0000, Matt
wrote:



Because demand is outstripping supply. A billion Chinese wanting a bit
of bling tends to cause things like this. The same thing is happening
with the copper price as demand for hot water cylinders in Japan is
going through the roof due to them dumping their old outdated combi
systems in the skip.

PMSL.

You mean those Rinsaid ones (or whatever they're called).?




--

..andy

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:54:39 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:38:06 +0000, Matt
wrote:



Because demand is outstripping supply. A billion Chinese wanting a bit
of bling tends to cause things like this. The same thing is happening
with the copper price as demand for hot water cylinders in Japan is
going through the roof due to them dumping their old outdated combi
systems in the skip.

PMSL.

You mean those Rinsaid ones (or whatever they're called).?


Andy ROT13

(Ab vg'f whfg n jvaq hc sbe Qevooyr ohg vgf n cvgl ur qvqa'g ovgr,
zhfg unir orra na rneyl avtug sbe ybpxhc)


--

In article ,
Matt wrote:
You mean those Rinsaid ones (or whatever they're called).?


Andy ROT13

(Ab vg'f whfg n jvaq hc sbe Qevooyr ohg vgf n cvgl ur qvqa'g ovgr,
zhfg unir orra na rneyl avtug sbe ybpxhc)

Jura Wbua trgf gbgnyyl gebhaprq nf ur unf orra bire gur ehoovfu bs gur
qvrfry chzc qevivat n fcrrqb ur bsgra yvrf ybj sbe n juvyr. Ur arire
nqzvgf n zvfgnxr. Fb jvgu n ovg bs yhpx crnpr naq dhvrg sbe n srj qnlf -
be ybbx bhg sbe n arj anzr fcbhgvat gur fnzr byq penc.

--
*Eschew obfuscation *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Matt wrote:
You mean those Rinsaid ones (or whatever they're called).?


Andy ROT13

(Ab vg'f whfg n jvaq hc sbe Qevooyr ohg vgf n cvgl ur qvqa'g ovgr,
zhfg unir orra na rneyl avtug sbe ybpxhc)

Jura Wbua trgf gbgnyyl gebhaprq nf ur unf orra bire gur ehoovfu bs gur
qvrfry chzc qevivat n fcrrqb ur bsgra yvrf ybj sbe n juvyr. Ur arire
nqzvgf n zvfgnxr. Fb jvgu n ovg bs yhpx crnpr naq dhvrg sbe n srj
qnlf -
be ybbx bhg sbe n arj anzr fcbhgvat gur fnzr byq penc.

Hz, vf guvf n cevingr pyho?

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:55:40 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Matt wrote:
You mean those Rinsaid ones (or whatever they're called).?


Andy ROT13

(Ab vg'f whfg n jvaq hc sbe Qevooyr ohg vgf n cvgl ur qvqa'g ovgr, zhfg
unir orra na rneyl avtug sbe ybpxhc)

Jura Wbua trgf gbgnyyl gebhaprq nf ur unf orra bire gur ehoovfu bs gur
qvrfry chzc qevivat n fcrrqb ur bsgra yvrf ybj sbe n juvyr. Ur arire
nqzvgf n zvfgnxr. Fb jvgu n ovg bs yhpx crnpr naq dhvrg sbe n srj qnlf -
be ybbx bhg sbe n arj anzr fcbhgvat gur fnzr byq penc.

Stop being naughty you two boys at the back!!!

--
Regards
Tony
(Take out the garbage to reply)

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:43:56 +0000, Owain
wrote:

MM wrote:
So I would suggest that the housing market IS at last picking up and
that the latest optimism from the Halifax and others is well-founded.

I wasn't aware that it had slumped.

Oh, yes. My RightMove shortlist didn't shift a single property for six
months. The list was getting overly long, because I kept adding
properties, but none was being sold. Prices were reduced, sometimes
twice. Then there was one sold one week, another a couple of weeks
later. Hardly an improvement. But in the past couple of weeks, there
has been a noticeable change. Since this ties in with other reported
optimism, I can only say that the market is on a slightly rising trend
now.

MM

MM wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:43:56 +0000, Owain
wrote:

MM wrote:
So I would suggest that the housing market IS at last picking up and
that the latest optimism from the Halifax and others is well-founded.

I wasn't aware that it had slumped.

Oh, yes. My RightMove shortlist didn't shift a single property for six
months. The list was getting overly long, because I kept adding
properties, but none was being sold. Prices were reduced, sometimes
twice. Then there was one sold one week, another a couple of weeks
later. Hardly an improvement. But in the past couple of weeks, there
has been a noticeable change. Since this ties in with other reported
optimism, I can only say that the market is on a slightly rising trend
now.

