Average first-time buyer age to rise to 43

mystic_trev

Without parental assistance, the average age of a first-time buyer will rise to 43 years old, said the National Housing Federation, as Redrow calls for greater government assistance for novice buyers.

http://www.mortgagesolutions-online.com/mortgage-solutions/news/1732321/average-buyer-age-rise

marklv

No surprise. I would say that in many cases it will be 53! And if you have to wait until M&D move over to the big housing estate in the sky it could be 63 or higher.

JimmyTheWig

Average age of 43? Blimey.

I wonder if first-time house buying is worth it beyond that age. A 25-year mortgage would take you past retirement, for example!

chucky

Average first-time buyer age to rise to 43

it's quite simple - if you can't afford to buy dont and rent.

i can't see it getting to 43 btw

Blacklight

Another day, another random meaningless quote from someone who has no more access to a time machine than you or I.

Blacklight wrote:

Average first-time buyer age to fall to 21 by 2012

ILW

Odd that that figure comes from housebuilder Redrow, whilst asking the Government to help FTBs. If they were that concerned they could just try dropping their prices.

IveSeenTheLight

mystic_trev wrote: »

Average first-time buyer age to rise to 43
http://www.mortgagesolutions-online.com/mortgage-solutions/news/1732321/average-buyer-age-rise

What do you think is causing the FTBer age to rise?

Before you say prices, prices were higher in 2007, so hard to say it's solely down to prices.

The link gives a clue in the first three words "Without parental assistance".
This is inferring that people need larger deposits thus assistance from the parents before they can buy.

There needs to be more and better priced higher LTV products.

I don;t think there is nothing wrong with 100% mortgages, as long as there is a repayment vehicle.

If I went into my bank and asked for a loan of £5,000, I wouldn't be asked to put down a £1,000 deposit would I?

I'm pre-empting you all saying the lender want to reduce his risk, well that's what the interest rates are for. The higher the LTV, the higher the rate.

If prices were to drop, I'm sure there could be included into the small print something to ensure that all the capital needed to be repaid, regardless if the property covered the outstanding amount or not.

dopester

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

If I went into my bank and asked for a loan of £5,000, I wouldn't be asked to put down a £1,000 deposit would I?

You might be asked for some security on the loan, it it were something like £15K-£30K, I would have thought.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

What do you think is causing the FTBer age to rise?

Before you say prices, prices were higher in 2007, so hard to say it's solely down to prices.

The link gives a clue in the first three words "Without parental assistance".
This is inferring that people need larger deposits thus assistance from the parents before they can buy.

There needs to be more and better priced higher LTV products.

I don;t think there is nothing wrong with 100% mortgages, as long as there is a repayment vehicle.

If I went into my bank and asked for a loan of £5,000, I wouldn't be asked to put down a £1,000 deposit would I?

I'm pre-empting you all saying the lender want to reduce his risk, well that's what the interest rates are for. The higher the LTV, the higher the rate.

If prices were to drop, I'm sure there could be included into the small print something to ensure that all the capital needed to be repaid, regardless if the property covered the outstanding amount or not.

Higher lending just fuels higher prices.

We got to saturation point with this scenario in 2007/8.

Sure, you could get a few thousand added to house prices in the next couple of years if your ideal actually came through to fruition. But you would be at saturation point within months....not years.

Then we have to move on to 110%, 125%. More debt simply isn't the answer.

As for your loan scenario. Go buy a car with a loan. They will ask for a deposit every time, as the loan is secured on the car. Same with a mortgage. You are compaing an unsecured loan to a secured loan.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Higher lending just fuels higher prices.

We got to saturation point with this scenario in 2007/8.

I'm simply saying that you should be able to borrow up to the valuation of the property.
The property is the security.
By increasing the deposit requirements your simply just restricting the opportunity for people to own.

Now I understand if you can't afford it then you can't buy, but affordability should be based on disposable income and servicing the debt.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sure, you could get a few thousand added to house prices in the next couple of years if your ideal actually came through to fruition. But you would be at saturation point within months....not years.

Then we have to move on to 110%, 125%. More debt simply isn't the answer.

No, I would never recommend 110% or 125%.
I wouldn't even recommend shared ownership

It's not about fuelling house prices, I've said often enough inflation linked rises is fine with me.

IT's about giving more poeple the opportunity to be owners.

Restrictions only takes away some options for people to be able to own.

My first property was a 100% mortgage.
It meant I could use my savings for the fees and rennovation,
I certainly would not be in the same position as I am now without 100% mortgage, I'd be 5 years away from where I am now.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As for your loan scenario. Go buy a car with a loan. They will ask for a deposit every time, as the loan is secured on the car. Same with a mortgage. You are compaing an unsecured loan to a secured loan.

Like I said before, the security is the property and the risk is calculated into the interest rate you'd pay.

IveSeenTheLight

dopester wrote: »

You might be asked for some security on the loan, it it were something like £15K-£30K, I would have thought.

With reference to property, the property is the security.
With reference to a car loan, the car is the security.