Hmmm, it's strange

PasturesNew

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The only thing that wasn't mentioned, was house prices themselves.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/elez.jpg

PasturesNew

Another 20 years and people will be able to buy 1% of a property and pay rent on 99%. And it'll be worth it just to know that so long as you keep paying it you can't be moved on.

Graham_Devon

Kohoutek wrote: »

You could certainty lose a lot being in shared ownership if UK property prices actually fall significantly and global commodity prices continue their upward trend.

Those in shared ownership put in negative equity, houses/flats (other than shared ownership schemes) become more affordable/attractive to potential buyers, rent stuck at RPI. Pretty screwed...

Shared equity is often worse. I've had experience of a scheme whereby the buyer was responsible for 100% of any negative equity, but they only got 40% of any positive equity. Basically the builders, which I think were Barratts, but I could be wrong, completely protecting themselves against any exposure, but pulling in the rent, and enjoying any positive equity.

The rather large brochure even suggested using positive equity to buy more of the house...

So if the house price rose 10k, the buyer would get 4k. If the buyer then wanted to buy more of the house, they would have to pay more for the next part, as the house has risen in value, yet they gain less from the rise in value. Equity scheme wins twice.

This, I assume, is the sort of scheme being proposed currently, as a good idea. You can just imagine the problems stored up.

Graham_Devon

To remain fair, I have just been reading the BBC article on FTB's and Grant Shapps does mention house prices, but you won't find this part on the TV news.

"We want to do more to help aspiring first-time buyers - the average age of the first-time buyer with no support from their family is now 37, and there are 1.4 million households who aspire to own a home but are simply unable to do so because of house prices and mortgage availability."

All that's been talked about, so far, on the TV and also the radio which was on today at work, is the mortgage availability part.

Indeed, the article itself is all about mortgages, and the above is the only time house prices are mentioned in the entire article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12462885

All the article seems keen to push towards is this sort of stuff, a couple who apparently speak on behalf of FTB's:

"It does not just affect first-time buyers, it affects everyone up the chain. He [Mr Shapps] really needs to get something going and improve their lending.

sjaypink

I caught some of the radio debate today.

1 old boy rang in to suggest compulsary purchase orders, and an enforced building schedule - a generally similar stance to 'this housing crisis' as that which was implemented after WWII. Another contributor, a SouthWest lib-dem counsellor, took the second home ownership angle. Both a bit worn out IMO. Or maybe thats just because I've heard all this on here for years now. We, the people - well - THE BEARS?! - need to either start a revolution or just accept nothing like this will ever happen as the majority of the powers that be, be it locally (planning permission etc) or nationally (legislation makers) have an obvious bias towards wanting, perhaps in some cases needing, property prices to rise, and idealy property ownership to fall.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm starting to give up...as the only solution really offered, was more shared ownership and more shared equity, to enable FTB's in their 30's to get on the ladder as people cannot afford to save large deposits.

Heh....

What did you expect from a government sponsored conference on FTB's Graham, a proposal for prices to crash and p1ss off the 70% of people who are existing owner occupiers???

Not to mention take down the wider economy in the process???

Really?:rotfl:

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Heh....

What did you expect from a government sponsored conference on FTB's Graham, a proposal for prices to crash and p1ss off the 70% of people who are existing owner occupiers???

Not to mention take down the wider economy in the process???

Really?:rotfl:

As stated above, it was Grant Shapps....i.e., member of the government, that was the only one to mention house prices as a barrier to ownership.

So chuckle away laughing boy. You've not grasped the point again, which was about the media....not the government.

Batchy

who wants prices to fall, its not going to be home owners... ie 70%... Of the 30% remaining, who actually wants to buy into a falling market?

so who exactly would be getting off about cheap prices other than BTLers... with large cash reserves, as the banks will not be helping FTBers with 5% deposits to get into a market losing 7% per annum?

Seriously, I understand the whys and wherefores... but you have to understand logic... to please 0.1% of the population, ie, the 0.3% of the 30% who 1, can buy, as in they are in employment, 2, want to buy (into a falling market), 3 need to buy, 4 have already saved a reasonable deposit.

Why would it ever be a vote winner?

please think broader... it might help you make a big decision one day!

sjaypink

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Heh....

What did you expect from a government sponsored conference on FTB's Graham, a proposal for prices to crash and p1ss off the 70% of people who are existing owner occupiers???

Not to mention take down the wider economy in the process???

Really?:rotfl:

I just wonder HM (and Batchy also), and I hope this is taken in the spirit in which it is raised , whether 70% of the population would actually be peeved?

I'm sure this has been raised a trillion times, forgive me, I haven't been around much recently, I forget the etiquette regards the repetive 'yeah, but' arguments... I'm rambling - I'll just lay it out

70% of people will not be pissed off. You are assuming all OO will feel the same way as you, which, AIUI, are the feelings of a not-so-young middle earner with no kids, who has 2 properties. That is supposed to be a factual assessement, to clarify :A. I would suggest (taking all circumstances of those associated with property owning/buying/selling/lusting into account) that it is actually less than half of the UK who would be pissed at a house price fall. Not that a think a policy either way will be a particular vote winner. Justdon't think that the value of your home is as bigger deal to most as it would seem on here at times.

Graham_Devon

Batchy wrote: »

but you have to understand logic...

I found that bit amusing, stuck in with the rest of your post, talking about who "wants" prices to do what