Make your mind up. Is it "slightly rising" or "really bucking up"?

MBQ

MM wrote:
I can only say that the market is on a slightly rising trend now.

Volume of sales increasing, fine. Price rise? The last thing needed.

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:24:51 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:

MM wrote:
I can only say that the market is on a slightly rising trend now.

Volume of sales increasing, fine. Price rise? The last thing needed.

Why?


--

..andy

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:24:51 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:


MM wrote:

I can only say that the market is on a slightly rising trend now.

Volume of sales increasing, fine. Price rise? The last thing needed.


Why?


Experts never agree, I think because they know they are guessing, and if
they all guess differently one of them will be right, then they can
claim the experts are right!
See the latest is that global warming is going to set us back to the ice
age. What I could not understand with that argument it seemed to centre
around the Gulf Stream cooling because the North pole is warming. Fine
but surely as it gets cold "Up 't North" the gulf stream will get warm
again.

--
Please do not reply to this Email address
All Emails are deleted upon receipt.

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:24:51 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:


MM wrote:

I can only say that the market is on a slightly rising trend now.

Volume of sales increasing, fine. Price rise? The last thing needed.


Why?



Price falls/ rises happen in a free market. Whether you need them or not
is irrelevant.
Alas the housing market is not "free" because the gains from it aren't
taxed. Imagine if we had to find other ways to make money

The message
from Broadback contains these words:

Experts never agree, I think because they know they are guessing, and if
they all guess differently one of them will be right, then they can
claim the experts are right!
See the latest is that global warming is going to set us back to the ice
age. What I could not understand with that argument it seemed to centre
around the Gulf Stream cooling because the North pole is warming. Fine
but surely as it gets cold "Up 't North" the gulf stream will get warm
again.

AIUI why they think the gulf stream my falter or even abandon our shores
entirely is is because what drives the circulation of the gulf stream is
the colder water sinking at the northern end of its run. With more
icebergs melting off Greenland and now more fresh water flowing into the
Arctic Ocean from Russia the salinity of the northern seas is reduced
and with is the tendency to sink. I doubt if the gulf stream has much
effect on the calving rate of Greenlands glaciers and it would have even
less on the weather of Central Europe but if we lose the gulf stream we
end up like Newfoundland and Labrador at a similar latitude on the other
side of the pond.

--
Roger Chapman

In message .com,
writes

MM wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:43:56 +0000, Owain
wrote:

MM wrote:
So I would suggest that the housing market IS at last picking up and
that the latest optimism from the Halifax and others is well-founded.

I wasn't aware that it had slumped.

Oh, yes. My RightMove shortlist didn't shift a single property for six
months. The list was getting overly long, because I kept adding
properties, but none was being sold. Prices were reduced, sometimes
twice. Then there was one sold one week, another a couple of weeks
later. Hardly an improvement. But in the past couple of weeks, there
has been a noticeable change. Since this ties in with other reported
optimism, I can only say that the market is on a slightly rising trend
now.

Make your mind up. Is it "slightly rising" or "really bucking up"?

Or just an occupational illusion ?

--
geoff

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:24:51 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:

MM wrote:
I can only say that the market is on a slightly rising trend now.

Volume of sales increasing, fine. Price rise? The last thing needed.

Why?

How else will I be able to afford my mansion in the country ?

--
geoff

In message , Broadback
writes
Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:24:51 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:

MM wrote:

I can only say that the market is on a slightly rising trend now.

Volume of sales increasing, fine. Price rise? The last thing needed.
Why?

Experts never agree, I think because they know they are guessing, and
if they all guess differently one of them will be right, then they can
claim the experts are right!
See the latest is that global warming is going to set us back to the
ice age. What I could not understand with that argument it seemed to
centre around the Gulf Stream cooling because the North pole is
warming. Fine but surely as it gets cold "Up 't North" the gulf stream
will get warm again.


You're in IT, aren't you

--
geoff

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:24:51 +0000, Chris Bacon wrote:

MM wrote:
I can only say that the market is on a slightly rising trend now.

Volume of sales increasing, fine. Price rise? The last thing needed.

Yeah - I'm banking on them halving in the next few years or I'll be
renting for the rest of my life the way it is right now.

Oh for 1995 prices. Or even 1969.

I did a calculation based on what my Dad paid for his old house in north
Surrey in 1969 compared to what it's worth now (since moved, but estate
agent websites have plenty for sale in the same road).

