If single FTB could afford 2-3 bed houses would it cause HPI.

Graham_Devon

No

mbga9pgf wrote: »

No, because if an FTB could afford a house like that, it means we would have market controls in place limiting Loan to value and multiples. Which would kill the HPI monster dead.

Exactly my thinking when I said if single FTB's coule buy these properties, so could families.

Anything can spark HPI if controls are not in place, so not sure why this is aimed at a single buyer of a property.

Really2

Yes

mbga9pgf wrote: »

No, because if an FTB could afford a house like that, it means we would have market controls in place limiting Loan to value and multiples. Which would kill the HPI monster dead.

I love it when bulls get all defensive trying to make out that multiples would be a retrograde step, that it would be bad for first time buyers... When actually, all they want is their (falling) equity protected.

You completely missed the point, i am not defensive. (but you feel the need to mock:rolleyes:)

Where are the standard cotrols for a start off?

Unless you are patronizing a standard wage for all workers you have not got an equal market.
people will earn more than others surely, so you still have not got rid of competiton from afordability!

Are you saying housing will be redistributed rich singles top of the ladder poor family 1 bed flat?

What i am saying is are you just passing on HPI for the next generation and do try to be polite I have not done anything other than try to start a debate on what effect singles buying traditional fammily homes would have on a market.
is that bad.

chewmylegoff

No

single (average) income FTBs aren't likely to be able to afford a 3 bed house any time soon, or ever, so bit of a pointless exercise, innit?

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Exactly my thinking when I said if single FTB's coule buy these properties, so could families.

Anything can spark HPI if controls are not in place, so not sure why this is aimed at a single buyer of a property.

If FTB's could jump up the ladder from the off. Then the price of smaller accomadation would fall due to lack of demand.

The property market is a pyramid. The price of each level being determined by the ability to fund and bridge the gap to the next level.

Although 3 bed houses would intially rise. Due to demand. Prices would stagnate until the tier below caught up in relative terms.

mbga9pgf

No

Erm, the salary multiple controls the banks self-enforced until the 2000 boom? You know, this 3.5X multiple thing wasnt invented by bears, it was around for years as internal policy for banks.

Why should someone have the right to buy a house, then watch it grow in value and sell it on 10 years down the line expecting the next person (in the same situation that the buyer was in 10 years previous) to foot the bill?

The thing is, the HPI doesnt get passed on to the next generation. It gets spent, on cruises, shopping at waitrose, on consuption. Its the next generation in effect that are picking up the tab for the previous generations shopping bill. You are also forgetting inheritance tax also takes a big swipe out of much of this HPI that is supposed to be 'passed down' as you naievely put it. You didnt think house prices crashing and the economy going off a cliff were coincidental do you? HPI was paying for our retail spending for years.

Are you saying housing will be redistributed rich singles top of the ladder poor family 1 bed flat?

Yes. Until ery recently, that was the way the cookie crumbled. work hard at school, get a decent education, get a good job = nice house for you and your family. That cannot happen with prices as they are at present and it is the biggest social injustice going for all you Labour voters that think in such terms.

what effect singles buying traditional fammily homes would have on a market.
is that bad.

No its not bad, its good to debate. You know my writing style is agressive, I am replying to the OP, but yes, it is a good topic. Thing is, until 2000, traditional family homes WERE affordable to recently married couples, and not on particularly huge mortgages either. Yes, rates were higher, but so was inflation, thus the debt was being attacked not only from the repayment angle but also the inflation angle. All this could have been avoided by limiting mortgages to 3.5X single salary, 3X couple salary back in 2002. But gordon the moron didnt have the balls to do it, neither did blair. Hence the reason we find ourselves in the biggest house price correction in history.

This:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-21451942.html



is in the same area and is a similar property to the ones my parents moved into as their first home, after saving hard for a year and living with my grandparents. Their mortgage was 2.5X my father's salary and he was on not much more than the average wage (although did work away a lot, therefore their expenditure was low.

My wife and I have been saving 80% of our disposable salary for nearly 4 years now, I am in the top 6% of UK earners, and I still cannot afford the above house.

Are you telling me that something is not seriously wrong with our housing market?

Really2

Yes

I must admit I am surprised on the results so far.

I personally think there is an over supply of flats and an under-supply of family housing.

(forget all the lending etc just based on numbers in area near work etc)

I think the current split is 25,000,000 homes
10,000,000 of those are occupied by just one person (old etc)

If you made it 15,000,000 that would leave 45,000,000 people fighting it out for the remaining 10,000,000 homes.

