The Affordability scam explained

chucky

CluelessJock wrote: »

My point is comparing the number of home owners now with the number in the 70's is not a necessarily a direct indication of affordability! There are numerous factors that influence the number of homeowners. If you see it as such then your interpretation of the 'fact' (if it is a fact) is wrong.

i agreed with you that in the previous post
what i said and still say is that it was not easier in the 1970s to buy property.
yes it may have been more affordable to buy but it wasn't easier.

you also have to consider that the affordability stats are slightly skewed for many groups of people as you have to look at the numbers for households without the dual income... this is a major factor amongst many others

mewbie_2

chucky wrote: »

i agreed with you that in the previous post
what i said and still say is that it was not easier in the 1970s to buy property.
yes it may have been more affordable to buy but it wasn't easier.

Er what? If it was more affordable then surely it was easier? Actually I know FOR A FACT - lol - that it was easier.

chucky

mewbie wrote: »

Er what? If it was more affordable then surely it was easier? Actually I know FOR A FACT - lol - that it was easier.

that was exactly my first question...

why were the figures 50% home ownership in 1970 and we reached 70% plus in 2007...

CluelessJock sort of answered it but you can't say it was easier to buy in the 1970s...

mewbie_2

chucky wrote: »

that was exactly my first question...

why were the figures 50% home ownership in 1970 and we reached 70% plus in 2007...

CluelessJock sort of answered it but you can't say it was easier to buy in the 1970s...

It was easier to buy. Wages in relation to prices were more reasonable. Inflation cleared the debt more quickly. End of.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

that doesn't make sense... if it was so easy to buy in the 70s why is it that the largest number of home owners was in 2007 at over 70% and only 50% in the 1970s?

surely it had been easier in 2007 otherwise there would have been the largest number of owner occupiers in history.

you could then argue that the availability of credit in the last few years is a good thing because more people could own there own homes rather than only 50% of the population in the 1970s... :rolleyes:

Dunno, but without SO I wouldn't have bought.

I don't think that was around back then, so may have stopped people buying at the time.

It's too easy to say 50% vs 70%. A LOT has changed, such as accesibility to credit, house buying schemes etc.

You can't just compare the two figures without looking at whats changed since then. Could you have got self certified mortgages, 7x your income, deposits on credit cards etc etc back then? 100% - 125% mortgages?

I don't know, which is why I'm asking. I know you couldnt get deposits on credit cards or through personal loans, which has been relatively easy recently, meaning people could buy.

The 70% figure could come from a variety of things. Doesn't neccesarily simply mean it's more affordable and theres nothing else in it.

chucky

mewbie wrote: »

It was easier to buy. Wages in relation to prices were more reasonable. Inflation cleared the debt more quickly. End of.

i disagree that it was easier to buy - i don't disagree that it was more affordable for those that could have bought. which is what you're saying above.

what i'm saying is that it was easier to buy in 2007 for a number of reasons - the obvious one is that higher levels of mortgage finance were available...

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Dunno, but without SO I wouldn't have bought.

I don't think that was around back then, so may have stopped people buying at the time.

It's too easy to say 50% vs 70%. A LOT has changed, such as accesibility to credit, house buying schemes etc.

You can't just compare the two figures without looking at whats changed since then. Could you have got self certified mortgages, 7x your income, deposits on credit cards etc etc back then? 100% - 125% mortgages?

I don't know, which is why I'm asking. I know you couldnt get deposits on credit cards or through personal loans, which has been relatively easy recently, meaning people could buy.

The 70% figure could come from a variety of things. Doesn't neccesarily simply mean it's more affordable and theres nothing else in it.

that was my point Graham - it seems that other factors made it easier to buy for more people in 2007.
however, it may have been more affordable to buy then but many things have changed in today's society. as you say SO, Right to Buy, higher multiples and even more women working now are all factors that would have made it easier in my opinion.

CluelessJock

Hey Guys', think about it this way:

easier = less difficulty in getting a mortgage, due to less regulation and higher lending levels.

affordable = being able to service the above mortgage

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

that was my point Graham - it seems that other factors made it easier to buy for more people in 2007.
however, it may have been more affordable to buy then but many things have changed in today's society. as you say SO, Right to Buy, higher multiples and even more women working now are all factors that would have made it easier in my opinion.

True actually, right to buy would have had a big impact on the figures.

Can you therefore tell hamish to stop spouting "fact" all the time when he talks about affordability!

It's nothing to do with affordability, it's to do with schemes providing access and ever higher lending providing access.

mewbie_2

chucky wrote: »

i disagree that it was easier to buy - i don't disagree that it was more affordable for those that could have bought. which is what you're saying above.

what i'm saying is that it was easier to buy in 2007 for a number of reasons - the obvious one is that higher levels of mortgage finance were available...

Ah now I understand the confusion. A mistake far too many people have made over the last few years. I am talking about BUYING and you are talking about BORROWING.