Matt - is it just the idea of a property ladder that you find weird, or the idea of ladders in general?
― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:13 (eighteen years ago)
It is specifically the idea of property ladders - I associate actually buying a house with a settled period of eg more than ten years, it's entirely a personal thing. I accept that for people who need to move around for work reasons or have kids or whatever things are very different.
― Matt DC, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:19 (eighteen years ago)
Haha spot the flaky commitmentphobe.
― Matt DC, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:20 (eighteen years ago)
So you have no problem with the ladders that window cleaners use?
― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:21 (eighteen years ago)
Kind of scary.
― Matt DC, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:22 (eighteen years ago)
Those are nominals prices too presumably - real falls would have been more pronounced
I hadn't thought of that. Inflation was much higher then. Apparently the RPI rose nationally by just under 25% between the summer of 89 and the winter of 92, so that would make the real fall in house prices in London and the south east more like 50-60%.
― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:26 (eighteen years ago)
I think the above is correct and that a larger proportion of the falls this time around may be experienced almost entirely nominally, as opposed to the crash 18 years ago when it was partially nominal and partially hidden by inflation, and the 'hidden' crash 18 years before that when it was entirely masked by inflation
― laxalt, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:37 (eighteen years ago)
Of course there is some dispute at the moment as to wether the CPI/RPI reflect real inflation right now.
― Ed, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:40 (eighteen years ago)
In the worst affected area (the 'Outer South East') property prices fell by 36% between the summer of 1989 and the end of 1992 (and by about 32% in London during the same period) and took until the autumn of 1999 to get back up to their 1989 levels.
So how much are these houses worth now?
― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:43 (eighteen years ago)
Washers
― Tom D., Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:46 (eighteen years ago)
At the peak last summer they were worth 4 times what they were (nominally) worth in the trough at the end of 1992. It's difficult to say what they're 'worth' now as the housing market has pretty much seized up.
― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:53 (eighteen years ago)
-- Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:43
in london? 15x average salary?
― laxalt, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:53 (eighteen years ago)
CPI/RPI reflect real inflation right now.
-- Ed, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:40 (13 minutes ago)
what about m4?
― laxalt, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:54 (eighteen years ago)
what's crazy to me is that the financial authorities, the govt and the mortgage lenders have
1) seen this coming for about two years 2) done fuck all about it 3) have no plans to do fuck all about it any time soon
― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 16:58 (eighteen years ago)
i mean, i know that is the subject of pretty much every opinion column about this ever, but still
― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 17:02 (eighteen years ago)
Why would they? To curtail things at the time would have been electorally unpopular. No elected govt has ever tried to curtail a boom. As for lenders, 1) were chasing market share, 2) huge bonuses for bringing in business at any cost, 3) protected to an extent because consumers still responsible for debt even after repossession - no jingle mail here, 4) knew they would be bailed out by govt as no serious bank can be allowed to fail
no one ever wants to know when the cash is rolling in, it will always be someone elses problem down the line
Plus Nulab has always been in thrall to the city
― laxalt, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 17:02 (eighteen years ago)
http://www.boltdepot.com/images/Chrome/chrome-flat-washers.jpg
― Tom D., Tuesday, 13 May 2008 17:04 (eighteen years ago)
Wrong image!
http://www.geocities.com/susanmhpublishersmarketplace/2007/litparkrocktheboat.jpg
Also looking back to previous episodes, particularly pre-war, many of the smaller banks went under and ended up being picked up at basement rates by bigger institutions (esp in US, where the fed was basically created to facilitate this)
or to put it another way. jp morgan getting bear stearns for basically nothing, with help from the fed, which they part own
― laxalt, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 17:05 (eighteen years ago)
<i>2) done fuck all about it </i> This is all basic incentives: the banks had a fucked-up bonus system that rewarded people for behaving like this. And MPs have a massive incentive system for keeping house prices going up, as it gets them votes (witness the massacre right now). There was nobody else to prevent it apart from the people in the market, and that's not gonna happen unless they're too busy panic-buying petrol or something.
― stet, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 17:08 (eighteen years ago)
Er...and also a lot of people (myself included) did alright out of the whole thing. We've moved pretty painlessly from an inner city two-bed terrace with a yard to a four bed detached house in the 'burbs with a lovely garden. We're not high earners by any stretch and have no major debts (except of course the mortgage), we rarely save any money but being sensible we are sitting on a house which even if it were to drop 50% would still not be less than we paid for it five years ago. There are a lot of people like us, but, it seems unlike a lot of them, I regard myself as quite lucky and am not crying to Cameron about how hard done by I am.
― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 17:37 (eighteen years ago)
Yes booms produce many winners if your timing is right
― vaqueros, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 18:36 (eighteen years ago)
Timing nothing. We bought when we got fed up with paying crappy landlords tons of cash for shitty housing. We had no idea what would happen and cared even less. The worse that could have happened is that we went back to renting.
― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 18:52 (eighteen years ago)
Timing everything, even if you weren't aware of it! The worse that could have happened is that you ended up in horror negative equity or had yr home reposessed and the end of yr credit rating forever.
