Crashers get ready with those big deposits!

neverdespairgirl

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I fully accept we were fortunate to have parents who could help us skip a rung on the ladder, or buy a year or so earlier than we would have been able to do otherwise.


Millions of people have parents able and willing to do the same. And millions presumably don't.

And quite a few of us might well have parents who could do the same, but think that as we are all grown up we should look after ourselves, rather than withdrawing from the cashmachine of Mum and Dad?

IveSeenTheLight

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

4 bed for £320k? Sweetie, you must live in a very deprived area.

Not necessarily, you need to think outside the box NDG.
There are plenty of properties around the country, fresh air, peaceful living that you can get nice 4 bed properties for less than £325k

http://www-r.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/282867?ID=FGKOMPLC#picture

http://www-r.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/283255?ID=FGKOMPLC#picture

http://www-r.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/282336?ID=FGKOMPLC#picture

http://www-r.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/282314?ID=FGKOMPLC#picture

http://www-r.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/281667?ID=FGKOMPLC#picture

http://www-r.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/280527?ID=FGKOMPLC#picture

And there are loads more.

You can even get a nice 4 bed knocking almost £100k of the £320k
http://www-r.aspc.co.uk/cgi-bin/public/LiveProperty/281203?ID=FGKOMPLC#picture

neverdespairgirl

I wasn't being entirely serious, you know!

dopester

michaels wrote: »

In the long run?

I agree with Hamish, demand will outstrip supply and as incomes rise the proportion of income people are willing to spend on housing will increase as other essentials as a share of income tend to fall, due to improved productivity (I guess peak oil, peak food, hollowing out/job export/globablisation could change this historic trend but I don't think they are powerful enough forces yet). Hence in the long term being leveraged in to the market will be a winner on average - although there will be those for whom it doesn't work out if they are forced to sell into a short term dip.

Demand alone doesn't cause house prices to rise.

Your argument mostly depends on incomes rising, rather than demand itself causing house prices to rise / not fall.

You're also mixing in costs of other things (food / transport - other essentials) falling, due to "increased productivity" so people have more to spend buying houses.

I'm very doubtful about all that (deflation), even though evidence around me is of friends recently getting some tasty pay-rises.

Others businesses must be finding things increasingly very challenging.

The conclusion to be reached after 10 years of madcap lending is that house prices are not a function of demand, but are simply a function of how much money the lenders are willing, and able, to advance. And how much qualifying borrowers are willing to borrow. Almost everything else is immaterial.

dopester

michaels wrote: »

Since April 10 I would say prices back down by 10% starting at the bottom/middle market but now even hitting the 1m plus homes.

However once sentiment that it is a buyers market becomes established again, supply will again fall - already there is lots of 'extensions' going on that might otherwise be trading up.

At what point the reduction in supply will shift the balance back from buyers to sellers I am not sure.

As I have often stated, for buyers sentiment is key - if it appears that they can purchase a property on the market now or wait a bit for the price to fall or another one to come on for less then waiting makes sense. It was the reverse last summer (09), almost nothing was coming on as sellers had not yet cottoned on to the fact it was a very strong market and buyers were feeling that if they didn't take what was available they would have to pay more for the next one.

This suggests to me that the market could move very quickly to much lower volumes and prices and then see another, probably more gradual, recovery.

An interesting theory which seems to make sense. A tightening from sellers being unprepared to accept selling their homes if prices fall to a certain point... either refusing to lower their asking prices any lower, or remove their property off the market. To put the brakes on supply and force buyers to meet a certain price support level.

I just don't agree with it, and don't think we'll see a repeat of 2009, with prices rising significantly back from 2008 drops, after so many measures were thrown into the effort to support house prices.

More likely I think such sellers, in sufficient number will eventually be ground down by the reality of the market and the very real difficulties within economy proper. With values falling more towards what a larger pool of buyers can more comfortably afford.

IveSeenTheLight

dopester wrote: »

Demand alone doesn't cause house prices to rise.

