Could older population take control?

mayzie

At the moment we are all relying on first time buyers.

Could it be, that in time,when they come back and start buying in their numbers that the people 2 up the chain can not find a property to move to?

ie. First time buyer buys for £70k

Next in chain buys for £150k

Next in chain tries to buy for £250k (this house according to those who profess a drop of 40% was £350k)

£350k + homes could easily be owned by retired people. Not willing to sell as they have not got a mortgage and do not have to!:p They can just sit and wait until the market improves.Rather than see their childrens inheritance dissapear.:eek:

In a few years we are told that the proportion of older people will be greater,so I believe there could be shortfall of prop. in this bracket for people to move to.New build would have to fill the gap.

Annpan

If you take the view that most peoples houses are their homes and not an investment then I don't think that older people will hold onto property that has become a burden on them in their retirement just to leave more money to their children.
My neighbours are in their 70's and have just renovated a barn in their grounds in readiness for their retirement. They have now sold their original house at a lower price compared to a couple of years ago. They seem very happy to have reduced their outgoings and now have some spending money, some of which, I'm sure will be passed onto their children with a warm hand rather than a cold one - if you get my meaning.

silvercar

Retired people will eventually sell; either to downsize, to move to more managable accommodation, to care, to fund their children's deposits, or to pass on to greater places. Whatever way they can't en masse decide not to sell.

Rabiddog_2

TBH, Most people don't HAVE grounds, much less barns in them, and most people in their seventies do not want to embark on building projects.. It is the cold hand that passes on the assets, sadly.

mayzie

Annpan wrote: »

If you take the view that most peoples houses are their homes and not an investment then I don't think that older people will hold onto property that has become a burden on them in their retirement just to leave more money to their children.
My neighbours are in their 70's and have just renovated a barn in their grounds in readiness for their retirement. They have now sold their original house at a lower price compared to a couple of years ago. They seem very happy to have reduced their outgoings and now have some spending money, some of which, I'm sure will be passed onto their children with a warm hand rather than a cold one - if you get my meaning.

Lower price is not 30-40%off

Annpan

I'm not sure what they eventually sold for but I know they made 2 big reductions before they got a buyer. I suspect it could be in the region of 20% reduction on a property first valued in July.
I was only giving my neighbours as an example of not holding onto assets in the form of property just to give their children a better inheritance.
It won't be my priority if we ever manage to sell. My son wants us to enjoy our money and let him look after himself - he'll inherit something no doubt. Not planning to blow it all.

Annpan

Rabiddog wrote: »

TBH, Most people don't HAVE grounds, much less barns in them, and most people in their seventies do not want to embark on building projects.. It is the cold hand that passes on the assets, sadly.

I should have said front garden instead of grounds as that's more what it's like. I should have also said they had the barn renovated. They did lend a hand here and there. It's not massively valuable. Their property was last advertised at offers around £280,000. I think they just wanted to stay in the location and were finding it hard to look after the garden and heating bills were too much and they needed to release some money to live on.
I think the main reason for older people not hanging onto their homes is that they can't cope with the size, stairs, garden and so on and that applies to homes of any value

mayzie

Annpan wrote: »

I should have said front garden instead of grounds as that's more what it's like. I should have also said they had the barn renovated. They did lend a hand here and there. It's not massively valuable. Their property was last advertised at offers around £280,000. I think they just wanted to stay in the location and were finding it hard to look after the garden and heating bills were too much and they needed to release some money to live on.
I think the main reason for older people not hanging onto their homes is that they can't cope with the size, stairs, garden and so on and that applies to homes of any value

I am not saying they will hang on to them forever.Just for the time it takes for prices to increase.(on second thoughts that might be forever!

geoffky

price increases..ha ha ha ....this is my third crash and people will be hating houses for years before we get any rises..in about 10 years if we are unlucky enough to go through this mess again which i doubt.. the banks will not be taking on risky debt for a very very very long time...and houses are now risky debts because of redundancies ect

baileysbattlebus

OH and I would like to retire, we are both 54, we both have final salary pensions, mine is ok and I took it at 50 (just incase it disappeared), his on the other hand is very good. We had discussed taking retirement proper in November of next year. I had even started looking at areas to buy etc.

Then along came the crash - it's not the price the house will sell for that's the problem - it's the lack of buyers with the availble finance in place that appears to be the issue. Mind you, we've not tested the waters yet and hadn't intended to until about July or August of next year anyway. So really we don't know the true state of the local housing market, I'm just going on what I've read on these boards.

We don't need the money from the house to live on or to supplement our income, the house has never featured in any retirement planning, it's been our family home for 15 years. But it is bigger than we need - it has 5 bedrooms for a start. The main driver really is that neither of us are from the area we live in, we have no desire to end our days here in Berkshire and would like to move back to the North East - where I'm from - while we're young enough to cope with such a move.

As for the children's inheritance - we will have another house, just a smaller one and we hope to live for many years to come. If I live another 20 years the children will be 47, 48 & 49 and hopefully financially secure and not waiting for us to "pop off". The chances are any money will go in care fees anyway.

To the original post - we are not retired yet and are in the bracket with the £350k+ home and we don't have to sell - would we sell for £250k, if we really want to do what we want we might have to - am I bothered, not particularly. It's only money at the end of the day and "virtual" money at that. We didn't pay £350k for the house. What we want is this house to fund the next one totally.

We are veering towards new build ourselves because of the lower maintenance - the only down side to that is the size of them - we want smaller not a rabbit hutch.

Annpan

mayzie wrote: »

I am not saying they will hang on to them forever.Just for the time it takes for prices to increase.(on second thoughts that might be forever!

The trouble is Mayzie, when you have less time in front of you than you have behind you, time is something you don't want to waste on the off chance that you can increase inheritance for your kids. I don't see a future of pensioners rattling around in property that no longer suits them thus creating top of the chain housing shortages to the point where new building will increase on a massive scale.