We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

The Affordability scam explained

15678911»

Comments

  • chucky
    chucky Posts: 15,170 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    mbga9pgf wrote: »
    I dont know where you get your figures from, but your 45% vs 70% (2007 vs 1990) figures look like total bollox when compared to the Nationwide FTB affordability index!

    not disputing your point with Hamish - but have you seen the regional affordability data that makes up this chart? it's from your link.

    there are a few areas that skew that average on that graph that make it look worse than it actually is.
    look at Northern Ireland, the East Midlands for example are still about 20% from 2004 levels.

    on the other hand - the affordability data for London seems to say it's 4% below the 2004 level
  • mbga9pgf
    mbga9pgf Posts: 3,224 Forumite
    edited 23 August 2009 at 11:27PM
    chucky wrote: »
    not disputing your point with Hamish - but have you seen the regional affordability data that makes up this chart? it's from your link.

    there are a few areas that skew that average on that graph that make it look worse than it actually is.
    look at Northern Ireland, the East Midlands for example are still about 20% from 2004 levels.

    on the other hand - the affordability data for London seems to say it's 4% below the 2004 level

    I agree; my area (south west) hasnt seen such a ridiculous boom, but is still indicating long term overvalued. i Reckon a good 15% still to go, but getting towards neutral affordability certainly with the amount of unemployment that has hit the region.
  • andykn
    andykn Posts: 438 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    mewbie wrote: »
    This has got ridiculous. All to prove what - that house prices are reasonable? When anyone without a vested interest knows that they are not. We dont need endless arguments with complex figures to prove the bleeding obvious. House prices are too high, and they will come down because people can't afford them.

    Like they did in Switzerland and Hong Kong?
  • andykn
    andykn Posts: 438 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    mbga9pgf wrote: »
    Hey hamish, guess where this graph is going next?

    Guess where prices are going bearing in mind most of the falls so far are down to lower rates?

    I dont know where you get your figures from, but your 45% vs 70% (2007 vs 1990) figures look like total bollox when compared to the Nationwide FTB affordability index!
    Figures are mortgage payments as a % of take home pay. You are, as I show below, talking complete and utter !!!!!! Hasnt a 40 year old got something better to do than argue with bears on the internet about home ownership?
    Graph available here:

    http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical.htm
    3849343547_80f548e0ac.jpg

    Er, that seems to show mortgage payments at over 100% of take home pay!
  • chucky
    chucky Posts: 15,170 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 24 August 2009 at 5:19PM
    andykn wrote: »
    Er, that seems to show mortgage payments at over 100% of take home pay!

    it's Index based - started sometime in 1985 at 100 points and backdated to 1983.

    it's also calculated using a 90% mortgage.
  • mewbie wrote: »
    This has got ridiculous. All to prove what - that house prices are reasonable? When anyone without a vested interest knows that they are not. We dont need endless arguments with complex figures to prove the bleeding obvious. House prices are too high, and they will come down because people can't afford them.
    +1

    Most of the older folk I know will tell you how much they paid for their house, tell you what it's worth now, then say how bad this is for youngsters and how immoral it all is. The last bit is important - they may be on the right side of the equation in the greatest arbitrary transfer of wealth since the war, but they know its wrong.

    Oh, and another thing, this has two end results:
    1) Inflation Up => Interest Rates Up => Repossession
    2) Inflation and Interest Rates stay low => a hell of a lot of people's wages will go to paying the heavy burden of the mortgage (not eroded much by inflation) over its lifetime. That money will not be available to fuel economic growth. Say hello to an underperforming economy for the next 25 years. Great.
  • lostinrates
    lostinrates Posts: 55,283 Forumite
    I've been Money Tipped!
    +1

    Most of the older folk I know will tell you how much they paid for their house, tell you what it's worth now, then say how bad this is for youngsters and how immoral it all is. The last bit is important - they may be on the right side of the equation in the greatest arbitrary transfer of wealth since the war, but they know its wrong.

    Oh, and another thing, this has two end results:
    1) Inflation Up => Interest Rates Up => Repossession
    2) Inflation and Interest Rates stay low => a hell of a lot of people's wages will go to paying the heavy burden of the mortgage (not eroded much by inflation) over its lifetime. That money will not be available to fuel economic growth. Say hello to an underperforming economy for the next 25 years. Great.

    Agreed, sort of, because there is a huge caveat which I'm going to illustrate with a personal example.

    My parents: shocked at the prices of properties we are looking at, shocked to the point of scandalised, but then, also at risk of over estimating the worth of their own home. Why do I think this? Simply they want an annexe/cottage/similar near/adjacent to us or as part of a whole with us, but theywant to put half or less of the money from a house which has not all that much more than they want from the move. It doesn't add up. :confused:

    Sinialr response (yhank to heaven without the moving in wth us thing) from DH's father, tells us the prices of places that he thinks would suit us in London are impossible, we point out what he got for my late other in laws flat (which she boaught as a FTB in the 60s in a roughly similar income bracket to dh)

    I find the view changes from the angle looked at, unless one is extraordinarily strict with oneself.
  • andykn
    andykn Posts: 438 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    chucky wrote: »
    it's Index based - started sometime in 1985 at 100 points and backdated to 1983.

    it's also calculated using a 90% mortgage.

    I thought it was, but with no real base for either axis it doesn't tell us very much.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.