After inflation adjusting, I believe the price in 2005 is at least 5 times
greater than 1969 in real terms.

That's insane.

Tim

Tim S wrote:

Oh for 1995 prices. Or even 1969.

I did a calculation based on what my Dad paid for his old house in north
Surrey in 1969 compared to what it's worth now (since moved, but estate
agent websites have plenty for sale in the same road).

After inflation adjusting, I believe the price in 2005 is at least 5 times
greater than 1969 in real terms.

And what would you income have been in ten years ago or your father's in
1969?

House prices have risen to match incomes or, more precisely, the amount
available to pay a mortgage now interest rates are lower. Whether that
will be a good deal in the long run, with no inflation to wipe out the
debt is another matter.

--
David Clark

$message_body_include ="PLES RING IF AN RNSR IS REQIRD"

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:13:46 +0000, DJC wrote:

Tim S wrote:

Oh for 1995 prices. Or even 1969.

I did a calculation based on what my Dad paid for his old house in north
Surrey in 1969 compared to what it's worth now (since moved, but estate
agent websites have plenty for sale in the same road).

After inflation adjusting, I believe the price in 2005 is at least 5
times greater than 1969 in real terms.

And what would you income have been in ten years ago or your father's in
1969?

I have vague recollections of him getting 100 / week in the early 70's.
Haven't got the inflation tables to hand but back tracking on my
calculations I reckon that's worth maybe 40K / month now.

His house in 69 cost 6000. Now, it's more than 300,000, ie 50 times,
allowing cumulative inflation in that period being a factor of 10, leads
me to the 5 times in real terms.

There's no way he could afford the same house at today's prices, not even
with a 35 year mortgage.

As for me, I know what my salary was in 1995 - bugger all due to being a
civil servant - well when the JobCentre offers you a job you don't have a
*lot* of choice! Several job/employer/profession changes and incremental
pay scales later it's considerably different. I don't know what my current
scale point would have been in 95, but I'm damn sure it wasn't a third of
what I get now which is how much my flat in Sutton went up 95-2004.

If you took my actual salary in 95, the I could comfortably afford my
little flat and have a reasonable amount of padding in case if interest
rate changes. If I bought my little flat today, I could only just afford
it, despite a couple of promotions and a pay hike.

That's why it's crazy.

I feel sorry for people starting out.

Now where's that lottery ticket...


House prices have risen to match incomes or, more precisely, the amount
available to pay a mortgage now interest rates are lower. Whether that
will be a good deal in the long run, with no inflation to wipe out the
debt is another matter.

With respect, not in London they haven't. Furthermore, anyone maxing out a
mortgage on a 35 year term, borrowing 5 x salary at today's rates has got
to want their head examined. People were practically topping themselves in
the late 80's when rates went up. Even in the early 90's I remember
friends finding themselves with negative equity.

What's actually happening is that lenders are lending recklessly and
people are being encouraged to max out with absolutely no comfort zone
left. Couple of percent on rates and I reckon many will be bankrupted.

Tim

In message , Tim S
writes
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:24:51 +0000, Chris Bacon wrote:

MM wrote:
I can only say that the market is on a slightly rising trend now.

Volume of sales increasing, fine. Price rise? The last thing needed.

Yeah - I'm banking on them halving in the next few years or I'll be
renting for the rest of my life the way it is right now.

Oh for 1995 prices. Or even 1969.

I did a calculation based on what my Dad paid for his old house in north
Surrey in 1969 compared to what it's worth now (since moved, but estate
agent websites have plenty for sale in the same road).

After inflation adjusting, I believe the price in 2005 is at least 5 times
greater than 1969 in real terms.

I've always felt that the inflation rate is something massaged by the
government of the day to make themselves look the best they can.

A better measure would be how does the average house price compare to
the average wage

or even

how does the average house price x the typical mortgage interest rate
compare to the average wage

i think someone posted the chart here a few years ago, and the former
figure suggested that prices had peaked, but the latter figure suggested
that prices had a long way to go.



--
Richard Faulkner

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:22:10 +0000, Tim S wrote:

I have vague recollections of him getting 100 / week in the early 70's.
Haven't got the inflation tables to hand but back tracking on my
calculations I reckon that's worth maybe 40K / month now.

Silly typo - in the region of 50K / year given the 100 is a bit of an -ish
figure. I suspect that figure was pre-tax.

Having said that, as he was a civil servant on an engineering/scientific
scale, it ought to be possible to correlate it to the current scale
assuming that there's one department left that hasn't become an agency and
completely changed the scale structure.

