Economist Predicts 25% house deflation!

Only in public. It's OK in private email. Call a spade a spade if you must, but the PC brigade will have your guts for garters. "Fly in the ointment" is approved for use in polite company.

Even Robertson's, the marmalade people, have been getting stick for their golliwogs. In fact - have they gone bust?

By George - I think he's got it!

Tony

Stephen GoldenGun wrote: : The gentleman who posted below informs me that last months issue of the : economist predicts 25% decline in property value.

: Would this not just indicate a complete and ultimate recession?

: Any ideas or comments on this!

In a fit of consistency I'm still predicting debt-deflation. Further, I'll predict that Sir Prinstalot's efforts to rig the credit system by running interest rates to damn near zero (four shots left) in order to prevent deflation will be seen in the future as nothing more than a series of double-or-quits bets with the markets which deflation will ultimately win, and will cause much more havoc than was necessary had the inevitable been accepted in 1998.

FoFP

Yes "fly in the ointment" seems to be the clear winner, I can't think of anything else...that is similar.

I notice you always avoid answering these questions, why ?

Interesting..... thinking about it you could well be right !

Err....hello ?! When I emailed you, I signed myself as John aka Daytona, did that not give you a clue ?

I picked up the Daytona handle more than a decade ago - it was a password on some software I was using at the time, I've tried to drop it on several occasions, but there are just too many Johns !

Daytona

In article , Stephen GoldenGun writes

And still not trimming quotes. I think I'll give your ramblings a miss in future.

Or Rhino trekking.

DG

But a Rhinosoararse is the best there is!

DG

No. I have some Roberston's jam in my kitchen - sans golliwog.

He's a lad is'n he....lol

-------------

Well, indeed, but presumably there is more or less no-one in negative equity now since prices have been rising, hence there would have to be an awful lot of people who have recently taken out 80-100% mortgages to be more than all the people in or near negative equity in 1992. Frankly I would need a lot of evidence to convince me that it's true. It's possible that what the article (or Daytona) meant was that the rate now is higher than the *peak* *before* the last bust, but that isn't what the quote above says. There is also no mention of what the actual rate of >80% LTV is, which is a standard journalist's trick when they want something to sound dramatic, my guess is that the rate is pretty low in fact (people move about every 7 years and only those who bought at a high LTV in the last few months will be over 80%).

Lots of people are doing equity withdrawals - that will increase the figures.

I personally think there is going to be a split in the market, segmented market place might be the way forward, rural period properties are in limited supply, and the demand will continue to go upwards as more people can afford to make this kind of purchase. The other types of properties are the ones that may go down in price. Is it not just a simple question of affordability? If people can't afford to buy a house then the houses will not get sold?

I knew I should have quoted it -

"In Britain as a whole, for example, average nominal house prices are likely to drop by 20-25%, and in London by much more. Significant numbers of owners may be left with homes worth less than their mortgages - especially as the proportion of owner occupiers with mortgages exceeding 80% of the value of their homes is higher now than it was in the previous bust in the early 1990s."

The lead article appears to have gone pay-per-view now ($.2.95), here's a direct link -

Just clearing up the slur on my ability to plagiarise ! ie it was the Economist that said it not me

After reading the comments, I agree with you; I don't believe it.

(and since MEW is now at about the same level, I think that can be discounted)

Daytona