UK house prices

Thanks Roberto and chump.

The property owners in question are brothers, my uncle has lived in the property all his life, and my dad hasn't lived there since leaving home over 30 years ago. Therefore it is my uncle's primary residence and he would be have no problem proving this if they were to sell. Would they be able to sell on this basis alone, and then divide the money between them without having to pay capital gains tax? or, would my dad - who is a homeowner elsewhere - have to pay capital gains tax on his half of the money - as the property was not his primary residence?

Thanks again

jtrader.
 
jtrader said:
would my dad - who is a homeowner elsewhere - have to pay capital gains tax on his half of the money - as the property was not his primary residence?

I think he'd have to pay CGT not on his share of the money, but only on his share of the appreciation in value during the time that he's owned it. There's an "exempt" figure for this also, like a "personal allowance" for income tax, and I think it can also be carried forward for _one_ year too (i.e. if unclaimed the previous year), so the tax liability might not be so terrible anyway. And as observed above, he might even be able to make out that it was his primary residence for long enough to qualify for complete exemption.

The main thing is: you must ask an accountant (and this will be a quick and easy question for one, because it's surely a common situation) and not take my advice as "gospel"!
 
Trader333 said:
You have missed one critically important and heavily influencing factor and that is interest rates which were much higher in 1988 than they are now. In my view this is the pivotal factor as it was when house prices previously collapsed. The issue being that when interest rates rose to 17% the number of people who could not afford the mortgage payments caused a sudden drop in prices. We are not yet at that point but I have no doubt that if we started seeing ongoing increases in interest rates then the "Buy to Let" crowd would be first to have to jump ship which in turn will cause a quick move down in prices on a general scale.


Paul

Interest rates at the start of 88 were around 7%, within 18 months they had doubled. The collapse started not because interest rates were around 14%, but that the debt servicing levels to house owners had doubled. You would be amazed at how many people believe that an increase from 4% to 8% in interest levels would only mean an increase of 4% on their repayments! When you have a population that has largely lied through its back teeth with self certification, to stretch themselves to the 'blingest' property they can grab, a 100% increase in debt servicing will finish them off! Combined with falling real incomes, less soviet-style Labour government employment programs, and the creeping inflation that seems to have been moderated to date by globalisation, pop! or is it kaboom!? With the the majority of buy-to-let owners not breaking even on income and dependant on capital growth, this will be one asset bubble proving that nothing ever changes.
 
"the debt bubble can only end one way"..no it can't,but disgreements over issues like that this is what makes a market work......
 
RogerM said:
zigglewigler - I'm completely with you on this one. It is NEVER different this time, and when I start to hear it, it's time to run for the hills. Two interesting articles taking opposing views in the w/e FT. Here are links to both :-

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/104d144a-0325-11d9-aec4-00000e2511c8.html

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8e2ff376-031d-11d9-aec4-00000e2511c8.html


My view is that with debt levels rising much faster than incomes, the debt bubble can only end one way, and it won't be pretty.


-From FT: McWilliams says that most of the housing bears are simply focusing too much on affordability and neglect the impact of supply side issues.

“The housing market, particularly in London and the south-east, is underpinned by a shortage of supply and by increasing demand,” he says. “There are major signs of housing shortages in a large number of areas and as Kate Barker's housing review [for the Treasury] argued in March new build construction is moving far too slowly to offset future shortages or to make inroads into current shortages.”

What this talking head moron overlooks, is that 'supply issues' don't mean a god damn thing when money is expensive. Supply issues have not changed in the last few months, but the market has cooled, why? Supply issues will remain, but people will not resolve them if it costs too much.

-From FT: He also says that, if house prices started to slow, the Bank of England would move quickly to minimize raising rates or would quickly cut rates. “The BoE's ability to react quite quickly to the housing market and the consumer market more generally provide another safety net for the housing market.

?????????! Since when can you control interest rates at will? If inflation charges in as global consumer led growth catches up( and providing they don't change the way inflation is calculated again!), there will be no pulling back interest rates just to suit.

I have given up on most of what I read in newspapers, save it for fish and chips, and **** wiping.
 
zigglewigler said:
-From FT: McWilliams says that most of the housing bears are simply focusing too much on affordability and neglect the impact of supply side issues.

Indeed, an entirely new market paradigm! From now on, the housing market will be affected by supply only; demand will no longer have any impact...
 
And another classic statement from Mr McWilliams:

McWilliams said:
He predicts that house prices will be flat for the next few years. “Prices will be pretty much the same in 2007 as they are now. They may wobble around a bit, but we don't expect them to change very much.”

Is it only me, or is this not very reminiscent of the "stocks are at a permanently high plateau" statement that was made on the brink of the 1929 crash?

Alex
 
RogerM said:
Aaaagghhhh! That does it! I'm off to my bunker! :D
Bunker squire? Oh no, you don't want to be in bunkers right now. You want to be in something a little more up-market....
 
UK house prices are now at their highest level - when you compare average national salary to average national house price - a few months ago I read that the average national house price was over 5.5 times average salary - the highest differential.

Given that most mortgage lenders only offer 3 times salary, I also read that house prices would have to correct themselves and cvome back in line with salary.

It is clear that home buyers who purchase at the peak of the market are the ones that end up in trouble financially, especially if the fall in house prices is brought about by a rise in interest rates.

A couple of questions -

Shouldn't the Bank of England recognise that house prices are at/near their peak and are unlikely to stretch much further, given the huge difference between average national salary and average national house price. Therefore, they should not raise interest rates in an attempt to hault further price gains and wait for the market to stop rising/level out/start falling - naturally - in order to ensure that those people buying houses at the market peak do not end up with growing debts alongside negative equity - which would obviously happen if interest rates go up?

