Not found too much info on the impact on us SE London (thinking Zone 3 and further out) troglodytes.
I'm guessing a modest fall in prices over the last year or two? Anyone in the know? I'm considering remortgaging (to buy a touch more of my Shared Ownership place) - am seeing a lot of articles online about London prices falling, but nothing specific to the local area or with numbers. Also assuming any "London" numbers may be distorted by the Central London prices taking a hammering?
Not found too much info on the impact on us SE London (thinking Zone 3 and further out) troglodytes.
I'm guessing a modest fall in prices over the last year or two? Anyone in the know? I'm considering remortgaging (to buy a touch more of my Shared Ownership place) - am seeing a lot of articles online about London prices falling, but nothing specific to the local area or with numbers. Also assuming any "London" numbers may be distorted by the Central London prices taking a hammering?
My mate had his place under offer for £590k just before the Brexit referendum - his buyer phoned up the morning after the vote and tried to knock £30k off the agreed price before eventually pulling it, so my mate decided to forget it for a while.
Put it back on for £565k last weekend and said he'll be happy if he gets £550k for it.
Think that's fairly representative of the general state of play. Lower asking prices, and people are putting in offers below the asking price. When I sold mine in Summer 2015, the agent did 35 viewings over the course of a weekend and I got 15 offers above the asking price (for a nice but unremarkable 2 bedroom flat).
I don't think a crash would be a nice thing to wish for. There would be thousands plunged into negative equity and many of those poor souls losing their homes and I'm talking about normal working families not the rich or rich foreign investors. I think the BTL has done a lot of damage to the housing in the south east. They're the type of homes that would be traditionally bought by the first time buyer or people on lower income. Its very easy for someone with a one or two BTLs to get another one or two but a lot harder for the poor sods trying to get on the first run to buy the same type of property.
You don't lose your home if it's in negative equity, you just can't trade it if you don't have cash elsewhere to pay off the mortgage. When the market "re-adjusts" and it's happened before, it's those who can't maintain the mortgage payments who suffer because of negative equity if their home is re-possessed.
If interests rates return to historic norms mortgage rates for some would double and that would be the driver for re-possessions rather than negative equity of itself.
However, Carney's latest speech is suggesting globalisation means we will experience levels of interest rates determined by average global levels that cannot be controlled by domestic central bank policies. So opinion is shifting away from anticipation of inevitable interest rate rises which gives some comfort to those with mortgages they can only just afford on current rates.
Not found too much info on the impact on us SE London (thinking Zone 3 and further out) troglodytes.
I'm guessing a modest fall in prices over the last year or two? Anyone in the know? I'm considering remortgaging (to buy a touch more of my Shared Ownership place) - am seeing a lot of articles online about London prices falling, but nothing specific to the local area or with numbers. Also assuming any "London" numbers may be distorted by the Central London prices taking a hammering?
It does vary by area, prices seemed to peak around January, now back to roughly a year ago as Prague indicated.
My Dads house was valued at 450k in summer 2015, just sold it for 510k, in late 16 early 17 may have squeezed 525k out of it.
Not sure why people are acting all mystic meg and saying they could see this coming. They've been rising for so long it was obvious it would have to stop at some point.
I agree in terms of London and the inner south-east.
Other parts of the country have however only seen modest rises. For example my current house in Cheshire was purchased in February 2008 (top of the market I agree) and according to the Nationwide House Price Index has increased by 12.7% in that time (less than RPI). A house of the same value bought in Greater London at the same time would have increased by over 70%.
Agree, I bought my house in 2008 and gone from 395k to 700k in that time, my sister bought hers in 2007 in Nottingham for I think 340k and probably wouldn't get any more than 400k now.
I don't think a crash would be a nice thing to wish for. There would be thousands plunged into negative equity and many of those poor souls losing their homes and I'm talking about normal working families not the rich or rich foreign investors. I think the BTL has done a lot of damage to the housing in the south east. They're the type of homes that would be traditionally bought by the first time buyer or people on lower income. Its very easy for someone with a one or two BTLs to get another one or two but a lot harder for the poor sods trying to get on the first run to buy the same type of property.
You don't lose your home if it's in negative equity, you just can't trade it if you don't have cash elsewhere to pay off the mortgage. When the market "re-adjusts" and it's happened before, it's those who can't maintain the mortgage payments who suffer because of negative equity if their home is re-possessed.
