House prices fall as first-time buyer numbers plummet

Generali

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Does anyone place any reliance on this Acadametrics survey regardless of what its saying up or down.

It is clearly so far out of step with the various other stats is its saying the average price of a house is £221,211....

They create the average differently to Haliwide as they include all homes, not just those sold using a mortgage.

For me it's the best series.

de1amo

StevieJ wrote: »

Why do you use -- for punctuation? is it to to with having a Turkish keyboard?

Yep your right on the spot there steve-the keypad is a mess of extra letters with punctuation all over the place-i can find the aforementioned -- easily

wherediditallgothen

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Apart from the fact that FTB numbers were much higher when prices were higher I totally agree.

Which is another way of saying you're wrong.

Tomayto Tomato.

Both sides of the same coin. Depends which way you look at it.

Heyman_2

AD9898 wrote: »

You may well be right, but I disagree. The people on 'deals' aren't the issue, it's the millions who are on SVRs that have dropped off deals and can't remortgage for a variety of reasons.

These people are at the mercy of an SVR that could quite easily go over 7% if base rate was 3-3.5%.

Are there really 'millions' of people who fall into this category Ad? I know a fair few people whose circumstances haven't changed who are on SVRs by choice, simply because fixed rates (and fees to get onto them) are very high in comparison and it's just not worth it.

Mallotum_X

Generali wrote: »

They create the average differently to Haliwide as they include all homes, not just those sold using a mortgage.

For me it's the best series.

In which case why so different to the LR figures, which is roughly in line to Halifax and Nwide. This one is more like the Right move (asking prices average).

de1amo

i was listening to a report yesterday that the rates on the fixed rates are being raised after the weekend despite no BOe rise so making them even less attractive. i cant see a situation when i will want to pay a huge fee for a 2 year deal on the size of mortgage i have.--My situation has changed since i started my mortgage in that i have assets worth 3 times my mortgage that is outstanding and they earn me far more than any increase in the rates!

AD9898_2

StevieJ wrote: »

So you think mortgage mark ups will be well over 100% when base rates have normalised?

It's certainly possible for a lot of households. Let's not forget this is based on your hypothetical base rate of 3-3.5% which you claim could be the norm. Based on the last few decades, I'd be surprised if that was the case.

What is clear I believe is costs are certainly going to rise, when wages are falling in real terms. This can only be bad news for the housing market.

Generali

Mallotum_X wrote: »

In which case why so different to the LR figures, which is roughly in line to Halifax and Nwide. This one is more like the Right move (asking prices average).

I can't remember which is which but there is a geometric and an arithmetic average. LSL use one, everyone else uses the other.

de1amo

its bad for sellers, good for landlords and good for wanna be owners. there will be a lot of blood shed in this bubble which has already been done in the US. personally the value of my uk home doesnt really matter to me but if things get tough i will rent it out and that is what the real value of homes should be connected to.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

They create the average differently to Haliwide as they include all homes, not just those sold using a mortgage.

For me it's the best series.

They were binned by the Sunday Times though.