Flamin' 'Eck, English House Prices Are Cheap.....

PasturesNew

Still all squabbling over here I see... my thread's all full of fun and jollity (Nicest house for £45k).

IveSeenTheLight

PasturesNew wrote: »

Still all squabbling over here I see... my thread's all full of fun and jollity (Nicest house for £45k).

they should merge the threads.
Your thread seems to back up the OP's point very well

chucky

PasturesNew wrote: »

Still all squabbling over here I see... my thread's all full of fun and jollity (Nicest house for £45k).

true - we're keeping the 'troublesome' types on this thread for you...

if any cause any problems just sent them over here duchess

StevieJ

ultrawomble wrote: »

Simply because if you read the definitions on the front page of the link provided by IveSeenTheLight you will see that the percentages are calculated on 'new advances to households'.


.

So those figures don't actually include the fortuitous ones that are sitting on old trackers.

ultrawomble

chucky wrote: »

despite what many frothing numpties on here may tell you or even think; base rates and mortgage rates aren't the same thing...

it would best if you compared actual mortgage rates against actual mortgage repayments to come to a sensible conclusion...

You're absolutely right. In 2005 Q3 new mortgage repayments were 39.5% of income on an average mortgage rate of 5.13% (base was ~4.5%). Forward 5 years to 2010 Q3 and new mortgage repayments were 29.7% of income on an average mortgage rate of 3.8% (base is 0.5%). That means that a drop of ~1.35% in actual mortgage rates and a monthly saving of ~10% in repayments as a percentage of income. Even more impressive is that in 2007 Q3 the portion of income was 47.7% against a mortgage rate of 5.85% (2.05% above the current rate) and a base rate of 5.75%. That can only mean one thing: property has actually become more affordable in some way. So, has income risen, or has property declined in value?

IveSeenTheLight

ultrawomble wrote: »

That can only mean one thing: property has actually become more affordable in some way. So, has income risen, or has property declined in value?

It's what we've been saying
Your still looking at the UK averages andwe've been pointing out that outside the really expensive areas, property is more affordable throughout the UK

ukcarper

the_flying_pig wrote: »

With respect that's a nonsense. There are reams of ways, including casual observation & published statistics, that show this.

The average house is, by historical standards, unusually high relative to the average wage.

What's more, I personally suspect that the 'average house' that indices measure has declined in quality somewhat... e.g.

(1) according to the Halifax index the average English house price was around £36k in lateish 1985... my parents bought their current house [4 bed detached in a so-so estate on outskirts of a medium sized townin yorkshire] for £36k roundabout that time... meaning that my parents' house was about average in 1985..

(2) today, Halifax says that the average house is worth about £160k... but I know for a fact that houses exactly like that of my parents has risen to around £250k [i think one or two went for £275k at the peak of the bubble]... meaning that my parents' house has gone from being an average one to one that's over 50% more valuable than average...

So my parents' house in 1985 cost about 5 times a working guy's annual income of say £135 a week/£7,100 a year... but now it's worth around 10 times an average working guy's annual income of £250,000. That's the truth. The indices hide a movement towards more weighting on small properties.

Well I paid £60k for my 4 bed detached in 1985 and it worth about £280k so I don't agree with your figures. But I would agree that a person on average wages would find it very hard to buy a nice 2-bed house where I live.


Also the house I sold then was a 2-bed terrace and I got £43k that’s worth about £200k now

Mr_Matey

I agree with Generali that house prices in the UK seem very affordable...



once you've been living in Sydney for a year or 2.

Cleaver

the_flying_pig wrote: »

(1) according to the Halifax index the average English house price was around £36k in lateish 1985... my parents bought their current house [4 bed detached in a so-so estate on outskirts of a medium sized townin yorkshire] for £36k roundabout that time... meaning that my parents' house was about average in 1985.

(2) today, Halifax says that the average house is worth about £160k... but I know for a fact that houses exactly like that of my parents has risen to around £250k [i think one or two went for £275k at the peak of the bubble]... meaning that my parents' house has gone from being an average one to one that's over 50% more valuable than average...

Well, you can't argue with a comprehensive and scientific study such as that.

PasturesNew

It is a fact that if you take any house from 10, 20, 30 years ago and see "who could buy this house, on what multiple of their salary" and compared the same house to now, it's less affordable.

In 1995 some flats round the corner from where I am could have been bought by a full-time cashier at any local shop, using 3x their low wages. Now, to buy the same flat you'd need to be a qualified solicitor and borrow 5x your wages.

My dad bought a 3-bed semi in 1970 for 3x his wages. Today, somebody doing that same job might be able to pull £25-30k (with their enhanced skillset and qualifications that he didn't need as he could study at evening classes, which you mostly can't do these days) .... and today that same house would take 10x that person's wage. So now it would need a full-time professional couple 5x their joint wages.