If you are in a one bed flat and have a child........ an awful lot of keys were handed in for various reasons. A lot of people didn't realise they were still responsible for the debt.
Unfortunately house prices in London are not especially expensive when compared to other leading global cities (eg. New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco/Silicon Valley, Hong Kong, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore, Sydney etc.), and even when compared to some leading emerging market cities (eg. Moscow, Sao Paolo etc.).
I travel a lot in the USA and will regularly take a look at Zillow (US equivalent of Rightmove) to see what I could buy for the equivalent of my house near London, and in and around the three US cities listed above the answer ranges between 'not very much more' and 'probably less'.
Of course one could buy substantially more property in say Dallas, Atlanta or Charlotte but you wouldn't be living in a leading global city so it's not a fair comparison in my view. To the extent this matters is obviously a matter of personal choice.
Whilst there may be a minor correction (which is likely underway), unless one thinks London is going to cease being compared to the above cities (perhaps if Brexit is a real economic catastrophe) or there is a significant global recession then I don't foresee a significant change in the status quo.
They'll be some minor ups and downs along the way but substantively nothing much will change in housing affordability until a political party grows a set and bins the Right To Buy scheme which was the driver for much of the rise in private sector landlords and the knock on in rental rises, etc.
Political suicide so won't happen and the ratio of earnings to prices will keep growing for another generation.
not forgetting interest rate rises would suck some demand out of the economy and lead to less growth
Which in turn should strengthen a (weak) pound and reduce inflation, which is the primary purpose of increasing interest rates.
A strong pound is 'bad' for the economy, is it not? It's good for consumers but bad for our exporting and tourism industries.
I was always taught that upping interest rates is first and foremost used to cool inflation - it's (usually) a good sign that the economy is healthier as it is growing, but it's ultimately an anti-growth measure to keep inflation as close to 2% as possible, via a couple of side-effects (currency value and borrowing/saving behaviour)
not forgetting interest rate rises would suck some demand out of the economy and lead to less growth
Which in turn should strengthen a (weak) pound and reduce inflation, which is the primary purpose of increasing interest rates.
A strong pound is 'bad' for the economy, is it not? It's good for consumers but bad for our exporting and tourism industries.
I was always taught that upping interest rates is first and foremost used to cool inflation - it's (usually) a good sign that the economy is healthier as it is growing, but it's ultimately an anti-growth measure to keep inflation as close to 2% as possible, via a couple of side-effects (currency value and borrowing/saving behaviour)
I agree - and that's why I put (weak) before pound. Strengthening a weak pound is not the same as having a strong pound.
not forgetting interest rate rises would suck some demand out of the economy and lead to less growth
Which in turn should strengthen a (weak) pound and reduce inflation, which is the primary purpose of increasing interest rates.
A strong pound is 'bad' for the economy, is it not? It's good for consumers but bad for our exporting and tourism industries.
I was always taught that upping interest rates is first and foremost used to cool inflation - it's (usually) a good sign that the economy is healthier as it is growing, but it's ultimately an anti-growth measure to keep inflation as close to 2% as possible, via a couple of side-effects (currency value and borrowing/saving behaviour)
The low interest rates we have now are a symptom of our under productive economy, not the cause. We need an interest rate rise to help close down our most unproductive enterprises and move investment to new, more productive areas.
Until there are more dynamic and productive areas of our economy to invest in( and this is not just a UK problem) money will tend to stay in assets like housing, keeping prices high.
I think the changes in buy to let taxation haven't started to bite yet. There are fewer people buying buy to lets but not many liquidating their portfolios. The change in prices in £5m houses will have a limited effect on 'normal' houses and flats as there will always be excessive demand for the latter.
The story is sensationalism, and the numbers seem big but, in reality a £300k drop off the price of a £5m property when such a small proportion of the population can afford it, and many of the previous buyers were from overseas and don't fancy us as much now (Brexit, increased stamp duty, potential fall of the £), is insignificant.
When times become hard people don't sell their houses and live in tents they just seek out cheaper properties. Thus the net effect is that the very highest prices fall but the rest rise. This happens until the price differential from, say Kensington and Fulham gets so small that the perceived extra cost is worth it. At the start of this process, however, the very top properties become less desirable.