I'm thinking his salary today would actually be more likely to be in the
30K region, maybe more, but I don't remember exactly when he once told me
the 100/week figure, may have been as late as '75. I'll ask him when I see
him - he's the sort of person who keeps his old payslips, bank
statements etc. Might reveal something.

Cheers

Tim

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:22:53 +0000, Richard Faulkner wrote:

In message , Tim S
writes
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:24:51 +0000, Chris Bacon wrote:

MM wrote:
I can only say that the market is on a slightly rising trend now.

Volume of sales increasing, fine. Price rise? The last thing needed.

Yeah - I'm banking on them halving in the next few years or I'll be
renting for the rest of my life the way it is right now.

Oh for 1995 prices. Or even 1969.

I did a calculation based on what my Dad paid for his old house in north
Surrey in 1969 compared to what it's worth now (since moved, but estate
agent websites have plenty for sale in the same road).

After inflation adjusting, I believe the price in 2005 is at least 5
times greater than 1969 in real terms.

I've always felt that the inflation rate is something massaged by the
government of the day to make themselves look the best they can.

That's certainly likely.

A better measure would be how does the average house price compare to the
average wage

or even

how does the average house price x the typical mortgage interest rate
compare to the average wage

i think someone posted the chart here a few years ago, and the former
figure suggested that prices had peaked, but the latter figure suggested
that prices had a long way to go.

Price of a Mars bar was reckoned to be as good a measure as any. How much
was one in 68?

Tim

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:22:10 +0000, Tim S wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:13:46 +0000, DJC wrote:

Tim S wrote:

Oh for 1995 prices. Or even 1969.

I did a calculation based on what my Dad paid for his old house in north
Surrey in 1969 compared to what it's worth now (since moved, but estate
agent websites have plenty for sale in the same road).

After inflation adjusting, I believe the price in 2005 is at least 5
times greater than 1969 in real terms.

And what would you income have been in ten years ago or your father's in
1969?

I have vague recollections of him getting 100 / week in the early 70's.
Haven't got the inflation tables to hand but back tracking on my
calculations I reckon that's worth maybe 40K / month now.

A year surely?


His house in 69 cost 6000. Now, it's more than 300,000, ie 50 times,
allowing cumulative inflation in that period being a factor of 10, leads
me to the 5 times in real terms.

There's no way he could afford the same house at today's prices, not even
with a 35 year mortgage.

Hence the appearance of various other financial products to address
the issue. In Germany, for example, 50 year mortgages are not
unusual and are inherited. Then there are part equity schemes and so
on.

Ultimately the whole circle does correct itself. Lenders need to do
business and their products have to be affordable by their intended
customer base.

Price correction is but one option for that.


As for me, I know what my salary was in 1995 - bugger all due to being a
civil servant - well when the JobCentre offers you a job you don't have a
*lot* of choice! Several job/employer/profession changes and incremental
pay scales later it's considerably different.

Glad you saw the light and went straight :-)

I don't know what my current
scale point would have been in 95, but I'm damn sure it wasn't a third of
what I get now which is how much my flat in Sutton went up 95-2004.

If you took my actual salary in 95, the I could comfortably afford my
little flat and have a reasonable amount of padding in case if interest
rate changes. If I bought my little flat today, I could only just afford
it, despite a couple of promotions and a pay hike.

That's why it's crazy.

I feel sorry for people starting out.

Now where's that lottery ticket...


You should have sent back your tax return by now if you wanted the
HMRC to do the calculations and get them wrong.



House prices have risen to match incomes or, more precisely, the amount
available to pay a mortgage now interest rates are lower. Whether that
will be a good deal in the long run, with no inflation to wipe out the
debt is another matter.

With respect, not in London they haven't. Furthermore, anyone maxing out a
mortgage on a 35 year term, borrowing 5 x salary at today's rates has got
to want their head examined. People were practically topping themselves in
the late 80's when rates went up. Even in the early 90's I remember
friends finding themselves with negative equity.

This only matters if you want to change properties and can't fund the
difference or are not moving and can't make the payments. Otherwise
it can be viewed as a long term investment having a period where there
is a loss relative to the original commitment.


What's actually happening is that lenders are lending recklessly and
people are being encouraged to max out with absolutely no comfort zone
left. Couple of percent on rates and I reckon many will be bankrupted.


People need to make their own decisions. Life is about taking
certain risks. The lenders are selling a financial product -simple as
that. It is the buyer's decision as to whether they want it or not.

There can never be an absolute guarantee that interest rates won't go
up to high figures that would affect even the most prudent, so really
the issue is what is the acceptable level of risk.