Thanks again

jtrader.
 
house pricing is just a part of the equation for interest rates - you cut them to spur inflation - the only problem is that slimy estate agents pump up the pricing to the gullible public and prices lose reality - but the other sectors of the economy that then also experience inflation - then need to be pulled back by raising interest rates

the fact is that with property - if it aint going up - it comes crashing down - since the only reason people keep buying is because they see how much their present property has gone up or how much their friend has made on their property

so to follow on with your own analysis - if property just stayed where it is - price wise - this would lead to massive deflation in property since no one would then be interested in taking on debt to finance house buying if property was not going up - so heads you lose and tails you lose

but look on the happy side - when property crashes 50% or more, once interest rates start to peak - the whole game can start again
 
Well I have to point out that the statement about property rising and crashing is simply not true..prices going down at all was simply unheard of at all until the cycle reversal in the approx early 90's (depending on your region). They may , or may not do that again. If they do reverse again they may or may not replicate the last fall. No one knows for sure , because as usual all of the factors that contributed to the historic reversal mentioned are not entirely replicated this time so we are left best guessing.

The statement re why people buy or sell properties is also not accurate..people do not just engage in the market for those reasons. People's activity of so-called 'timing' the market is relatively new and I am still not convinced it is something the majority of people do. Historically ,most people just bought or sold a house for the usual boring reasons..moving areas, bigger family , wanted a bigger/smaller garden etc..and I suspect this is still applicable to most people. Perhaps the problem is that when you are a trader you tend to view these sorts of matters as a 'trader' forgetting that most people don't view things in this way.

The statement re estate agents (who I don't necessarily love) is also strongly biased...basically the agent (estate or otherwise) has a job to do on the client's behalf to get the best price he/she can for that client..yes we know this often is also to the advantage of the agent ,but that does not negate the brief mentioned. To achieve the brief they use any and all tactics ,but what is achieved is dependant on the would be buyer being willing and able to complete the equation.

JT , people always seeem to quote average national income, but this is not the critical factor. It is NET disposable income that determines whether Joe Smith is able to complete the equation. This is determined by interest rates , but by other factors as well. Level of overall taxation , general rate of inflation on household income reducing or increasing purchasing power...and of course all of this in relation to the cost of property..I might have also mentioned the confidence factor which is what determines whether Joe Smith is willing to complete the equation.

JT, this is why your statement re people "who buy at the peak of the market are always the one's who get in trouble" is not strictly correct. For a start knowing where a 'peak' is is nigh impossible anyway without hindsight. Second, it is not where you buy that determines whether you will be in trouble. With property if you are a 'normal' residential buyer it is whether you have allowed enough 'buffer' in your calculations when you worked out how much you could afford to buy the property. If you got that wrong you will be in trouble. For investors there are other issues such as alternative investment considerations etc..

I thought there were earlier posts re this 50% price drop ,but they appear to have disappeared. Anyway , if the reference to a 50% price crash is actually saying prices will drop by an average of 50% do you know what this will actually mean when we know that some will not drop by this average figure? If it were to occur it may mean that some properties would have to go down by as much as 60-70%.....sorry , but if someone is trying to tell me a bog standard 3 bed semi in the Nwest currently valued at £160k is going to be worth £80k sometime soon I can't see it. If of course it did happen we are going to see 'blood in the street' and a huge number of opportunites for anyone holding cash in which case I can only pray that I am wrong.

Cheers
 
check out what happened to prices at the start of the nineties - you could buy houses for less than the build prices -and a cash buyer could buy at 33% of the prior price from the bank holding the repossed property - even in central london

its amazing how quickly people forget
 
I know exactly what happened in the nineties as I was buying up other people's problems at auction for cash. My memory is quite accurate thank you and I also know that in that cycle we did not see average drops of the magnitude mentioned in the earlier posts (if only)...33% yes I remember that well enough ,but even that was an exception rather than the general rule.
 
Steve, yes the phrase 'negative equity' is now alien to most people. Like anything it'll come back at some stage, just wonder who the people will try and shift the blame on.

What gets me about the property prices is first time buyers now in many areas of the country cannot afford to buy and that's just a disgrace. I can't believe Labour or the Tories aren't saying things about it because it must be a real vote winner for the young, and remember the young aren't known for voting.
 
chump

33% was an exception that carried on for 3 years that i know of !

and there were a lot of people still crowding the auction floors - but not many buying - but all the properties at the auctions were repossesions - and why buy at auction when you could get the cream direct from the bank - and ironies of ironies - they would lend you the money to get rid of the properties for them

anley

like all gamblers - the public will blame everyone - except themselves and those "unfortunate" first time buyers will be laughing all the way to the bank

if i said to a kid - come on - lets start a business and borrow a 100K to get it going - they would have heart attack at the thought of the debt and no one would give it them anyway

they will once again have the same feelings about taking on debt for a non performing asset such as property - but we need to push those interest rates up a bit to get to that point
 
Anley,
Did you know that at the next election for the first time voters over 50 years of age will form the majority of the electorate. Need to qualify the number 50 ,because that might not be correct,but in any case it is more that age group rather than the younger age group you mention. Now if you are a politician who are you trying to satisfy ?

SteveT , did you know that 'today's' purchasers have been placing higher deposit ratios on purchases than historically and how do we think this might affect their vunerability to price changes?
Cheers
 
Chump, I don't know the figures but I'll go along with what you say. So yes there's a real problem to satisfy the older property owners as well as the young first time buyers. I don't know how you can keep both sides happy.

Perhaps the best thing to do is to just wait and let time and the natural property cycle take care of everything.
 
Anley,
"I don't know how you can keep both sides happy". ...well that makes two of us
 
Top