I though that would affect future HPI

Graham_Devon

No

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If FTB's could jump up the ladder from the off. Then the price of smaller accomadation would fall due to lack of demand.

The property market is a pyramid. The price of each level being determined by the ability to fund and bridge the gap to the next level.

Although 3 bed houses would intially rise. Due to demand. Prices would stagnate until the tier below caught up in relative terms.

Yes, agree.

The point is though that A) I'm not sure why this is aimed at single people....as if couples could jump into 3 beds it would be the same situation. There just seems to be a bit of single bashing "they can live in a box" type assumptions going on today here.

This is never going to happen, because the market will sort itself out in that sense. Some will be able to afford to jump into 6 bed palaces aged 18, some wont be able to afford a shoebox aged 30.

The discussion seems to be solely aimed at bashing the single buyer, and the simple assumption that the single buyer is A) actually single and not got a partner and is going to stay single because they are at the point of purchase.

Any which way you look at this, i.e. if OAP's could afford 4 beds, it would be the same outcome, yet single people seem to be singalled out by the same people again. The people who want to rent properties to these single people.

None of this is going to happen, the market will not allow it, so it seems theres no point in the thread apart form a nice bashing.

Really2

Yes

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Erm, the salary multiple controls the banks self-enforced until the 2000 boom? You know, this 3.5X multiple thing wasnt invented by bears, it was around for years as internal policy for banks.

Why should someone have the right to buy a house, then watch it grow in value and sell it on 10 years down the line expecting the next person (in the same situation that the buyer was in 10 years previous) to foot the bill?

The thing is, the HPI doesnt get passed on to the next generation. It gets spent, on cruises, shopping at waitrose, on consuption. Its the next generation in effect that are picking up the tab for the previous generations shopping bill. You are also forgetting inheritance tax also takes a big swipe out of much of this HPI that is supposed to be 'passed down' as you naievely put it.



Yes. Until ery recently, that was the way the cookie crumbled. work hard at school, get a decent education, get a good job = nice house for you and your family. That cannot happen with prices as they are at present and it is the biggest social injustice going for all you Labour voters that think in such terms.



No its not bad, its good to debate. You know my writing style is agressive, I am replying to the OP, but yes, it is a good topic. Thing is, until 2000, traditional family homes WERE affordable to recently married couples, and not on particularly huge mortgages either. Yes, rates were higher, but so was inflation, thus the debt was being attacked not only from the repayment angle but also the inflation angle. All this could have been avoided by limiting mortgages to 3.5X single salary, 3X couple salary back in 2002. But gordon the moron didnt have the balls to do it, neither did blair. Hence the reason we find ourselves in the biggest house price correction in history.

But you could get higher than 3.5% in the 80's (so some of the elders have said on here)

The reason I questioned the multiple is as I see this as irrelevant because with or without housing will fall to a limit of sustainability

OK go back to 3.5% houses hit a limit. say £87.5K (£25K X 3.5)

would not everyone being paid over £25K completely blow out the water everyone below (EG the haves and have nots)?

this is not a debate about bank regulation it is about once they hit a limit where do other factors take over.

you could argue a single person buying a 3-4 bed was greed etc. thus inflating prices for others looking buy similar.

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes, agree.

The point is though that A) I'm not sure why this is aimed at single people....as if couples could jump into 3 beds it would be the same situation. There just seems to be a bit of single bashing "they can live in a box" type assumptions going on today here.

This is never going to happen, because the market will sort itself out in that sense. Some will be able to afford to jump into 6 bed palaces aged 18, some wont be able to afford a shoebox aged 30.

The discussion seems to be solely aimed at bashing the single buyer, and the simple assumption that the single buyer is A) actually single and not got a partner and is going to stay single because they are at the point of purchase.

Any which way you look at this, i.e. if OAP's could afford 4 beds, it would be the same outcome, yet single people seem to be singalled out by the same people again. The people who want to rent properties to these single people.

None of this is going to happen, the market will not allow it, so it seems theres no point in the thread apart form a nice bashing.

Older built property is far more spacious than modern. When I got divorced I bought a 1 bed coach house, big rooms plenty of space. Had as much square footage I would say as a new built Wimpey three bed terrace. Suited me at the time as didn't need empty bedrooms.

Graham_Devon

No

Really2 wrote: »

you could argue a single person buying a 3-4 bed was greed etc. thus inflating prices for others looking buy similar.

Point proven about the bashing.

You could say that about ANY person who has more rooms than you want them to have.]

I would prefer to call it freedom of choice if you have the funds to carry out your choice.