Your argument mostly depends on incomes rising, rather than demand itself causing house prices to rise / not fall.
.

I don't think it does necessarily depend on incomes rising or falling.
That would be the case if the equilibrium between supply and demand were maintained.
However as demand rises, without a proportional increase in available properties, the percentile of people who can afford property reduces, meaning that only the higher earners are taken into consideration to be home owners.

dopester

I understand what you're saying ISTL, and that makes a certain sort of sense too.

That sort of imbalance, doesn't seem like it would create a healthy or safe society to me.

Not one which is conducive to house price stability. Where it's just the highest earners who can afford property. The elite.

Or into renting from established elite.

With bones with no meat on them, thrown to the lower paid. Schemes trying to lull lower income people into taking on a lot more debt for housing in pretty naff areas. I'd rather have the 3-bed £70K (overpriced) maisonette in the same area.

I can't stand all these schemes to try and encourage people to overpay and take on more debt, and fear values will correct for many lured into them - more so depending on the area - by the force of economic necessities.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-1307916/Makeover-Basildon-sink-estate-247million-facelift.html#comments

dopester

Your "regional variations" (or whatever you call it) also must be a significant factor to consider ISTL. I'm not entirely knowledgeable about your area, but it seems to have a lot more going for it than some other areas.

This guy, London based, can't even get a tenant for his "cheap" investment - including any on benefits. And I'm seeing signs of people feeling encouraged to move because of cut-backs looming in their own areas... including free school buses. Fewer people will want to live in declining areas of opportunity.

When I started off in property investment I thought my only problem would be dodgy tenants. Although I have not been caught out by these NMD deals, I have been caught by other offers. One e.g. = buying a cheap property in County Durham, via Property Investment 4U. Despite being upgraded with gas & central heating & some internal redecoration, that property has been empty for 12+ months. I used a solicitor and everything. The property was evaluated. At no time was it pointed out by anyone that the area was blighted with empty properties - desperately iin need of regeneration in fact. WIth the benefit of hindsight I know that I should have attempted to do some independent research from London. But I trusted!

http://propertytribes.ning.com/forum/topics/singing-pig?id=2886658%3ATopic%3A55625&page=7#comments

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You're so full of drivel today I'm surprised you can type it all....

Of course a smaller place would have been suitable. We didn't need to buy the size of place we did, (a large detached) as evidenced by the fact we bought a much smaller and cheaper one a few years ago which we now live in.

Sure, it's a nice house, and indeed it is well out of the range of most FTB's today. Just as it was then. But had we not had a gift we would have been quite happy to buy a smaller place.

You seem to be making the assertion that only a large detached house in a nice area is suitable for FTB's. Because that is what we bought.....

Obviously, it's a bonkers argument, and I'm surprised you've been suckered into making such a credibility destroying assertion, just to attack me.

Ah well....



We had 15% interest rates..... We had it MUCH harder than the young of today.

As repeatedly proven by the data showing buyers today spend less of their income on mortgage repayments than our generation did, by a long shot.



Did that, 3 years ago. Didn't use 'equity', just saved up a deposit and bought.

:rotfl:

This is hilarious.

"Yeah but no but yeah but no... I would have bought somewhere I didnt want, er but I didnt want it, so I got my parents to pay for a LARGE DETACHED HOUSE, but er yeah but, no and, and, everyone else should just suck it up and do what I didnt do, but er, I would have er, if my parents hadnt paid..., and er, interest rates were really high so it was hard, except obviously not for me because mum bailed me out and and..."

:rotfl::rotfl:

Sibley

I wasn't being entirely serious, you know!

I'm dying to ask you something but I can't. I'll get banned. :rotfl:


I'll have to put it in cryptic form.


Maybe I'm thick but I always think women who post on housing crash threads are........


Clue... They have something in common with:

• KD Lang
• Virginia wade
• Pat Butcher off Eastenders
• Sam Fox

Please put my mind at rest and tell me it's not true.:)