House Waiting Lists between 10 and 33 YEARS

Emy1501

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Which is still supply and demand. In this case demand from investors, versus O/O, but still an excess of demand meeting restricted supply.



Banks stopped lending because their source of funding froze up due to the global financial crisis. Not because they were lending at high multiples.

In fact, the CML stats show that the average mortgage at peak was less than 3.5 times income for FTB's, and it has dropped to 3 times income today.

Now that the crash is over, UK banks have already started to re-issue RMBS, and this will only increase. Funding for new lending has increased almost every month this year.

But actually this thread is not about whether or not prices will rise.

The point that is being made is that if you accept supply and demand is a major factor in HPI, then surely you have to accept that capping prices, through mortgage lending limits or otherwise, will require the limited stock of housing to be rationed in a way other than price.

Like waiting lists.

This the reference to the 33 year social housing waiting list. It wouldn't be that bad, at first anyway, but how quickly would the list build if everyone could afford a home?

Banks never stopped lending! they stopped lending to people who were a poor risk! 100% mortgages did not stop till April 2008 and 90% mortgages have been able throughout the banking crisis. What banks did is what they are still doing now only lending to worthwhile credit risks. This will not change for years to come. Rates may become more competitive but that will be it.

As for capping mortgage lending I dont agree with it the above is enough for me. As I say there are 800K empty houses and with slowing or stopping HPI the desire to use property as an investment will slow meaning property becoming more affordable for home ownership. To be honest most who want to buy are not interest in social housing and whilst you suggest there is a 33 year waiting list the many seemed to be housed at the moment in one way or another.

PasturesNew

treliac wrote: »

Oh, that strikes me as sad ...... there's only one pillow on the double bed ........ ?

Welcome to my world ...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Emy1501 wrote: »

As I say there are 800K empty houses and with slowing or stopping HPI the desire to use property as an investment will slow meaning property becoming more affordable for home ownership. .

OK, I'm going to leave you with some facts to ponder......

In 2007, the number of properties available for sale in the UK was just over one million. Today it is only 640,000.

In that same timeframe, Nationwide estimate that 250,000 new households were formed every year. But from memory only around 150,000 houses were built in 2007, 80,000 in 2008, and we'll be lucky if it's 80,000 in 2009.

So 750,000 new households formed, and just 310,000 new houses added to the total housing stock. Leaving a shortfall of 440,000 houses.

Unsurprisingly, that shortfall of 440,000 houses is almost exactly the same number we have seen in the reduction of houses for sale in the UK over the same timeframe. From just over one million, to 640,000 today.

Which is of course not to say that all new households buy a house, some if not most, will go into rented, but the people they replace in rented will buy. And the opacity of rental stock monitoring means the place we will see a squeeze first, is the house for sale market.

As for your 800K empty houses theory.... In actuality, less than 50% are empty for more than 6 months, and even then due only to probate, refurbishment, etc. The rest are either derelict, holiday houses, second homes, or just in the wrong place to be useful. Like the 1600 houses The Times recently reported were empty in caithness and sutherland, which does no good to you looking for a house in London.

But regardless, those homes mostly are not for sale, we know the number of homes for sale, and it's 640,000. And reducing by over 100,000 a year... So what use are those 800,000 empty homes to you???

Given that the empties are not available, the most recent report on the subject estimated that todays shortfall of homes was 1 million. And based on UN estimates for population growth, we need another 2 million by 2020. Odds of 3 million houses being built in 11 years? Zero.

If houses were more affordable, more people would be able to afford them, thus driving up demand yet further, but with price limits in place, how would you ration them? Nobody has yet answered this question.

Emy1501

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

OK, I'm going to leave you with some facts to ponder......

In 2007, the number of properties available for sale in the UK was just over one million. Today it is only 640,000.

In that same timeframe, Nationwide estimate that 250,000 new households were formed every year. But from memory only around 150,000 houses were built in 2007, 80,000 in 2008, and we'll be lucky if it's 80,000 in 2009.

So 750,000 new households formed, and just 310,000 new houses added to the total housing stock. Leaving a shortfall of 440,000 houses.