For house prices to fall we would need to see a reduction in lending or a reduction in demand for housing. I can't see either any time soon. There will, undoubtedly, be a slow down from renters buying, in the short term, all the while they have reservations about Brexit but I don't think that will have a significant effect either.
To liquidate my 'portfolio' I'd need the capital gains tax to be waived. Until that happens I'm not selling and I suspect the vast majority of second home owners are like minded. I doubt any of us ever expected the increase we've seen in the value of the property we bought and now no longer need. A simple tax amnesty and I suspect a lot of extra property would be released back into the market, as would the cash into the economy.
Why would you need it to be waived? It's only a tax on the gain, no different to income tax.
I'd rather sell with a gain of £200k and pay the CGT than sell when it's no profit.......
Although I'm not a fan of a particular CGT levy, I'm selling my dads house as he's through not fault of his own been in a dementia home for the past 2 years. If I kept it post 3 years and then sold CGT is payable by him as classed as a 2nd home.......
Move into the property & live there for 6 months. Deem it as your main residence & then sell it. No CGT.
I think the changes in buy to let taxation haven't started to bite yet. There are fewer people buying buy to lets but not many liquidating their portfolios. The change in prices in £5m houses will have a limited effect on 'normal' houses and flats as there will always be excessive demand for the latter.
The story is sensationalism, and the numbers seem big but, in reality a £300k drop off the price of a £5m property when such a small proportion of the population can afford it, and many of the previous buyers were from overseas and don't fancy us as much now (Brexit, increased stamp duty, potential fall of the £), is insignificant.
When times become hard people don't sell their houses and live in tents they just seek out cheaper properties. Thus the net effect is that the very highest prices fall but the rest rise. This happens until the price differential from, say Kensington and Fulham gets so small that the perceived extra cost is worth it. At the start of this process, however, the very top properties become less desirable.
For house prices to fall we would need to see a reduction in lending or a reduction in demand for housing. I can't see either any time soon. There will, undoubtedly, be a slow down from renters buying, in the short term, all the while they have reservations about Brexit but I don't think that will have a significant effect either.
To liquidate my 'portfolio' I'd need the capital gains tax to be waived. Until that happens I'm not selling and I suspect the vast majority of second home owners are like minded. I doubt any of us ever expected the increase we've seen in the value of the property we bought and now no longer need. A simple tax amnesty and I suspect a lot of extra property would be released back into the market, as would the cash into the economy.
Why would you need it to be waived? It's only a tax on the gain, no different to income tax.
I'd rather sell with a gain of £200k and pay the CGT than sell when it's no profit.......
Although I'm not a fan of a particular CGT levy, I'm selling my dads house as he's through not fault of his own been in a dementia home for the past 2 years. If I kept it post 3 years and then sold CGT is payable by him as classed as a 2nd home.......
Move into the property & live there for 6 months. Deem it as your main residence & then sell it. No CGT.
Not sure that is correct, my understanding was you only get relief whilst you lived there plus 18 months. If it was your main residence previously before letting it's slightly different. But ultimately you can't have a property let for 15 years, rock back in for 6 months before sale and avoid CGT, if it were that simple I need to let the wife know i'm moving out!
Unfortunately house prices in London are not especially expensive when compared to other leading global cities (eg. New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco/Silicon Valley, Hong Kong, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore, Sydney etc.), and even when compared to some leading emerging market cities (eg. Moscow, Sao Paolo etc.).
I travel a lot in the USA and will regularly take a look at Zillow (US equivalent of Rightmove) to see what I could buy for the equivalent of my house near London, and in and around the three US cities listed above the answer ranges between 'not very much more' and 'probably less'.
Of course one could buy substantially more property in say Dallas, Atlanta or Charlotte but you wouldn't be living in a leading global city so it's not a fair comparison in my view. To the extent this matters is obviously a matter of personal choice.
Whilst there may be a minor correction (which is likely underway), unless one thinks London is going to cease being compared to the above cities (perhaps if Brexit is a real economic catastrophe) or there is a significant global recession then I don't foresee a significant change in the status quo.
I note that you only mention one European capital in your round-up. And I am surprised that Paris is in your list. It is also notoriously difficult to compare like for like. After all even in Thamesmead you wouldn't need the level of security to protect your property that the average middle class resident of Sao Paulo needs. The size of the average housing unit is also bigger than an equivalent London one too.
