So if the average FTB age is 37......

musicmaker29

i think it would be interesting to see the number of people who own their properties and haven't bought 'a percentage' of it with a HA/house builder or something - it looks to still be the 'in' thing as many people my age are at it (early/mid 20s), and for me it all looks a bit worrying if these people are counted as FTBs.

drc

I was 25 in 2000. Not able to buy as did not earn enough for a mortgage. Not everything is so simple Hamish.

FTBFun

musicmaker29 wrote: »

i think it would be interesting to see the number of people who own their properties and haven't bought 'a percentage' of it with a HA/house builder or something - it looks to still be the 'in' thing as many people my age are at it (early/mid 20s), and for me it all looks a bit worrying if these people are counted as FTBs.

Really?

I know a good half dozen FTBs and none of them have gone down the [STRIKE]rip off[/STRIKE] shared ownership route.

geneer

drc wrote: »

I was 25 in 2000. Not able to buy as did not earn enough for a mortgage. Not everything is as simple as Hamish.

Indeed. Your 20's aren't for saddling yourselves with mortgages.
It really is that simple.

Danni-R

alexlyne wrote: »

I probably counted as a ftb when buying my second house because the second house was a joint purchase with the OH for whom it was her first, and we got a FTB deal with the bank.

I agree with post 23 btw. It's not surprising, and the OP is rather skewed in their argument.

You got a FTB with the bank? I'm a FTB and the declaration I had to sign to not pay stamp duty stated that both parties had to be FTB (no share in property, no land) to qualify.

I'm not sure where 37 comes from. I dont know anyone over the age of 30 that is a FTB.

mp797979

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What were they doing leaving it this late to buy?

Someone that was 37 in 2007 would have been born in 1970.

They'd have been 25 in 1995 in the middle of the last crash, with access to the cheapest house prices relative to income in many decades.

They'd have been 29 in 1999, before the boom took off, yet while interest rates were relatively low and mortgage funding was easily available.

They'd have been 33 in 2003, when 90% to 100% mortgages were widespread, interest rates were low, and houses were still cheap.

They'd have had the best conditions for buying a house that any generation has ever seen for most of their working life, and yet spectacularly failed to do so......

And now these house price websites are full of 35-40 year olds complaining they haven't had the chance their parents did to buy a house.....

Bizarre.

I'm sorry but this attitude is exactly why people like me have got such a struggle to buy a house now. Yes in 1995 you could have a bought a house for less that what they cost now but with, what, a 110% mortgage? That was exactly the time when people starting getting greedy and borrowing more money than they could afford and then kept borring and borrowing until everything went boom.

I'm 32 (today actually!) and when I was 25 I wanted to buy a house but didn't want a 100% mortgage so I decided to save £10K. But by the time I saved that I needed £15K and so on. Now I desperately want to get my house I'm having to put down a deposit of £45K!!! Yes I'm very happy that 20% of my house is paid off but the house prices in my area are ridiculously over priced and that is just the way it is.

The generation before me ran up credit cards, mortgages, multiple houses that they didn't need which in turn pushed up house prices and now I have to pay high mortgage repayments (that will never, ever be any less than that), along with high everything else and work 45 hours a week to pay for it too.

I find it hard to have sympathy for anyone who is in trouble now because of over spending. The amount of crap I've had to go through to show I can afford a mortgage is ridiculous and people before me barely had to make a phone call.

quantic

To be honest, most of the people that I know over 30 who have not bought yet, are not in circumstances to ever be able to buy...

dandy-candy

I'm pretty sure when I was looking at mortgages in 92/93 they were still only giving you 3x your salary which in London (where I am) got you sweet fanny adams when you were getting £3.20 an hour before deductions

mp797979

vaporate wrote: »

Forget buying a house for FTB in this era. Where prices are £100,000 for a 1 bedroom flat?!

On your bike I'd rather just save than pay mug prices.

I don't understand your rationale behind what you say. How can prices be mug prices? If it's worth £100K then that is what it is worth. It's the same as people who 5 years ago their house was worth £20K more than now and they believe that their house is price is too low - it's just what it is.

Anyway, if the "flat" you are on about now is £100K, I don't think it will never, ever be much less than that.

tamrick

Generali wrote: »

An FTB is someone who hasn't owned a house in the last 6 months.

I would be an FTB despite having owned 2 houses.

Yep, as far as I know, the CML definition of a FTB is someone buying a property who doesn't currently own one. So that includes divorcees, returning expats, sell-to-renters etc. (I'm 37 and would count as a FTB despite having owned two homes.)