house prices continue to drop ....

IveSeenTheLight

des_cartes wrote: »

The money has run out. No FTB's = no housing market. It happens in all pyramid selling scams.

Yet according to the CML, FTBers still account for 34% of property purchases
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/2705

According to this link Understanding First Time Buyers they were at 29% in 2004
IIRC the long term averave percentage of transactions was 38% were FTBers.

Granted 34% is a decline on Junes 38%, but I don;t get too hung up on individual monthly statistics. I prefer to see a wider perspective.

Interesting to see that according to http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/2705, FTBers are spending only 13.2% of their income on mortgage interest.

des_cartes

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Yet according to the CML, FTBers still account for 34% of property purchases
http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/2705

According to this link Understanding First Time Buyers they were at 29% in 2004
IIRC the long term averave percentage of transactions was 38% were FTBers.

Granted 34% is a decline on Junes 38%, but I don;t get too hung up on individual monthly statistics. I prefer to see a wider perspective.

Interesting to see that according to http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/2705, FTBers are spending only 13.2% of their income on mortgage interest.

Your selective statistics do not take account of the fact that house purchases are half the number they were before the crash. I'm sure you will understand that 34% of half is less than 29% in absolute terms. I would also suggest that those ftb's who are able to buy at 2010 prices are earning above average incomes and the correlation is therefore that less of their income is going on mortgage interest.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Interesting to see that according to http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/2705, FTBers are spending only 13.2% of their income on mortgage interest.

I'm more baffled as to where all the money comes from.

Deposits gone up to 35%. It's as if when deposit requirements go up, FTB's just offer more "just like that" from their magic money piggy bank.

Of course, these figures only count those FTB's who can actually afford it.

The figures seem to suggest that on average, these FTB's are taking out a 124k mortgage, with a 35% deposit, therefore, these FTB's seem to be buying a property just above the average property price in the UK.

Therefore, I can only assume these FTB's are pretty wealthy. They'd have to be to be offering 35% deposits and be paying only 13% of their income on the interest payments.

Unfortunately, these sort of figures mask the true picture. Yes, the figures are correct, but cannot be used as a measure of any sort of affordability, as they will exlcude so many potential FTB's priced out of the market, and only concentrate on those wealthy FTB's buying properties that are even above the average property price in the UK as their first home.

I therefore, conclude, that many of these people are people moving back from other countries, people who have been out of the market for 6 months and so on.

If it's true FTB's, it's some seriously wealthy FTB's.

des_cartes

FTBFun wrote: »

So true. Except for me. Oh and 3 of my friends. And two of my work colleagues.

Thats nice. You will be able to brainstorm the solution to negative equity in a rising interest rate environment with them in a couple of years then. I'm pleased to hear your not alone.

the_flying_pig

smamst wrote: »

Desperation really, if you say something time and time again no matter how full of !!!! it is you actually believe it in the end, alas that is poor Hamish.

today's Daily Heil has a take on Hamish's "HPI is good for the vast majority of people" statement.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314121/Parents-want-house-price-FALL-help-children-property-ladder.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

System

des_cartes wrote: »

Your selective statistics do not take account of the fact that house purchases are half the number they were before the crash. I'm sure you will understand that 34% of half is less than 29% in absolute terms. I would also suggest that those ftb's who are able to buy at 2010 prices are earning above average incomes and the correlation is therefore that less of their income is going on mortgage interest.

I'm sure you'll understand that 34% is higher than the 0% you insinuated in your earlier post.

This post is also irrelevant to your initial point that without FTBers people can't trade up even if they can afford to.

JonnyBravo

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As to the point about the blatantness of the character, I could reel off a number of sock pupeet characters in this forum. Best not to let them get to you.

Just like you don't let dirk rambo get to you eh?
:roll eyes:

des_cartes

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I'm sure you'll understand that 34% is higher than the 0% you insinuated in your earlier post.

Coming from someone who attempted to claim 34% of half is greater than 29% thats rich.

This post is also irrelevant to your initial point that without FTBers people can't trade up even if they can afford to.

I take it from the above you now accept that there are fewer ftb;s (about half) than there were before the crash? If there are half the number of ftb's it follows that half the number of people who were trading up before the crash can now not trade up because there are half the ftb's to 'kick off' the chain. Why are there fewer ftb's , because houses are to expensive, why is it more difficult to trade uo, because there are too few ftb's. See the link?

System

des_cartes wrote: »

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I'm sure you'll understand that 34% is higher than the 0% you insinuated in your earlier post.

This post is also irrelevant to your initial point that without FTBers people can't trade up even if they can afford to.

I take it from the above you now accept that there are fewer ftb;s (about half) than there were before the crash? If there are half the number of ftb's it follows that half the number of people who were trading up before the crash can now not trade up because there are half the ftb's to 'kick off' the chain. Why are there fewer ftb's , because houses are to expensive, why is it more difficult to trade uo, because there are too few ftb's. See the link?

I now accept there are fewer FTB's? I must be confused but I was pretty sure it was you who was initially confused about the numbers. I'm perfectly aware of what the numbers are like, little thing called research, try it sometime.

So, to summarise, first of all you claim there are no FTB's, now you're saying that there are far less, and that's the sole reason why transaction volumes are so low?

Note to lemonjelly again: NOW do you see? How much does a sane person have to take?

des_cartes

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I now accept there are fewer FTB's? I must be confused but I was pretty sure it was you who was initially confused about the numbers. I'm perfectly aware of what the numbers are like, little thing called research, try it sometime.

So, to summarise, first of all you claim there are no FTB's, now you're saying that there are far less, and that's the sole reason why transaction volumes are so low?

Note to lemonjelly again: NOW do you see? How much does a sane person have to take?

Transactions are low because asking prices from sellers remain based upon the lending criteria in existence before the crash. That lending criteria has now changed and is changing further (see Lord Turner/Daily Telegraph thread) which will mean that property prices will have to fall to a level compatable with what people can borrow from now on. Some ftb's have bought in the past couple of years but these have generally been those with a large deposit (either saved or bank of m&d) or those with above average incomes + a few using liar loans before they became unavailable. FTB's with average incomes remain generally priced out of the market except in areas where house prices are below average.