How long can FTB-s afford to wait?

Herbie_Hancock_I_wish

Hamish despite being out of touch , old and thick , I will always hopefully be a gentleman so so I welcome and accept your apology.

replumbed

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There is no such thing.

House prices are set where the supply and demand curves intersect.

There is nothing else.

.

No, they don't. House prices don't work that way.

replumbed

For supply and demand curves to work, the market needs to be elastic. Homes aren't.

Some examples
1)there's a range of prices a buyer and seller would meet at, the price reached is not an effificent intersection.
2)Housing supply isn't flexible enough to meet the necessary criteria. The sale price of homes in any one area can be influenced by one buyer or seller.

Look at me, educating debt-junkies. :T

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How is it discredited? It's simply your viewpoint does not agree. That's not discrediting something. Thats disagreement. I realise you get totally confused by all this.

You are still repeating the same nonsense which only includes people who can afford houses, to prove affordability.

Again, people who can afford ferraris, can afford ferraris. Shocker.

Were no further forward.

when you think that someone one a minimum wage should be able to buy a house then it confirms you don't get the fundamental point.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

when you think that someone one a minimum wage should be able to buy a house then it confirms you don't get the fundamental point.

No ones said that.

All thats being said is there is no point looking at people who can afford mortgages, to state mortgages are affordable.

All thats being said, is it's probably wise to look at something like the average wage.

You are going right to the opposite end of the scale, to make your point, and suggesting people are looking at people on the minimum wage. That's not the case, and NO ONE has said that. Only you, and the others who do not wish to discuss the average wage vs house price.

I assume you use that extreme, as you can't argue otherwise.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All thats being said is there is no point looking at people who can afford mortgages, to state mortgages are affordable.

Why?

There has never been a time when everyone could afford a house.

Owner occupancy never crossed 70%, so the bottom earning 30% of households have never been able to afford to buy.

It is therefore entirely appropriate to look at affordability from the perspective of the segment of population that have traditionally been house buyers.

All thats being said, is it's probably wise to look at something like the average wage..

Sure, why not?

It's not a case of one or the other. Both will tell you different things.

Jimmy_31

geneer wrote: »

Because its so very heard to click back a page and see what you missed.

Though of course you know that I know that by "missed" I mean deliberately chose to ignore.

But let the games continue.

this is how hamish never loses in a debate, you pose him a question or statement that cant be shot down with data and flow charts and he is pretty much done for so he just ignores the post.

Try using todays word of the day when posting in hamishes direction todays word is ANECDOTAL, for some reason he will respond to anecdotal information but only to say its a fairy story or meaningless, but still its an answer isnt it.

Heres another "anecdote" for you hamish....

Lloyds Banking Group is reviewing how its closely watched Halifax house price index is calculated, amid concern that the high number of different monthly measures can add to volatility and confuse sentiment in the market.

The move comes ahead of findings next month from a government report into housing market statistics.

Lloyds is undertaking a review of how it calculates the index, which is based on mortgage approvals made by Halifax. It is understood the bank hopes to iron out irregularities and volatility in the index.


Id rather not base the biggest purchase of my life on data that contains irreglarities. So now all the figures that you use to try and prove a point and get FTBs to get on the ladder quick may be changed, massaged, manipulated, or the old favourite cooking the books:rotfl::rotfl:but on the plus side hamish the government will be publishing a report on house price statistics next month, fingers crossed they publish a few flow charts for you to salivate over as well:)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Id rather not base the biggest purchase of my life on data that contains irreglarities. S

Indeed.

Much better to look at actual sold prices of individual houses in the street, town or county you're from.

Or the land registry index, which tracks those.

We can do that of course, thanks to the power of the internet, and see exactly what is happening to prices in that area. Rather than relying on meaningless asking prices.

julieq

replumbed wrote: »

For supply and demand curves to work, the market needs to be elastic. Homes aren't.

Some examples
1)there's a range of prices a buyer and seller would meet at, the price reached is not an effificent intersection.
2)Housing supply isn't flexible enough to meet the necessary criteria. The sale price of homes in any one area can be influenced by one buyer or seller.

Look at me, educating debt-junkies. :T

This is a joke right?

There's a good (non partisan) discussion of how supply and demand relates to the UK housing market here:

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Competitive_markets/The_housing_market.html

You're right that single transactions could theoretically be at arbitrary levels, but that's true for all transactions, not just housing. There's nothing stopping someone paying £200 for a £20 toy on Ebay for example. But that doesn't mean supply and demand rules don't apply. Aberrant transactions get averaged out.

I suspect that the recent desire - not the first time this subject has come up recently - to remove the idea of supply and demand and create a "new paradigm" is because the inexorability of the uk housing demand/supply imbalance is becoming difficult to ignore, even for the most dyed in the wool bears. So to get further corrections at a time when lending is increasing and FTBs are building deposits against a basically improving economic situation, you have to declare supply and demand no longer applies. Anyone can see that the factor constraining demand - the inability to get finance - is slackening rapidly.

Brave attempt, but as Hamish says there is nothing else.

Jimmy_31

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed.

Much better to look at actual sold prices of individual houses in the street, town or county you're from.

Or the land registry index, which tracks those.

We can do that of course, thanks to the power of the internet, and see exactly what is happening to prices in that area. Rather than relying on meaningless asking prices.

Yes your right im sorry, im still thinking that houses sell for less than the meaningless asking prices in my area but now you have told me in a previous post that this is not the case and its a fake price i will be able to make a good strong offer on a house i saw today that is up for sale at 99,950 pounds.

im going to bang an offer in of 250k monday morning and cross my fingers that the tricky seller hasnt got an actual price of 300k that he is willing to accept.

Wish me luck folks.:)