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

1567911

Comments

  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    I don't know what the average 1st time buyers salary would be in 1991 (ignoring the differences in 1st time buyers age) compared to now, but not convinced it will have tripled, so the deposit may be more difficult to save. Couple this with peoples perception that they need new cars, holidays, designer clothes etc and the deposit has not only to come from a wage that is a lower fraction of the property price, but also one that yields less disposable income.

    Oh don't, you'll get Hamish started :p
  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    chucky wrote: »
    rates were at 15% for 7 months and were over 14% for nearly 18 months
    1 Apr 91 - 13.75
    1 Nov 90 - 14.50
    1 Mar 90 - 15.40
    1 Nov 89 - 14.50

    I know, I pointed that out in my post. But you were concentrating on 1991, so I did too :)
  • chucky
    chucky Posts: 15,170 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 23 August 2009 at 8:06PM
    carolt wrote: »
    But:

    (a) You're not including MIRAS.

    true - i also haven't included wage inflation since 1991
    carolt wrote: »
    (b) You're not including capital repayment.

    i've already said i didn't and that isn't the point of the comparison
    carolt wrote: »
    (c) You're looking at 1 split second rate, when a mortgage is paid over 25 years or more. Mortgages stayed at 14% (which it wasn't anyway, as MIRAS was taken off) for no more than a couple of months. Today's rates will last for no more than a year or 2 at most of 25. And only apply to those on the 'right' deal - no good if you're on a higher fix, if you're LTV is too high, your SVR too high, etc etc. Trying to base 25 year affordability on 1 month's rate is silly.

    no they stayed above 15 for 7 months
    they stayed above 14% for over 18 months
    they also never went under 10% for the next 2 years
    that's a total of 4 years not a couple of months
    carolt wrote: »
    (d) I can't be bothered to work out your figures, but I'd love to see the source, as you've quoted them before and I'm 99% sure they're made up. Sorry.

    you're arguing something that you haven't calculated yourself because you only 'think' it's incorrect.
    oh dear, where did you go wrong :rolleyes:
  • chucky
    chucky Posts: 15,170 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Exactly chucky, that is precisely why I found it difficult.

    As you say the interest rate makes more difference than the property price when comparing the cost of servicing the mortgage.

    I don't know what the average 1st time buyers salary would be in 1991 (ignoring the differences in 1st time buyers age) compared to now, but not convinced it will have tripled, so the deposit may be more difficult to save. Couple this with peoples perception that they need new cars, holidays, designer clothes etc and the deposit has not only to come from a wage that is a lower fraction of the property price, but also one that yields less disposable income.

    this is my point - some people don't see or understand this and have completely blinkered view of house prices
  • chucky wrote:
    i've already said i didn't and that isn't the point of the comparison

    While I agree the cost of servicing the debt is directly linked to the interest rate the fact that there is 3 times the capital to be repaid cannot be ignored and is very much part of the affordability equation!

    Anyway, why is the comparison between the 90's & present day? Interest rates in the 80's were pretty tough to deal with and form part of history whether an individual had a mortgage then or not. Indeed the deregulation of the market in the 80's is largely responsible for the lenders getting creative with the products they offer.
  • andykn
    andykn Posts: 438 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker

    Infact, looking at historial mortgage rates, it was 13.75% for one month only, in April 1991. It then reduced to 12.95% then down to 11.5% in a matter of 3 months. .

    But such high rates last time were anomalous; caused largely by a greedy govt trying to keep the pound at an artificailly high level against the shadow Euro.

    Too many people have too much mortgage debt to allow it to happen again. It's fashionable to think Govts don't listen - they do, just not necessarily to what we as individuals have to say but the lumpen proletariat MEW'd up to the eyes.

    And there's Hamish's point that, if things really are as bad as the 30's, look how long interest rates stayed low after that.

    Ask yourself, what will push up (mortgage) interest rates much over 6% in the next 5 years?
  • Graham_Devon
    Graham_Devon Posts: 58,560 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    andykn wrote: »
    But such high rates last time were anomalous; caused largely by a greedy govt trying to keep the pound at an artificailly high level against the shadow Euro.

    And 4.7% SVR's are normal are they?
  • chucky
    chucky Posts: 15,170 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    And 4.7% SVR's are normal are they?

    from my other example even mortgage rates up to about 7% isn't that bad is it?
  • mewbie_2
    mewbie_2 Posts: 6,058 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    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.
  • Thrugelmir
    Thrugelmir Posts: 89,546 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    chucky wrote: »
    this is what i am saying

    1991 Average House Price = £53,635, 14% Mortgage rate - it was actually a couple of % higher
    Interest Repayment was £626 a month on 1991 average salary (however you'd like to calculate it - median, mode, mean)

    2009 Average House Price = £154,066 , 4.64% Average SVR
    Interest Repayment is £595.72 a month on today's average salary (however you'd like to calculate it - median, mode, mean)
    http://www.moneyextra.com/dictionary/interest-rate-history-003455.html

    i appreciate that this doesn't include capital repayment - mortgage affordability is better now than the early 1980s and 1990s, buying a house is a different story...

    You have to allow for capital repayment to be meaningful.

    Have median wages increased in the same ratio as house prices in the same timeframe ? I suspect not, as the average household with a mortgage does not have a household income of £45k in2009 , compared to £15k in 1991.
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
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.9K 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.