Homeowners are in for a drop in prices in next year’s first half

Really2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There were only 509,090 recorded deaths in total in England and Wales in 2008 !

So I think that you've exaggerated your point slightly.

Go back 25 years and add them together to get my point. You cant base it on one year can you.

Sorry their are 100,000's of children who lose a parent / parents before the age of 25.

I still stand by the point, if death rates are the same for that period I think it would be more than likely 100,000 + children under the age of 25 would have lost a parent in 12,700,000 deaths(around 25 years of death).
Also some under 25's receive inherritance from grand parents also so the point is even more valid.
Thanks

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

I'm not sure if I'm reading it wrong, but other threads indicate inflation isn't falling ?

Fell less than forecast.
Was 1.8% Forecast was 1.4%

It is now 1.6% so a 0.2% fall.

the_ash_and_the_oak

Really2 wrote: »

I agree in part but again it is a could.

My problem about the STR point is the STR people would have been very bearish on property.
Why would they have flooded back after less than 20% falls.

Also why would some one with an STR fund be more likely to buy than someone who as 40% + deposit from inheritance? They are still at threat from job security and inflation (but inflation is still falling & inflation would possibly be good for assets if it happened)

On a 500k house a 20% fall in exchange for <2 years renting is a good deal imo (the 20% overall figures are an average also, would be plenty above and below that)

not totally convinced about inheritance - think its more likely realized cash from still alive parents wanting to help out than dead parents imo

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

Fell less than forecast.
Was 1.8% Forecast was 1.4%

It is now 1.6% so a 0.2% fall.

Yes, got this one completely wrong

So why does everything seem more expensive:mad:

Really2

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

not totally convinced about inheritance - think its more likely realized cash from still alive parents wanting to help out than dead parents imo

I agree, the point I am trying to make is that 40% deposits could still be the same in numbers of transactions.
They just now make up a higher percentage.
Due to the "low tranaction levels" we always here about.

the high deposit people will always be the last to leave the market as they are in the strongest position and are unlikely to be forced out.

The inheritance point is that the numbers of people gaining inheritance does not really fall or rise drastically. So around the same number of people each year may be looking to invest inheritance, as a percentage of the market this would show as an increase as people with no / lower deposits drop out.

Thrugelmir

This was the logic of a couple of friends of mine a while back. They had an elderly relative living with them that had died. They had extended their ordinary 3 bed semi to accomadate her. No mortgage.

At the time they reckoned that they could net around £340k from selling their property. Icelandic banks were offering 6%plus on deposits. (remember those heady days? ).

As they can both retire themselves in around 5 years. They thought why not sell up.

On £340k they would receive a gross income of around £20k a year. Net around £16k. Though they could progressively put the capital into ISA's.

They could rent a smaller 3 bed property for around £800 pm. Which meant that at least £7k per annum could be invested back into a pension plan which would offset higher rate tax on the interest. All without costing them a penny.

The reason for renting is that wanted to travel when they retire.

Then the crash hit.......... Property never sold.

Really2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There were only 509,090 recorded deaths in total in England and Wales in 2008 !

So I think that you've exaggerated your point slightly.

OK have the stats for 2004
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8986

If you use 15-54YO 38,782 died

Even if you use 25-54 YO 35,588 Died

Using the lower figure (35,588) over 25 years that tells you up to 889,700 children under the age of 25 most probably lost a parent.

So it is certain of the current batch off 0-25 year old's more than 100,000 of them would have lost at least 1 parent unfortunatley. It is likely to be nearer to 500,000 not 100,000.

the_ash_and_the_oak

Really2 wrote: »

I agree, the point I am trying to make is that 40% deposits could still be the same in numbers of transactions.
They just now make up a higher percentage.
Due to the "low tranaction levels" we always here about.

agree w this. think higher deposit people are making up a larger percentage of current buyers - imo - in a functioning market lower deposit people who couldnt meet close to asking price would offer lower amounts, are now not offering at all as they cannot raise the funds. it is not simply a question of reducing the price to attract this section of the market, they are not able to offer less, they are not able to offer at all

Thrugelmir

Really2 wrote: »

OK have the stats for 2004
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8986

If you use 15-54YO 38,782 died

Even if you use 25-54 YO 35,588 Died

Using the lower figure (35,588) over 25 years that tells you up to 889,700 children under the age of 25 most probably lost a parent.

So it is certain of the current batch off 0-25 year old's more than 100,000 of them would have lost at least 1 parent unfortunatley. It is likely to be nearer to 500,000 not 100,000.

I don't disagree. My comment was made in the context that the effect of inheritance monies on FTB's is very small. As for the past 25 years of LTV's being at the lowest 83% and nearer an average 90%. Have suddenly FTB's suddenly managed to raise 25% average deposits.

On current prices thats a £60k average deposit plus all the costs of purchasing etc.

This is also in the context of rising unemployment and wage freezes. So not normal market conditions.

Really2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I Have suddenly FTB's suddenly managed to raise 25% average deposits.

No that's our point, the number of high deposit FTB's is most probably the same numericaly but your main stay of buyers with less than 10% deposit can not buy at all.

example

100 people have 0-10% deposit
30 have 10-25%
10 have 25%+

If you got rid of the 100 0-10% (like the current market)
How would that effect the average deposit?
Also no one as actually changed what their deposit is have they.

Anyone with less than 10% deposit can not enter the market, so that in itself pushes up the average FTB deposit to over 10%.