Mainstream media article says it's not lending, its prices.

geneer

undetterred wrote: »

What the average of your post count per day?

uh oh. Someones a gwummpy bunny.

Percy1983

I have been trying to tell hamish this, he says make credit easier, I say bring houses in line with current credit.

twirlypinky

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I don't disagree that houses are expensive, but there were massively more FTBers a few years back when prices were considerably higher.

So how can it be entirely down to prices?

because a few years back the lenders were happy to lend FTBers 5 times their salary, and give them 105% mortgages.

ukcarper

Although I think you should have to put down a deposit I'm not sure 100% or even 105% mortgages were the problem. I think the problem was high multipliers after all you need a higher multiplier to get 100% of a property than 80%. I’m not sure multipliers are the way forward or if they are used what they should be, but some form of affordability criteria needs to be applied.

Percy1983

ukcarper wrote: »

Although I think you should have to put down a deposit I'm not sure 100% or even 105% mortgages were the problem. I think the problem was high multipliers after all you need a higher multiplier to get 100% of a property than 80%. I’m not sure multipliers are the way forward or if they are used what they should be, but some form of affordability criteria needs to be applied.

I wouldn't completely disagree, but the ability to get a deposit does display a level of budgetting.

So no deposit and 100%+ mortgages and no real affordability tests applied basically meant anybody could buy a house to which everybody was bidding against each other.

Now the more financially savvy (or the ones with inheritance) are the onces who can get the deposits together, and those who have worked hard to earn more shouldn't have too many issues.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

I wouldn't completely disagree, but the ability to get a deposit does display a level of budgetting.

So no deposit and 100%+ mortgages and no real affordability tests applied basically meant anybody could buy a house to which everybody was bidding against each other.

Now the more financially savvy (or the ones with inheritance) are the onces who can get the deposits together, and those who have worked hard to earn more shouldn't have too many issues.

I agree that's why I think you should have to put down a deposit. Mind you gifted deposits don't show anything and could actually be worst because in my experience people who are given everything by their parents are quite often not that savvy.

Percy1983

Completely true, but you can't really stop them.

As I say from my personal situation, 100% mortgages would be great as I could start looking right now, but not so good as everybody else would be looking/bidding too. Yes it will take me a little longer to get my deposit but at least it won't be a free for all when I get there.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Finally!

Is the penny dropping?

What has the mainstream media been denying the fact that houses are expensive until this moment in time?

If THE elephant in the room was prices then why were more houses being sold a few short years ago when they cost more than they do now and the average wage was lower?

The sensible amongst us will realise that it's not just prices but other factors as well - availability of credit, job security and so on. I suppose that doesn't fit in with a journalistic desire to see things in black and white whilst ignoring the fact that many of the factors are related.

adr0ck

so average salary in the UK is £26,510 and the average price of property is £163,177.

so £26,510 x 2 = £53,020

so the average price of property is just over 3 times income for a couple nowadays

doesn't sound too much to me

ultrawomble

adr0ck wrote: »

so the average price of property is just over 3 times income for a couple nowadays

doesn't sound too much to me

Or 6X the salary of a single income couple with 2 kids.

Doesn't sound so good then.