Abandoned hope for all ye FTBs

Max_Headroom_3

dopester wrote: »

It was only the buyers since 1997, buying at ever higher prices, which rocketed up the value of property for all existing owners - even those who haven't moved since 1997.

Values for all property owners increased by the ever higher sums being paid, month after month, year after year, by active buyers. That is how markets work.


Now we need active sellers accepting lower prices from buyers to bring down values for all property owners.

No, it was the banks lending far more that forced prices up. If you "give" (lend, in reality of course) everyone twice as much money to spend on houses, guess what? They don't all end up in twice as nice a house, they end up in the same house but at twice the price.

You can't blame a buyer in 1999 (say) for spending more on a house than it cost in 1995 (say), he had to pay the going rate or he didn't get the house. If he waited instead that going rate would simply be still higher. And that "going rate" was set by affordability, and affordability was set by how much the banks would lend. They lent too much basically, hence the mess they eventually ended up in.

As to your "needing active sellers accepting lower prices from buyers to bring down values for all property owners" the same applies. A seller will (quite rightly) sell for as much as he can get. And what he can get is ultimately determined by what buyers can borrow. So you're back to the banks again.

The good news for you is that banks are lending far less and with far stricter criteria. This will affect (and is affecting) house prices and will continue to do so as long as lending is done in this manner.

So all you need to do is sit back, wait, stop whinging, and be bloody thankful that you didn't (or weren't in a position to) buy a year or two ago.

It's all working for you now, be happy.

dopester

Max_Headroom wrote: »

Interesting logic, anything to do with your desire for forced sales to help bring property prices down so that you can benefit per chance..?

Of course. Has it ever been different in any other recession or depression? If your financial circumstances are under strain you have to look at ways of putting yourself on a good footing, and that can mean liquidating your assets.

Renters don't own. Whoever owns the property, is seeing their capital values fall at a mighty rate, even if they are only making low-repayments on a tracker. Housing benefit will be cut.

Same for owners who own outright. Value destruction, as people on JSA or change of circumstances, decide to sell and accept lower prices than comparable property sold at peak downwards. There is no boost in JSA coming. In the end, everyone is on their own to meet the bills.

Mortgage payment assistance is a double edged sword. How many people on it now? I'm sure I read 250,000 households, but could be mistaken. Can't continue, and in the meantime, values are still falling, and the real mortgage debt outstanding isn't coming down.

If I were you Max, I'd STR. You property is only going to continue losing lots of value as I see it. You won't convince me with your comaprisons. I have a fairly big deposit for a house, and am surviving on very low-expenditure at the moment.

Only difference between you and I, is you've owned a home, benefited from HPI, and claiming JSA - which I'm not entitled to, and I have to tap in to my savings... which for you would be equivilent of your equity..... but you have no intention of releasing that equity by MEW or downsizing - to survive without relying on JSA.

Max_Headroom_3

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Could you tell me how many people / families thats actually helped, or even, applied to?

No, not a clue.

But it's very publicly been announced and not a whimper of complaint from Dopester about it in his post, but yet he's desperate to try and force those who don't need any housing assistance because they own outright out of their houses so that (as he readily admits) he might benefit from their being forced to sell.

Not an entirely altruistic attitude I think you'll agree...! :rotfl:

Graham_Devon

Max_Headroom wrote: »

No, not a clue.

But it's very publicly been announced and not a whimper of complaint from Dopester about it in his post, but yet he's desperate to try and force those who don't need any housing assistance because they own outright out of their houses so that (as he readily admits) he might benefit from their being forced to sell.

Not an entirely altruistic attitude I think you'll agree...! :rotfl:

As at 1st May...

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages-and-homes/article.html?in_article_id=483626&in_page_id=8&ito=1565

Max_Headroom_3

dopester wrote: »

In the end, everyone is on their own to meet the bills.

No they're not, people who rent get housing benefit (or whatever it's called). Shouldn't you be calling for this to be cut too? That way tenants would be forced out of their homes to live on the streets, less rental demand, more forced sales, cheaper house for Dopester. As you've already admitted, that's what this is all about.

Mortgage payment assistance is a double edged sword. How many people on it now? I'm sure I read 250,000 households, but could be mistaken. Can't continue, and in the meantime, values are still falling, and the real mortgage debt outstanding isn't coming down.

So what? If people are able to stay in their homes due to financial assistance then so what if prices are falling?

If I were you Max, I'd STR. You property is only going to continue losing lots of value as I see it. You won't convince me with your comaprisons.

No you wouldn't. :rotfl:

And so what if my house continues to fall in value? So what if it's worth a pound next year? I couldn't give a flying fig, it's my home, it's where I live. It's not an investment, it's not a bank, and it's certainly not a cash machine. You need to try and rid your mind of these concepts or you'll end up like all the other property cash machine obsessives that got us in this mess.

I have a fairly big deposit for a house, and am surviving on very low-expenditure at the moment.

Only difference between you and I, is you've owned a home, benefited from HPI, and claiming JSA - which I'm not entitled to, and I have to tap in to my savings... which for you would be equivilent of your equity..... but you have no intention of releasing that equity by MEW or downsizing - to survive without relying on JSA.

Haven't benefited at all from HPI. Not one penny.

lostinrates

Max_Headroom wrote: »

No you wouldn't. :rotfl:

no, it would be the very last option for me too Max. I would see if I could make things work for me better, with lodger etc, but if your area means a room is worth litle more than the Job seekers allowance I can see why one wouldn't take that option.

Fostering was being promoted as an option on BBC news this morning: one that I would certainly consider. Particular useful to teens seeing someone goin through looking for a job and living with people with work ethic and determination, perhaps?

dopester

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As at 1st May...

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages-and-homes/article.html?in_article_id=483626&in_page_id=8&ito=1565

Sourced from "detached" post, at the other place.

Mortgage support helps save homes

15 May 2009

Fewer people are losing their homes, due to measures introduced by the government to support homeowners during the current economic climate.

Support for Mortgage Interest, covers mortgage interest payments for people who lose their jobs. SMI is claimed by 220,000 households, helping them keep their homes. The qualifying period was cut from 39 weeks to 13 weeks in January and the capital limit was doubled to £200,000. SMI is open to people on Income Support, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, income-related Employment and Support Allowance or Pension Credit.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease150509b.htm

treliac

lostinrates wrote: »

Fostering was being promoted as an option on BBC news this morning: one that I would certainly consider. Particular useful to teens seeing someone goin through looking for a job and living with people with work ethic and determination, perhaps?

I desperately hope that anyone considering fostering does so with the right motivation. It's one of the hardest 'jobs' there can be and there's no clocking off at the end of the day.

dopester

lostinrates wrote: »

no, it would be the very last option for me too Max. I would see if I could make things work for me better, with lodger etc, but if your area means a room is worth litle more than the Job seekers allowance I can see why one wouldn't take that option.

It would be the no.1 first option for me.

Price to sell. Get a job (even minimum wage). Find a way to get cheap shelter for 2 to 3 years..... (apartment in Spain for £60 a month I was looking at) - then in 2 or 3 years, buy the house back, or a very similar house, at 30%-70%+ discount to values today.... leaving yourself in a much stronger financial position.

This crash has a lot further to go - imo.

lostinrates

treliac wrote: »

I desperately hope that anyone considering fostering does so with the right motivation. It's one of the hardest 'jobs' there can be and there's no clocking off at the end of the day.

Oh, I agree, but for the right people, with the right skills and with no other employment it might be a mutually beneficial thing.

I am imagining the selection criteria is not so easy though, rightly to help weed out ''wrongly'' moivated people.