--

..andy

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:32:17 +0000, MM wrote:

I have a permanent short list of 'saved properties' on RightMove.
Permanent, that is, in the sense that it has rarely changed from one
month to the next over the past year. Now things are different! In the
last couple of weeks there have been six properties turning red for
sold, all different - some houses, some bungalows, various prices,
various locations (though all in Lincolnshire). This included one
bungalow, one of my favourites, being sold ten days ago, then coming
back on the market, and today being marked as sold again!

So I would suggest that the housing market IS at last picking up and
that the latest optimism from the Halifax and others is well-founded.

MM
The market was probably kept boyant or treading water by the "good
news" of the upcoming SIPP arrangments. Wine had increase by 30% in
the last 3 months in antisipation apparently. Now we have Browns U
turn maybe that will be the pin to burst the bubble, lets hope so!

"Richard Faulkner" wrote in message
...


I've always felt that the inflation rate is something massaged by the
government of the day to make themselves look the best they can.

A better measure would be how does the average house price compare to the
average wage


Global inflation is on the up. The increases in oil and commodity prices
generally is pushing up inflation globally. The European Central Bank, the
US Fed and many other countries have all began putting up their interest
rates. The US is set, on the current timescale of interest rate increases
that the Futures Markets have ALREADY factored in for next year, ending up
with IRs higher than the UK... something that last happened in the 1974 UK
economic collapse.

UK interest rates are being kept artifically low in order to stop the UK
housing market crashing in order to get Brown into No. 10 - simple as that.
The longer they do this, and it is probably already too late, the greater
the crash in UK housing prices will be and the subsequent knock-on affect on
the UK wider economy. Quite simply, the UK cannot stand alone in the World
keeping IRs low while every other major coutnry is pushing them up and up.
It only needs a 1 or 2 percent IR rise in the UK to destroy the UK housing
bubble and the lives of possibly hundreds of thousands of people. An awful
lot of people are going to lose their homes, an awful lot of people are
going to lose their jobs, an awful lot of people are going to have debt that
they will never pay off.

Only this Monday Portman Building Society stopped giving out mortgages on
new properties less than a year old due to "the over supply" of new
properties on the market. The DIY chains are reporting big loses - anyone
remember 'Do It All'? This is a classic repeat of the late 1980s/early 1990s
housing crash when tens of thousand of homes were repossessed and their
'owners' made bankrupt - only this time it is going to be much, much, much
worse.

House prices do go down as well as up. There is not a shortage of properties
in the UK. The biggest pyramid selling scheme in history, 'bigger than the
dot.con bubble' according to The Economist which describes the housing
market as 'the biggest bubble in history', is about to collapse and the
casualties in lost homes, in bankruptcies, in lost jobs and an economy that
will be in recession for years are going to be enormous. Many leading
economists are now looking at 1929 and commenting that this could be as bad.
Again, why on earth do you think that gold, silver and other precious
'currencies' are soaring in price at the moment - the wise money is getting
its hands on something that always has a value!

"Richard Faulkner" wrote in message
...


I've always felt that the inflation rate is something massaged by the
government of the day to make themselves look the best they can.

A better measure would be how does the average house price compare to the
average wage


Global inflation is on the up. The increases in oil and commodity prices
generally is pushing up inflation globally. The European Central Bank, the
US Fed and many other countries have all began putting up their interest
rates. The US is set, on the current timescale of interest rate increases
that the Futures Markets have ALREADY factored in for next year, ending up
with IRs higher than the UK... something that last happened in the 1974 UK
economic collapse.

UK interest rates are being kept artifically low in order to stop the UK
housing market crashing in order to get Brown into No. 10 - simple as that.
The longer they do this, and it is probably already too late, the greater
the crash in UK housing prices will be and the subsequent knock-on affect on
the UK wider economy. Quite simply, the UK cannot stand alone in the World
keeping IRs low while every other major coutnry is pushing them up and up.
It only needs a 1 or 2 percent IR rise in the UK to destroy the UK housing
bubble and the lives of possibly hundreds of thousands of people. An awful
lot of people are going to lose their homes, an awful lot of people are
going to lose their jobs, an awful lot of people are going to have debt that
they will never pay off.

Only this Monday Portman Building Society stopped giving out mortgages on
new properties less than a year old due to "the over supply" of new
properties on the market. The DIY chains are reporting big loses - anyone
remember 'Do It All'? This is a classic repeat of the late 1980s/early 1990s
housing crash when tens of thousand of homes were repossessed and their
'owners' made bankrupt - only this time it is going to be much, much, much
worse.