Unsurprisingly, that shortfall of 440,000 houses is almost exactly the same number we have seen in the reduction of houses for sale in the UK over the same timeframe. From just over one million, to 640,000 today.

Which is of course not to say that all new households buy a house, some if not most, will go into rented, but the people they replace in rented will buy. And the opacity of rental stock monitoring means the place we will see a squeeze first, is the house for sale market.

As for your 800K empty houses theory.... In actuality, less than 50% are empty for more than 6 months, and even then due only to probate, refurbishment, etc. The rest are either derelict, holiday houses, second homes, or just in the wrong place to be useful. Like the 1600 houses The Times recently reported were empty in caithness and sutherland, which does no good to you looking for a house in London.

But regardless, those homes mostly are not for sale, we know the number of homes for sale, and it's 640,000. And reducing by over 100,000 a year... So what use are those 800,000 empty homes to you???

The numbers of houses for sale are down from 2007 due to people not wanting to sell. Buyer numbers are well down from 2007. Completed sales pr are about a 3rd of that of 2007. If there is such limited suppy as you suggest why isn't everything on the market selling?

As for the empty homes even if you take the figure as 400K then these are still homes doing nothing and most likely to be owned by speculators. Also some will be empty due to not being repossessed to help governemnt targets. The house next to mine has been empty for 8 months now the lenders how now only just turned up to find out where the owners are. I had to explain that they moved out 8 months ago what have they been doing?

As for what use are they to me none to be honest but my point is at the moment everybody is being housed whether by ownership or in rented and therefore I do not think social housing will have any real effect on prices as I dont think people who apply for social housing really have any intention to buy not in my area anyway. If the homeless are an issue then the government could force empty homeowners to do something about their empty homes ie by taxing them at a very high rate. I suspect many of these homes could be turned into places to house the homeless as could many empty commercial building.

Anyway time will tell.

tesuhoha

A few months ago i saw a homeless man being interviewed on the news. The reporter asked him why he didn't put his name down for a council house. He replied that he was on the list but he had been told he had to wait 70 years.

treliac

Emy1501 wrote: »

If there is such limited suppy as you suggest why isn't everything on the market selling?

And with that simple question, Emy, you have clinched the argument! :starmod:

Sorry, Hamish, there's really no more to be said on the subject.

Shakethedisease

If houses were more affordable, more people would be able to afford them, thus driving up demand yet further, but with price limits in place, how would you ration them? Nobody has yet answered this question.

Do it like social housing. House goes up for sale, people 'bid' up to the limit, house allocated to the most 'suitable buyer' ie 4 bed house to family with 5 kids, 1 bed flat to singles/couples, working in area etc etc.. Independent body to oversee. A 'points' system if you like..

As for supply and demand and why houses cost more in London, less in Glasgow... or more in the West end of Glasgow as opposed to Easterhouse, Possilpark etc.. that's down to pure pyschology, not financial. There are posh areas, and there are crap areas to live.. we all want to live in the posher areas.

I think that covers it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

treliac wrote: »

And with that simple question, Emy, you have clinched the argument! :starmod:

Sorry, Hamish, there's really no more to be said on the subject.

:rolleyes:

Surely even you understand that if we keep forming 100000 more households a year than we build houses, eventually there will be no spare houses left?

It obviously is not going to happen overnight, despite Emy's oversimplistic assertion to the contrary.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Do it like social housing. House goes up for sale, people 'bid' up to the limit, house allocated to the most 'suitable buyer' ie 4 bed house to family with 5 kids, 1 bed flat to singles/couples, working in area etc etc.. Independent body to oversee. A 'points' system if you like..

I think that covers it.

So you advocate the socialisation of all housing stock.

Waiting lists, rationed housing, and eventually the same mess we face with current social houses. 33 year waiting lists.

Uh huh...:rolleyes:

treliac

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Surely even you understand that if we keep forming 100000 more households a year than we build houses, eventually there will be no spare houses left?

Then we're going to have to face up to the fact that we've got this thing called Society all wrong.

And what do you mean by 'even you'? Do you think I'm some sort of thickie, left in the wake of your intelligence?