Furthermore in these European capitals other living costs are often lower too. Admittedly apart from Paris none of them are anywhere near as big but nearly all have a public transport system which transports them from home to work and back again for far less than in London and usually with less stress too.
Finally the list you mention is dominated by cities Anglo - Saxon (influenced) nations who share an obsession with house ownership. That obsession is one reason why housing costs in most European cities are modest by comparison; ask any residents of those cities who have also spent time in London, where their quality of life was better, they tend to answer something like " London's a great city, I loved it. But..."
Nervously watch these stories as I look at completing on my first buy in the next month or so, esp as we are stretching ourselves a bit to avoid needing to buy again too soon.
Typical as the last 8 years saving I've earnt fuck all on it.
Unfortunately house prices in London are not especially expensive when compared to other leading global cities (eg. New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco/Silicon Valley, Hong Kong, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore, Sydney etc.), and even when compared to some leading emerging market cities (eg. Moscow, Sao Paolo etc.).
I travel a lot in the USA and will regularly take a look at Zillow (US equivalent of Rightmove) to see what I could buy for the equivalent of my house near London, and in and around the three US cities listed above the answer ranges between 'not very much more' and 'probably less'.
Of course one could buy substantially more property in say Dallas, Atlanta or Charlotte but you wouldn't be living in a leading global city so it's not a fair comparison in my view. To the extent this matters is obviously a matter of personal choice.
Whilst there may be a minor correction (which is likely underway), unless one thinks London is going to cease being compared to the above cities (perhaps if Brexit is a real economic catastrophe) or there is a significant global recession then I don't foresee a significant change in the status quo.
I note that you only mention one European capital in your round-up. And I am surprised that Paris is in your list. It is also notoriously difficult to compare like for like. After all even in Thamesmead you wouldn't need the level of security to protect your property that the average middle class resident of Sao Paulo needs. The size of the average housing unit is also bigger than an equivalent London one too.
Furthermore in these European capitals other living costs are often lower too. Admittedly apart from Paris none of them are anywhere near as big but nearly all have a public transport system which transports them from home to work and back again for far less than in London and usually with less stress too.
Finally the list you mention is dominated by cities Anglo - Saxon (influenced) nations who share an obsession with house ownership. That obsession is one reason why housing costs in most European cities are modest by comparison; ask any residents of those cities who have also spent time in London, where their quality of life was better, they tend to answer something like " London's a great city, I loved it. But..."
Fair points but as you imply only Paris comes close (in Europe) to London's global status - this is not to say there aren't loads of gorgeous smaller cities of course.
Unfortunately if you want to truly 'make it' and be recognised as excelling in diversified fields (finance, academia, law, media, medicine, design, food, fashion, art.....) then London is the first place you look to go in Europe.
Whether the quality of life is any good isn't the point - the earnings and wealth generation of these industries drive property prices just as they do in the other non-European global cities I mentioned. It remains to be seen if Brexit reverses this trend or even potentially accelerates it.
Moreover quality of life means different things to different people - it tends to be considered in terms of personal space, free time, greenery etc but for many in London it's about culture, buzz, nightlife etc.
Unfortunately house prices in London are not especially expensive when compared to other leading global cities (eg. New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco/Silicon Valley, Hong Kong, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore, Sydney etc.), and even when compared to some leading emerging market cities (eg. Moscow, Sao Paolo etc.).
I travel a lot in the USA and will regularly take a look at Zillow (US equivalent of Rightmove) to see what I could buy for the equivalent of my house near London, and in and around the three US cities listed above the answer ranges between 'not very much more' and 'probably less'.
Of course one could buy substantially more property in say Dallas, Atlanta or Charlotte but you wouldn't be living in a leading global city so it's not a fair comparison in my view. To the extent this matters is obviously a matter of personal choice.
Whilst there may be a minor correction (which is likely underway), unless one thinks London is going to cease being compared to the above cities (perhaps if Brexit is a real economic catastrophe) or there is a significant global recession then I don't foresee a significant change in the status quo.
I note that you only mention one European capital in your round-up. And I am surprised that Paris is in your list. It is also notoriously difficult to compare like for like. After all even in Thamesmead you wouldn't need the level of security to protect your property that the average middle class resident of Sao Paulo needs. The size of the average housing unit is also bigger than an equivalent London one too.