House prices do go down as well as up. There is not a shortage of properties
in the UK. The biggest pyramid selling scheme in history, 'bigger than the
dot.con bubble' according to The Economist which describes the housing
market as 'the biggest bubble in history', is about to collapse and the
casualties in lost homes, in bankruptcies, in lost jobs and an economy that
will be in recession for years are going to be enormous. Many leading
economists are now looking at 1929 and commenting that this could be as bad.
Again, why on earth do you think that gold, silver and other precious
'currencies' are soaring in price at the moment - the wise money is getting
its hands on something that always has a value!

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:38:24 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:22:10 +0000, Tim S wrote:


I have vague recollections of him getting 100 / week in the early 70's.
Haven't got the inflation tables to hand but back tracking on my
calculations I reckon that's worth maybe 40K / month now.

A year surely?


Quite right - I did notice just after I hit send, honest - see my other
message.

There's no way he could afford the same house at today's prices, not
even with a 35 year mortgage.

Hence the appearance of various other financial products to address the
issue. In Germany, for example, 50 year mortgages are not unusual and
are inherited. Then there are part equity schemes and so on.

Ow. However the inheritance bit seems like an interesting idea.


Glad you saw the light and went straight :-)

It was, ironically, the most "fun" place to work, especially for a lad in
his 20's. The job was inherently doomed, but the other staff knew how to
have fun and were some of the funniest and nicest people I've known. The
lunchtime pub visits, the after-hours parties...

That's declined the further into academia I've gone.

You should have sent back your tax return by now if you wanted the HMRC
to do the calculations and get them wrong.

Heh - that would involve having something worth writing on it.





This only matters if you want to change properties and can't fund the
difference or are not moving and can't make the payments. Otherwise it
can be viewed as a long term investment having a period where there is a
loss relative to the original commitment.

Upto a point I agree...



What's actually happening is that lenders are lending recklessly and
people are being encouraged to max out with absolutely no comfort zone
left. Couple of percent on rates and I reckon many will be bankrupted.


People need to make their own decisions. Life is about taking certain
risks. The lenders are selling a financial product -simple as that. It
is the buyer's decision as to whether they want it or not.

I'm all for that sentiment. The only problem I see here is that because
people *can* pay more, it allows the prices to rise without
reasonable limit, it seems. If the lenders has stuck to there yardstick of
3 x salary, 25 years, economics would have capped the price rise long
before now. The current product is partly a function of greed, lenders and
sellers.

Remember that debacle in Wales a couple of decades ago when the English
were buying weekend cottages and thought they were getting a bargain, even
when the sellers were charging considerably more than the local market was
used to.

Prices went up beyond the reach of the local market, leading to general
****ed-off-ness amongst the locals and subsequent arson.



There can never be an absolute guarantee that interest rates won't go up
to high figures that would affect even the most prudent, so really the
issue is what is the acceptable level of risk.

That's true enough. I remember the 70's when the entire economy unwound.
But our rates are quite low now - leaving *no* headroom is bad planning
unless you believe that you are at the top of the rates curve.

Cheers

Tim

"marble" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:32:17 +0000, MM wrote:

I have a permanent short list of 'saved properties' on RightMove.
Permanent, that is, in the sense that it has rarely changed from one
month to the next over the past year. Now things are different! In the
last couple of weeks there have been six properties turning red for
sold, all different - some houses, some bungalows, various prices,
various locations (though all in Lincolnshire). This included one
bungalow, one of my favourites, being sold ten days ago, then coming
back on the market, and today being marked as sold again!

So I would suggest that the housing market IS at last picking up and
that the latest optimism from the Halifax and others is well-founded.

MM
The market was probably kept boyant or treading water by the "good
news" of the upcoming SIPP arrangments. Wine had increase by 30% in
the last 3 months in antisipation apparently. Now we have Browns U
turn maybe that will be the pin to burst the bubble, lets hope so!

The numbers of people who have signed contracts on the back of SIPPs for
properties is now begining to come out. It is staggering. Many of these
people were hoping to get 40% of the property paid for by, well, us via
Brown's tax breaks. This is not going to happen now. Not only are these
people, as several papers comment today, in deep financial problems but it
means a large number of properties will flood an already flooded market.
These people will be trying to ditch ASAP and that will mean cheaper prices.

As Moneyweek pointed out this week there is now a glut of unsold properties
on the UK market, UK IRs are going up and the lenders are reigning in who
they lend to, how much they lend and on what they lend it - in other words,
UK house prices have only one way to go and that is down.