― stet, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 18:55 (eighteen years ago)
Ahh, you guys worry too much. Plenty of people (no, scratch that, just about everybody I know who bought around that time) went into negative equity. They didn't die, or get their houses repossessed or have their credit rating nuked. They sat tight and now are sitting on houses worth, as laxalt implied, about 15/20 times what they earn. With tiny mortgages. They did better than we did in the long run.
― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 19:07 (eighteen years ago)
They sat tight and now are sitting on houses worth, as laxalt implied, about 15/20 times what they earn
Think about the implications of this sentence
― laxalt, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 19:14 (eighteen years ago)
Don't patronise me.
― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 19:24 (eighteen years ago)
Again.
No,actually, you can. I sound like an asshole. Forgive me, I'm having a bad day for completely unrelated reasons! And I always end up taking it out on laxalt!
― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 19:39 (eighteen years ago)
http://realonomics.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/chill-pill.jpg
― DG, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 19:41 (eighteen years ago)
Thanks, I need 2.
― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 19:45 (eighteen years ago)
a £200m fund to buy unsold new homes and rent them to social tenants So if you can't sell your overpriced house, don't worry -- the government will buy it! This is a good idea how?
― stet, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 13:32 (eighteen years ago)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7399340.stm
― stet, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 13:33 (eighteen years ago)
Don't think they are going to buy *your* house, its new houses only to keep builders and developers afloat and to continue building all the new houses that will also be unsold
Shared Ownership is an incredible ripoff, the govt really shouldn't be pushing this kind of thing...especially now
― laxalt, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 13:43 (eighteen years ago)
Shared ownership is a way of forcing people to long term save. So that this equity can be released back to pay for care once decrepit. Bricks and mortar are magic like that.
― Ed, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 13:45 (eighteen years ago)
Shared equity means the buyer gets 50% the profit. In a rising market this means other houses are actually getting further away from them
Shared equity means the buyer gets 100% the losses. In a falling market the buyers equity is wiped out before the govt lose their share
― laxalt, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 13:50 (eighteen years ago)
oh and guess who is responsible for 100% the maintenance?
― laxalt, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 14:18 (eighteen years ago)
oops ive just noticed the actual figure here
a £200m fund to buy unsold new homes
how many houses do they think this will actually buy?
― laxalt, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 16:08 (eighteen years ago)
more tomorrow than today
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 16:10 (eighteen years ago)
Are they finally beginning to admit to it now? Did Healey or even Philip Snowdon actually say anything like that? (Esp when you consider the last 60 years included rationing of food!)
Motive: Is it
a) Breaking ranks b) Preparing us for a series of 'rescue packages' of some kind
― Kondratieff, Saturday, 30 August 2008 08:42 (seventeen years ago)
LOL HBOS
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/fds/hi/business/market_data/chart?style=bbc-big_thick-line&ins=1.E:HBOS&from=2008-09-12%2015:27:00&to=2008-09-15%2015:30:00&timeoffset=0&filter=weekend&filter=markettime(07:00,15:30)&src=intraday&plot=value&fixedxaxis=on
― Drinking Island is inside every one of us (Ed), Monday, 15 September 2008 11:19 (seventeen years ago)
Uh, please don't LOL at my bank. Am I fuX0red?
― The Lesser of Two Weevils (Masonic Boom), Monday, 15 September 2008 11:24 (seventeen years ago)
I've never known trade as bad as this. It's worse than the '80's up here.
― i hode interesting bracelet (Pashmina), Monday, 15 September 2008 11:31 (seventeen years ago)
you are fine as long as you don't have more that £35,000 in savings and even then the government ended up guaranteeing all deposits when Northern Rock went titsup.
― Drinking Island is inside every one of us (Ed), Monday, 15 September 2008 11:33 (seventeen years ago)
Oh, that's share price, not the bank actually falling apart or anything. I hope? What happens to your savings (ha ha, they just gave me an overdraft... oh wait, my paycheck just went in.) in the UK if your bank fails? There isn't an FDIC or whatever over here, is there?
x-post OK, phew.
― The Lesser of Two Weevils (Masonic Boom), Monday, 15 September 2008 11:34 (seventeen years ago)
Best comment I've heard so far, 'I'm keeping my money in my mattress, at least I know it'll be there in the spring'.
― Billy Dods, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 17:00 (seventeen years ago)
RBOS owns my US bank... let me know when I should be worried.
― Ned Raggett (Edward III), Tuesday, 16 September 2008 18:56 (seventeen years ago)
Strange. It's like I've posted here before.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 16 September 2008 18:58 (seventeen years ago)
Never mind, it was just a passing sensation.
― Ned Raggett (Edward III), Tuesday, 16 September 2008 19:44 (seventeen years ago)
― Billy Dods, Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:00 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
not where i live.
you used to be able to kick a ball in the street.
― your worst fucking nightmare (special guest stars mark bronson), Tuesday, 16 September 2008 20:36 (seventeen years ago)