Furthermore in these European capitals other living costs are often lower too. Admittedly apart from Paris none of them are anywhere near as big but nearly all have a public transport system which transports them from home to work and back again for far less than in London and usually with less stress too.
Finally the list you mention is dominated by cities Anglo - Saxon (influenced) nations who share an obsession with house ownership. That obsession is one reason why housing costs in most European cities are modest by comparison; ask any residents of those cities who have also spent time in London, where their quality of life was better, they tend to answer something like " London's a great city, I loved it. But..."
Fair points but as you imply only Paris comes close (in Europe) to London's global status - this is not to say there aren't loads of gorgeous smaller cities of course.
Unfortunately if you want to truly 'make it' and be recognised as excelling in diversified fields (finance, academia, law, media, medicine, design, food, fashion, art.....) then London is the first place you look to go in Europe.
Whether the quality of life is any good isn't the point - the earnings and wealth generation of these industries drive property prices just as they do in the other non-European global cities I mentioned. It remains to be seen if Brexit reverses this trend or even potentially accelerates it.
Moreover quality of life means different things to different people - it tends to be considered in terms of personal space, free time, greenery etc but for many in London it's about culture, buzz, nightlife etc.
Sure. I understand that those are the considerations of a certain type of business person, but we will see how at least some of the business categories you mention view London in the near future. In certain of those categories both Berlin and Amsterdam (which of course technically isn't a capital) are presenting an increasing challenge, for example in the area of digital media. Frankfurt will challenge in finance, although I understand the scepticism about the extent of its potential.
It might not be a bad thing for most people on CL if London faced increasing competition. ( I don't remotely suggest whole business sectors will desert London en masse). The thing about the culture buzz nightlife thing is that in Amsterdam or Berlin it's much more possible for ordinary people to access it all, and for reasonable prices, than it is in London. It seems to me that my family and friends in London live most of their lives in the suburbs where their housing is. In Eltham the culture buzz and nightlife is, er, a bit low key...
Unfortunately house prices in London are not especially expensive when compared to other leading global cities (eg. New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco/Silicon Valley, Hong Kong, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore, Sydney etc.), and even when compared to some leading emerging market cities (eg. Moscow, Sao Paolo etc.).
I travel a lot in the USA and will regularly take a look at Zillow (US equivalent of Rightmove) to see what I could buy for the equivalent of my house near London, and in and around the three US cities listed above the answer ranges between 'not very much more' and 'probably less'.
Of course one could buy substantially more property in say Dallas, Atlanta or Charlotte but you wouldn't be living in a leading global city so it's not a fair comparison in my view. To the extent this matters is obviously a matter of personal choice.
Whilst there may be a minor correction (which is likely underway), unless one thinks London is going to cease being compared to the above cities (perhaps if Brexit is a real economic catastrophe) or there is a significant global recession then I don't foresee a significant change in the status quo.
I note that you only mention one European capital in your round-up. And I am surprised that Paris is in your list. It is also notoriously difficult to compare like for like. After all even in Thamesmead you wouldn't need the level of security to protect your property that the average middle class resident of Sao Paulo needs. The size of the average housing unit is also bigger than an equivalent London one too.
Furthermore in these European capitals other living costs are often lower too. Admittedly apart from Paris none of them are anywhere near as big but nearly all have a public transport system which transports them from home to work and back again for far less than in London and usually with less stress too.
Finally the list you mention is dominated by cities Anglo - Saxon (influenced) nations who share an obsession with house ownership. That obsession is one reason why housing costs in most European cities are modest by comparison; ask any residents of those cities who have also spent time in London, where their quality of life was better, they tend to answer something like " London's a great city, I loved it. But..."
Fair points but as you imply only Paris comes close (in Europe) to London's global status - this is not to say there aren't loads of gorgeous smaller cities of course.
Unfortunately if you want to truly 'make it' and be recognised as excelling in diversified fields (finance, academia, law, media, medicine, design, food, fashion, art.....) then London is the first place you look to go in Europe.
Whether the quality of life is any good isn't the point - the earnings and wealth generation of these industries drive property prices just as they do in the other non-European global cities I mentioned. It remains to be seen if Brexit reverses this trend or even potentially accelerates it.
Moreover quality of life means different things to different people - it tends to be considered in terms of personal space, free time, greenery etc but for many in London it's about culture, buzz, nightlife etc.
