Most are Priced out, will it ever change?

Graham_Devon

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

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

I think the point has been missed.

Council stock has gone down, owner occupancy has gone up, alongisde a right to buy scheme. That's NOT "real" owners.

If the council stock was the same as it was back in the 60's/70's then the owner occupancy would not be up where it was.

If shared ownership had not come in to allow people who couldn't afford to buy, to buy, then home ownership would not be up where it is.

Focusing on "its gone from 40% to 70%" without looking at any of the reasons associated with that rise is pointless, isn't it?

The council "overnight" owners are not going to be a small number of new owners. We had a good stock of council homes, turned into private homes.

But anyway, how people want to use the stats is largely up to them

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Council stock has gone down, owner occupancy has gone up, alongisde a right to buy scheme. That's NOT "real" owners.

so what is it - renters from the local authority still?
quit the talking nonsense
, they are owners of their own property. what's wrong with someone making the most of right to buy?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If the council stock was the same as it was back in the 60's/70's then the owner occupancy would not be up where it was.

you cannot blame right to buy for owner occupier levels to have shot ,there was no spike in ownership since right to buy - the owner occupier levels still progressed upwards.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If shared ownership had not come in to allow people who couldn't afford to buy, to buy, then home ownership would not be up where it is.

so what is the level of shared ownership? any evidence to back up this point or will it be another guess that you've plucked out of the Devon air?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Focusing on "its gone from 40% to 70%" without looking at any of the reasons associated with that rise is pointless, isn't it?

another piece of Devonian economic misinformation - the last time that it was at 40% was in the early 1960s. right to buy commenced in the 1980s - so tell me again how right to buy affected these figures from 40%?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think the point has been missed.
But anyway, how people want to use the stats is largely up to them

exactly right devon - your post was full of holes that none of it was true. typical :rolleyes:

the_ash_and_the_oak

well tbf to Graham I do think right to buy is a factor (and maybe shared ownership too but less convinced about this - quite recent really - may be a factor going into future but not sure in what way yet) - but difficult to quantify how much

chucky

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

well tbf to Graham I do think right to buy is a factor (and maybe shared ownership too but less convinced about this - quite recent really - may be a factor going into future but not sure in what way yet) - but difficult to quantify how much

right to buy did not spike up owner occupier levels - it continued the increasing numbers. it made the increase a bit higher but in no way spiked it.

and tbf to Graham he is guessing that right to buy moved the numbers - he doesn't know...

IveSeenTheLight

chucky wrote: »

i don't see the "housing ladder" changing.

banks collapsing, credit being squeezed very tightly and large numbers of people being made unemployed haven't exactly made those 30% falls.

additional rungs have to be added to allow buyers to get onto it. shared ownership may have to be the solution.

On the shared ownership point.
People are looking at this as a viable option because they cannot in themselves afford to buy.
This is increasing the demand or propping up the demand if you like, but on the opposite side of the scales, what is being done to aleviate the supply.

Simply put, if a lot more properties were available then there would be the oppertunity for people to buy in their own right.

Bootski

Instead of ingoring my contribution on the thread "its back" - say something!!!!

Or are you still going roung and round and round in discussions! - on a new topic - being the same arguement. You know you lot are such a Fickle Bunch you'd let any newbie stand in the corner unnoticed

talk talk speak talk respond, stop just paying attention to eachother - that whats got you into this spirral of the same old discussions time and time and time again, year in and out. Thing change, are not NORMAL !!!!!!!!!!

IveSeenTheLight

Bootski wrote: »

Instead of ingoring my contribution on the thread "its back" - say something!!!!

I've not contributed to the thread "It's Back" because it showed up as talking about propertybee, a product which uses asking prices for it's index which in my opinion is flawed.

the_ash_and_the_oak

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Simply put, if a lot more properties were available then there would be the oppertunity for people to buy in their own right.

not sure about this - no good more properties being available if the credit to buy it with is restricted imo

Bootski

& I think MY life is unfulfilled and sad. I see you babling on about the same old arguements time and time again,,I'd like to get a word in edgeways and you take NONONONONO notice of what I have to say though its oftem more relevant to all your poxy discussions tied up in one!!!

You are dangerously fixate with eachother and this forum.

Bootski

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I've not contributed to the thread "It's Back" because it showed up as talking about propertybee, a product which uses asking prices for it's index which in my opinion is flawed.

Why? I thought this whole forum based was based on the information in got from this new tool??
EA's are screwed by this aren't they??