The pyramid selling scheme on UK houses is about to collapse. Stand back and
enjoy.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
House prices do go down as well as up. There is not a shortage of
properties
in the UK. The biggest pyramid selling scheme in history, 'bigger than
the
dot.con bubble' according to The Economist which describes the housing
market as 'the biggest bubble in history', is about to collapse and
the
casualties in lost homes, in bankruptcies, in lost jobs and an economy
that
will be in recession for years are going to be enormous. Many leading
economists are now looking at 1929 and commenting that this could be
as bad.
Again, why on earth do you think that gold, silver and other precious
'currencies' are soaring in price at the moment - the wise money is
getting
its hands on something that always has a value!

What a pity Gordon Brown did not 'forecast' this when he sold off all
our gold.

In article ,
DJC wrote:
Tim S wrote:

Oh for 1995 prices. Or even 1969.

I did a calculation based on what my Dad paid for his old house in north
Surrey in 1969 compared to what it's worth now (since moved, but estate
agent websites have plenty for sale in the same road).

After inflation adjusting, I believe the price in 2005 is at least 5 times
greater than 1969 in real terms.

And what would you income have been in ten years ago or your father's in
1969?

House prices have risen to match incomes or, more precisely, the amount
available to pay a mortgage now interest rates are lower. Whether that
will be a good deal in the long run, with no inflation to wipe out the
debt is another matter.

At one time - ie when I started on the silly ladder - mortgages were typically
up to a maximum of 3 times one salary + one-third the spouse's salary. And
when I say 'typically' you simply couldn't get more (there were some that
offered you less)! What are they now?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Tim S wrote:
That's true enough. I remember the 70's when the entire economy unwound.
But our rates are quite low now - leaving *no* headroom is bad planning
unless you believe that you are at the top of the rates curve.

In 1973-74 my salary was being increased monthly to keep up with inflation. It
didn't. In 1971 I couldn't afford to buy a house at 2,750. One way out of my
financial reach (then and now) - cost 4500. I paid under 2,000 for my first
house. In 1975 the value of houses went up and I sold and bought a new house
for that 4,500 in 1973 for no more mortgage. By 1976 I could afford to move
again and spend 11,700 with a slight increase of mortage and that house is now
'worth' over 200,000. But in the 80s & 90s mortgage rate increases hit hard -
and nastily.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:09:01 +0000, Tim S wrote:

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:38:24 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:


People need to make their own decisions. Life is about taking certain
risks. The lenders are selling a financial product -simple as that. It
is the buyer's decision as to whether they want it or not.

I'm all for that sentiment. The only problem I see here is that because
people *can* pay more, it allows the prices to rise without
reasonable limit, it seems. If the lenders has stuck to there yardstick of
3 x salary, 25 years, economics would have capped the price rise long
before now. The current product is partly a function of greed, lenders and
sellers.

That's always the case in the free market. The alternative is a
regulated one, and we have seen over countless centuries that that
doesn't work.



Remember that debacle in Wales a couple of decades ago when the English
were buying weekend cottages and thought they were getting a bargain, even
when the sellers were charging considerably more than the local market was
used to.

Prices went up beyond the reach of the local market, leading to general
****ed-off-ness amongst the locals and subsequent arson.


Indeed. That is part of the risk for the buyer.



There can never be an absolute guarantee that interest rates won't go up
to high figures that would affect even the most prudent, so really the
issue is what is the acceptable level of risk.

That's true enough. I remember the 70's when the entire economy unwound.
But our rates are quite low now - leaving *no* headroom is bad planning
unless you believe that you are at the top of the rates curve.


Well yes. Then it becomes an issue of making a value judgment, the
same as any other investment. You can go for a high risk/high
potential return, or put the money in the post office and know the
outcome, albeit a disappointing one.


--

..andy

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:04:49 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
DJC wrote:
Tim S wrote:

Oh for 1995 prices. Or even 1969.

I did a calculation based on what my Dad paid for his old house in north
Surrey in 1969 compared to what it's worth now (since moved, but estate
agent websites have plenty for sale in the same road).

After inflation adjusting, I believe the price in 2005 is at least 5 times
greater than 1969 in real terms.

And what would you income have been in ten years ago or your father's in
1969?

House prices have risen to match incomes or, more precisely, the amount
available to pay a mortgage now interest rates are lower. Whether that
will be a good deal in the long run, with no inflation to wipe out the
debt is another matter.

At one time - ie when I started on the silly ladder - mortgages were typically
up to a maximum of 3 times one salary + one-third the spouse's salary. And
when I say 'typically' you simply couldn't get more (there were some that
offered you less)! What are they now?