Sure. I understand that those are the considerations of a certain type of business person, but we will see how at least some of the business categories you mention view London in the near future. In certain of those categories both Berlin and Amsterdam (which of course technically isn't a capital) are presenting an increasing challenge, for example in the area of digital media. Frankfurt will challenge in finance, although I understand the scepticism about the extent of its potential.
It might not be a bad thing for most people on CL if London faced increasing competition. ( I don't remotely suggest whole business sectors will desert London en masse). The thing about the culture buzz nightlife thing is that in Amsterdam or Berlin it's much more possible for ordinary people to access it all, and for reasonable prices, than it is in London. It seems to me that my family and friends in London live most of their lives in the suburbs where their housing is. In Eltham the culture buzz and nightlife is, er, a bit low key...
What might not be a bad thing for most people on CL would be if they didn't have to listen to you telling them how they should think/vote/live/work/ watch football in a country where you no longer reside: It's patronising.
Unfortunately house prices in London are not especially expensive when compared to other leading global cities (eg. New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco/Silicon Valley, Hong Kong, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore, Sydney etc.), and even when compared to some leading emerging market cities (eg. Moscow, Sao Paolo etc.).
I travel a lot in the USA and will regularly take a look at Zillow (US equivalent of Rightmove) to see what I could buy for the equivalent of my house near London, and in and around the three US cities listed above the answer ranges between 'not very much more' and 'probably less'.
Of course one could buy substantially more property in say Dallas, Atlanta or Charlotte but you wouldn't be living in a leading global city so it's not a fair comparison in my view. To the extent this matters is obviously a matter of personal choice.
Whilst there may be a minor correction (which is likely underway), unless one thinks London is going to cease being compared to the above cities (perhaps if Brexit is a real economic catastrophe) or there is a significant global recession then I don't foresee a significant change in the status quo.
I note that you only mention one European capital in your round-up. And I am surprised that Paris is in your list. It is also notoriously difficult to compare like for like. After all even in Thamesmead you wouldn't need the level of security to protect your property that the average middle class resident of Sao Paulo needs. The size of the average housing unit is also bigger than an equivalent London one too.
Furthermore in these European capitals other living costs are often lower too. Admittedly apart from Paris none of them are anywhere near as big but nearly all have a public transport system which transports them from home to work and back again for far less than in London and usually with less stress too.
Finally the list you mention is dominated by cities Anglo - Saxon (influenced) nations who share an obsession with house ownership. That obsession is one reason why housing costs in most European cities are modest by comparison; ask any residents of those cities who have also spent time in London, where their quality of life was better, they tend to answer something like " London's a great city, I loved it. But..."
Fair points but as you imply only Paris comes close (in Europe) to London's global status - this is not to say there aren't loads of gorgeous smaller cities of course.
Unfortunately if you want to truly 'make it' and be recognised as excelling in diversified fields (finance, academia, law, media, medicine, design, food, fashion, art.....) then London is the first place you look to go in Europe.
Whether the quality of life is any good isn't the point - the earnings and wealth generation of these industries drive property prices just as they do in the other non-European global cities I mentioned. It remains to be seen if Brexit reverses this trend or even potentially accelerates it.
Moreover quality of life means different things to different people - it tends to be considered in terms of personal space, free time, greenery etc but for many in London it's about culture, buzz, nightlife etc.
Sure. I understand that those are the considerations of a certain type of business person, but we will see how at least some of the business categories you mention view London in the near future. In certain of those categories both Berlin and Amsterdam (which of course technically isn't a capital) are presenting an increasing challenge, for example in the area of digital media. Frankfurt will challenge in finance, although I understand the scepticism about the extent of its potential.
It might not be a bad thing for most people on CL if London faced increasing competition. ( I don't remotely suggest whole business sectors will desert London en masse). The thing about the culture buzz nightlife thing is that in Amsterdam or Berlin it's much more possible for ordinary people to access it all, and for reasonable prices, than it is in London. It seems to me that my family and friends in London live most of their lives in the suburbs where their housing is. In Eltham the culture buzz and nightlife is, er, a bit low key...
What might not be a bad thing for most people on CL would be if they didn't have to listen to you telling them how they should think/vote/live/work/ watch football in a country where you no longer reside: It's patronising.
Are you and Chippy setting up a little band of xenophobic Brexiteers dedicated to trolling any Lifer who doesn't reside in the U.K. off the forum like he did with CharltonMadrid?
