FTB's "Missing Deal Of A Lifetime"

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

aren't they allowed to rent?

but anyway... age has nothing to with it - the average of FTBs is basically the same as it was 20 years ago. this was explained to you just yesterday on this very thread...

and so it begins... 20 pages of explaining to graham what was just explained to him yesterday...

Chucky, stop being an idiot.

To suggest all FTB's can simply buy a starter home is nothing more than ignorance. Fine, if you are starting out, but by the age of 30, many have something called families.

DervProf

chucky wrote: »

i'll explain.

there's a bit more to interest rates mechanics than UK house prices - the BOE makes decisons on interest rates reltated to the economy not so that Willy from Walsal on £12k a year can afford to buy a 3 bed room house .

Again, true.......

The BoE made decisons on interest rates so that Willy from Walsall on £12k a year can`t afford to buy a 3 bed room house .

chucky

DervProf wrote: »

True, it isn`t just about house prices. However, I have a hunch that when the BoE meet to discuss the setting of the base rate, they are more concerned about house prices than they let on. Only a few years ago, at the peak of the boom, they stated several times that when it comes to setting the rate, they don`t concern themselves with the property market, they were targetting CPI, which doesn`t include the cost of property buying/renting. I said at the time that they were backing themselves into a corner, because their actions were doing nothing to stop rapid HPI, and once house prices became too high, they would have a big problem to deal with.

I suppose the argument against increasing the base rate that many will put forward is to help businesses. I think the real reason that the BoE will resist any rise in IR is because of the effect it will have on the heavily indebted public. No doubt a 1% rise in rates will not help some businesses, but it would have a far greater effect on the property market. I don`t think a small business with a modest amount of debt would be too troubled by a small increase in the cost of their overdraft, it`s the effect on their customer`s that would be a bigger problem.

i'm not so sure it's just that... there's much more to it.

increasing or lowering interest rates makes the cost of the £ cheaper or more expensive. it allows fluctuations in currency exchange rates that help imports or even exports whichever way interest rates are moved. this determines many economic indicators.

house prices are a factor in interest rate decisions - they are not near the top of that list of priorities. general debt level maybe but not house prices.

julieq

It's perfectly possible to make money gambling on horses. William Hill does it. It just requires the ability to understand and manage risk. In fact many professional gamblers make money on the the other side of the divide. In somewhat more conventional terms, anyone running a small business is making money from investments which is gambling too, the hope is that the return outweighs the risk. And so on up the entire spectrum of investments.

The reason why punters tend not to win is that they rely on personal conviction, and they don't look at the whether the odds of a win outweigh the chances of a loss. Absolute fact. -EDIT] And punting on a share is no worse or better than punting on a horse, which comes to mind when reading back through the thread. It's essentially a matter of luck whether you win, but if a market is ramping you'll have a good chance of average returns.

I'm sorry but if your entire life strategy revolves around stuffing money into a savings account and minimising risk, you're going to be left behind by people who do introduce some level of risk into their lives. Stamping your feet and calling for moral rewards for prudence isn't going to change that.

Oh, and if a profit isn't a profit until its realised, by the same token a loss isn't a loss. Different accounting standards may apply.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

I'm sorry but if your entire life strategy revolves around stuffing money into a savings account and minimising risk, you're going to be left behind by people who do introduce some level of risk into their lives. Stamping your feet and calling for moral rewards for prudence isn't going to change that.

Strange world though isn't it. Without savers, the whole system would break down.

But if we ignore that, then you are probably correct.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Chucky, stop being an idiot.

great response. this is the best bit about you Devon - you hate being wrong

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To suggest all FTB's can simply buy a starter home is nothing more than ignorance. Fine, if you are starting out, but by the age of 30, many have something called families.

you said this below which isn't true and i've corrected you...

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not true anymore.

With the age of FTB's being into the 30's, many require something more than the starter home.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To suggest all FTB's can simply buy a starter home is nothing more than ignorance. Fine, if you are starting out, but by the age of 30, many have something called families.

FTB's are basically the same age as they were 20 years ago... were FTB requirements any different 20 years ago or something?

Table 537 Housing market: distribution of borrowers' ages, by new/other dwellings and type of buyer, United Kingdom, from 1990 
 
    Average
    age
 
First time buyers    
1990    33
1991    31
1992    32
1993    32
1994    32
1995    31
1996    31
1997    32
1998    32
1999    32
2000    33
2001    34
2002    33
2003    31
2004    33
2005    32
2006    31
2007    31
2008    32
[B]2009    32[/B]

Orpheo

chucky wrote: »

nice work - you got to love the standard issue house deposits that people feel the need to boast about on this forum. did it make you feel better telling me and the rest of the forum about the significant savings deposit that you 'have'?

It wasn't really meant to come across like that, but I can see how it might. It was more to emphasise that I have nothing to gain, which was what you asserted in your post.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

great response. this is the best bit about you Devon - you hate being wrong

you said this below which isn't true and i've corrected you...

As I have already stated, your figures include those who have been out of the market for 6 months.

They mean nothing in the context we are speaking of. You do seem to have a terrible problem with something called "Context".

If you REALLY want to discuss this properly, than I am quite happy to do so....and I will bring the difference in starter homes now, and in 1990 into the mix.

chucky

DervProf wrote: »

Again, true.......

The BoE made decisons on interest rates so that Willy from Walsall on £12k a year can`t afford to buy a 3 bed room house .

and that's how it should be - Willy from Walsall on £12k a year shouldn't be able to get a self-cert mrotgage to get his 10x income mortgage

chucky

Orpheo wrote: »

It wasn't really meant to come across like that, but I can see how it might. It was more to emphasise that I have nothing to gain, which was what you asserted in your post.

i know Orpheo

you're a good lad really