They've either changed to match the requirements of the market or have
gone out of business.

The days when one had to go along cap in hand and grovelling to the
building society or bank manager for anything are all but gone, thank
goodness.

Banks have realised that they are there to sell and provide a service.
Like any other seller of goods and services, they should make sure of
the customer's ability to pay for that service and agree with them
accordingly.

The more successful managers have worked out that providing a good
service on a consistent and a long term basis is the best way to bring
in new business and to retain customers.

For example, I meet with my bank manager typically twice a year unless
there is anything otherwise significant happening and we do a review
of the financial products I have from his bank (subset of the total).
Sometimes I'll buy something from him and sometimes I won't. Within
the limitations of the regulatory environment that he has to work in,
he may sometimes ask whether I am sure I want to do something if he
thinks that it may not be a good idea considering my overall
requirements, even if it means losing a sale.

He'd like to sell me a mortgage, but knows that I don't have or need
one.

Neither of us are under any illusion that he is on some exalted
pedestal that he might have been on a generation ago, or that he isn't
there to sell products and services; but it works very effectively.

I don't need a nanny in a bank, a building society or anywhere else to
decide what is within my ability to do and what is not. They get the
scenario and make their offer, then I decide.


--

..andy

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:04:49 +0000, John Cartmell wrote:


At one time - ie when I started on the silly ladder - mortgages were
typically up to a maximum of 3 times one salary + one-third the spouse's
salary. And when I say 'typically' you simply couldn't get more (there
were some that offered you less)! What are they now?

I've been offered 5 x in principle, when I met a mortgage adviser this
year. I decided that was silly and there was no way I was going to stretch
myself that thin.

Tim

In article , Djc wrote:
House prices have risen to match incomes or, more precisely, the
amount available to pay a mortgage now interest rates are lower.

They've risen a lot more than that round here. In 1974 my first job as a
surveyor on leaving uni paid about £2K. Cheapest houses round here about
£8K. Similar job today ? £18K. Cheapest house £225K - i.e. from 4 x income
to 12.5 x. Mortgage rates are lower, but not that much lower.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

In article , John Smith wrote:
The numbers of people who have signed contracts on the back of SIPPs
for properties is now begining to come out. It is staggering.

Somehow I doubt this, given that when buying through a SIPP you can only
borrow a relatively small proportion of the value as compared with a
normal BTL mortgage.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:19:59 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:


They've either changed to match the requirements of the market or have
gone out of business.

I disagree Andy. In part the willingness to offer silly mortgages has
allowed the market to get in the state it's in.

I think 3-3.5 x salary was a sensible yardstick. If they'd stuck to it
consistently, prices could not have risen out of control because after
the first few houses had been sold over-value to a few rich people, no one
else would be able to afford extreme prices, so the market would have
corrected, assuming the majority of buyers need the major part of their
funding from a mortgage of course. Well, that's my theory.

Banks have realised that they are there to sell and provide a service.
Like any other seller of goods and services, they should make sure of the
customer's ability to pay for that service and agree with them
accordingly.

Banks do tend to be a bit short termist in my opinion. My experience is if
you can show you can budget for their mortgage today at today's rates,
they lend you the max. I've not seen them question my ability to pay in 5
years time when the kids are costing me more, rates have gone up or
whatever. The banks don't care if you can't pay, they can always
repossess. OK, it is a very free market way of thinking, but it lacks
responsibility.


The more successful managers have worked out that providing a good service
on a consistent and a long term basis is the best way to bring in new
business and to retain customers.

Some of this is for the good - I agree there. I just think they've gone a
bit far the other way.

For example, I meet with my bank manager typically twice a year unless

You have a bank manager? Wow. All I get is the call centre in India or
wherever.

Brings back memories of when I opened my first account as a teenager. I
had to go with my Mum and meet Mr Bedford, the old traditional branch
manager at Banstead Lloyds.



I don't need a nanny in a bank, a building society or anywhere else to
decide what is within my ability to do and what is not. They get the
scenario and make their offer, then I decide.

Well I cannot justifiably argue with you there Andy, as I'm the first to
rant about being nannied by Blair and Fatman John about what DIY I can or
can't do without permission.

I preference is more a middle ground, between virtually unregulated and
"nannied".

Cheers

Tim

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
For example, I meet with my bank manager typically twice a year

The last time I met my bank manager was in 1993. Now I am probably
classified as the worst sort of customer: runs a credit balance, no
borrowings and pays off credit card each month. IOW not worth talking
to g

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]