Comments
I'm guessing a modest fall in prices over the last year or two? Anyone in the know? I'm considering remortgaging (to buy a touch more of my Shared Ownership place) - am seeing a lot of articles online about London prices falling, but nothing specific to the local area or with numbers. Also assuming any "London" numbers may be distorted by the Central London prices taking a hammering?
Put it back on for £565k last weekend and said he'll be happy if he gets £550k for it.
Think that's fairly representative of the general state of play. Lower asking prices, and people are putting in offers below the asking price. When I sold mine in Summer 2015, the agent did 35 viewings over the course of a weekend and I got 15 offers above the asking price (for a nice but unremarkable 2 bedroom flat).
If interests rates return to historic norms mortgage rates for some would double and that would be the driver for re-possessions rather than negative equity of itself.
However, Carney's latest speech is suggesting globalisation means we will experience levels of interest rates determined by average global levels that cannot be controlled by domestic central bank policies. So opinion is shifting away from anticipation of inevitable interest rate rises which gives some comfort to those with mortgages they can only just afford on current rates.
My Dads house was valued at 450k in summer 2015, just sold it for 510k, in late 16 early 17 may have squeezed 525k out of it. Agree, I bought my house in 2008 and gone from 395k to 700k in that time, my sister bought hers in 2007 in Nottingham for I think 340k and probably wouldn't get any more than 400k now. If you are in a one bed flat and have a child........ an awful lot of keys were handed in for various reasons. A lot of people didn't realise they were still responsible for the debt.
I travel a lot in the USA and will regularly take a look at Zillow (US equivalent of Rightmove) to see what I could buy for the equivalent of my house near London, and in and around the three US cities listed above the answer ranges between 'not very much more' and 'probably less'.
Of course one could buy substantially more property in say Dallas, Atlanta or Charlotte but you wouldn't be living in a leading global city so it's not a fair comparison in my view. To the extent this matters is obviously a matter of personal choice.
Whilst there may be a minor correction (which is likely underway), unless one thinks London is going to cease being compared to the above cities (perhaps if Brexit is a real economic catastrophe) or there is a significant global recession then I don't foresee a significant change in the status quo.
Political suicide so won't happen and the ratio of earnings to prices will keep growing for another generation.
I was always taught that upping interest rates is first and foremost used to cool inflation - it's (usually) a good sign that the economy is healthier as it is growing, but it's ultimately an anti-growth measure to keep inflation as close to 2% as possible, via a couple of side-effects (currency value and borrowing/saving behaviour)
Until there are more dynamic and productive areas of our economy to invest in( and this is not just a UK problem) money will tend to stay in assets like housing, keeping prices high.
And there are some very nice places not far from Hull, only a few miles outside in the countryside which are still very good value
Furthermore in these European capitals other living costs are often lower too. Admittedly apart from Paris none of them are anywhere near as big but nearly all have a public transport system which transports them from home to work and back again for far less than in London and usually with less stress too.
Finally the list you mention is dominated by cities Anglo - Saxon (influenced) nations who share an obsession with house ownership. That obsession is one reason why housing costs in most European cities are modest by comparison; ask any residents of those cities who have also spent time in London, where their quality of life was better, they tend to answer something like " London's a great city, I loved it. But..."
Typical as the last 8 years saving I've earnt fuck all on it.
Unfortunately if you want to truly 'make it' and be recognised as excelling in diversified fields (finance, academia, law, media, medicine, design, food, fashion, art.....) then London is the first place you look to go in Europe.
Whether the quality of life is any good isn't the point - the earnings and wealth generation of these industries drive property prices just as they do in the other non-European global cities I mentioned. It remains to be seen if Brexit reverses this trend or even potentially accelerates it.
Moreover quality of life means different things to different people - it tends to be considered in terms of personal space, free time, greenery etc but for many in London it's about culture, buzz, nightlife etc.
It might not be a bad thing for most people on CL if London faced increasing competition. ( I don't remotely suggest whole business sectors will desert London en masse). The thing about the culture buzz nightlife thing is that in Amsterdam or Berlin it's much more possible for ordinary people to access it all, and for reasonable prices, than it is in London. It seems to me that my family and friends in London live most of their lives in the suburbs where their housing is. In Eltham the culture buzz and nightlife is, er, a bit low key...