Most are Priced out, will it ever change?

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucky wrote: »

maybe - but i think the frequency of people moving in the last few years has been increased by the credit availability and portability of these lending products. something that had never really been available.

Yes - I'm not sure on this one - greater frequency of moves does need hpi imo, but if it doesn't imply greater numbers of moves it does imply greater periods of time spent at lower rungs of ladders (given the additional rungs will be at the bottom of a ladder not the middle or top)

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucky wrote: »

that would imply that anyone who bought from 2000/2001 would be screwed too - i don't think so.

I don't really agree with this - its easy to forget how long periods of either low or high rates can exist for. The posters point to me suggests a person borrowing at low rates and then rates go up is in trouble - but obv if you borrowed at low rates and they didnt really go up for 10 years you wouldn't be in trouble! similarly someone who borrows at high rates which don't really come down for 10 years isn't really in the money either imo.

chucky

ThrowingStonesAtYou wrote: »

I was over simplifying, it is an issue of risk, risk has been very low in the past but is very high now. If you buy now and rates stay low then you should be ok, however if they rise shortly after you take out a mortgage, you are going to be screwed unless you took out a small mortgage relative to your earnings (which lets face it, a lot of people don't).

rates will go up in the future, it's a given - will it happen in 1/2/3 years? we can't be sure. if you take a mortgage and it's not a 5 year fixed, you are taking a massive risk - it's their choice.

over-paying when rates are low is the most important thing - if you don't take advantage of low rates, again you're taking a massive risk.

olly300

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

now this is an interesting point. but what would this mean for owners of flats wishing to trade up?

Some of the older people I've met and know have brought flats after their families have grown up, and sold their houses. They didn't want the hassle of the up keep of a big house. Lots of them also don't want ground floor flats for security reasons.

I only know this because they are the people who have taken parcels in for me during the day.

abaxas

olly300 wrote: »

Some of the older people I've met and know have brought flats after their families have grown up, and sold their houses. They didn't want the hassle of the up keep of a big house. Lots of them also don't want ground floor flats for security reasons.

I only know this because they are the people who have taken parcels in for me during the day.

Lots want ground floor flats as they find stairs difficult.

olly300

abaxas wrote: »

Lots want ground floor flats as they find stairs difficult.

Strange as it may seem there are plenty of healthy older people around. Remember women still retire at 60 at the moment.

Some people are healthy enough to climb a flight of stairs until they drop dead. And I'm talking about my own relatives and neighbours, who have been alive one day and dead the next.

Most of the people I know who complain of difficulty climbing stairs or have mobility problems are actually much younger than retirement age.

Graham_Devon

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

If over the last few decades houses have become increasingly unaffordable does anyone know why owner-occupancy stats rose during the same timeframe?

Shared ownership allows people to be owners, but they are not actually owners of a full house.

Right to buy has allowed people in council homes to buy the home with a massive deposit given to them, which has depleted the council stock and turned them into owners.

There are a few things that have changed to allow people to "own" easier, which will no doubt have some impact on the uprising figures, but won't be all of it granted. But I do feel we have to be very careful when looking at figures over so many years, as the figures, when looked at, may not actually add up in the end. On paper it works. I'm an owner. But I can't afford to own.

the_ash_and_the_oak

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Shared ownership allows people to be owners, but they are not actually owners of a full house.

Right to buy has allowed people in council homes to buy the home with a massive deposit given to them, which has depleted the council stock and turned them into owners.

There are a few things that have changed to allow people to "own" easier, which will no doubt have some impact on the uprising figures, but won't be all of it granted. But I do feel we have to be very careful when looking at figures over so many years, as the figures, when looked at, may not actually add up in the end. On paper it works. I'm an owner. But I can't afford to own.

how much of current ownership stats are really shared ownership do you think? even if we took shared ownership out of the equation imo we would still have greater owner-occupancy than in the 80s or 70s (I don't have any stats to back this up tho)

We have greater affordability of houses because a greater proportion of society have access to credit, and at a lower cost, imo

Graham_Devon

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

how much of current ownership stats are really shared ownership do you think? even if we took shared ownership out of the equation imo we would still have greater owner-occupancy than in the 80s or 70s (I don't have any stats to back this up tho)

We have greater affordability of houses because a greater proportion of society have access to credit, and at a lower cost, imo

Yer, thats what I said. It's not all of the rise granted. But add up all shared ownership and all right to buy sales, and that WILL have, without any doubt, on paper, put the number of "owners" up. I should think it will be by quite a margin too.

However, that one stat, 70% own, is used in a lot of arguments for increasing HPI. The statistics just need looking at. I don't know how many people are in shared ownership, or in a right to buy. But it's not a small enough number (as a guess) not to effect those statistics.

It's all just different ways of living, which put you on paper as an owner, but in reality, you either own a share or you have been gifted some of the house from the council and you have turned overnight from renter to owner.

That, does not relate to "well houses are obviously cheaper, more people own". It's a nugget which on it's own would make sense, but when looking into it, you actualy start seeing the problems with this one simple statistic which seems to be a favourite of Hamish's!

the_ash_and_the_oak

Graham_Devon wrote: »

However, that one stat, 70% own, is used in a lot of arguments for increasing HPI. The statistics just need looking at. I don't know how many people are in shared ownership, or in a right to buy. But it's not a small enough number (as a guess) not to effect those statistics.

its a pretty good stat imo (esp if you compare it to the fact that it was 40% at...some point or other I forget when). If 40% of a population are potential buyers and then that grows to 70% of a population thats pretty much hugely increasing demand right there (and a more convincing argument than "population is growing" imo). What happens if the upward direction on owner occupancy stats stops? Can it keep going? What would be the effect on prices if we had 80% owner occupancy in 2020? or 60%?

I don't think its a coincidence that this figure has risen alongside prices themselves