Rightmove April +1.7%

Sibley

I'm just glad it's a plus figure.

That ensures the HPC gang will be broken today. I like that.

Anything negative cheers them up. We won't allow prices to drop. Pull the ladder up quick :j

Cleaver

The_Fox wrote: »

In the 90's along with my two sisters and friends, and the majority of my many cousins we all purchased our first and even second homes in our 20's, some even a third house. Not only were FTB's in there 20's common, it was the norm.

There wasn't a single year during the 1990s when the average age of a FTBer was in their 20s. This is a chart from a report from the Survey of Mortgage Lenders and it shows that chucky is pretty much correct when he says that the average age of a FTBer has been early 30s for about 20 years.




It shows that during the 1990s the average age of a FTBer was:

1990: 33
1991: 31
1992: 32
1993: 32
1994: 32
1995: 31
1996: 31
1997: 32
1998: 32
1999: 32

It was never the 'norm' for buyers in the 1990s to be in their 20s. If you bought your first home in the 1990s in your twenties then you were younger than the average person buying their first house.

Cleaver

DexterA wrote: »

By implication, when the issue of FTBer affordability arises, you state homes are affordable around your way. IMHO this fails to aknowledge the underlying nationwide problem.

Oh, okay. Well let me clarify. Around my way homes are quite affordable. In other areas of the country they clearly aren't affordable to people on average wages. I acknowledge that in various places in the country, houses prices are way above the average wages of normal people. In other areas this isn't an issue. Is that better?

wotsthat

Cleaver wrote: »

Oh, okay. Well let me clarify. Around my way homes are quite affordable. In other areas of the country they clearly aren't affordable to people on average wages. I acknowledge that in various places in the country, houses prices are way above the average wages of normal people. In other areas this isn't an issue. Is that better?

Maybe you should set up a consultancy to bring a wider understanding of averages to the public.

There seem to be lots of potential customers on this thread.

JonnyBravo

Sibley wrote: »

That ensures the HPC gang will be broken today. I like that.

Anything negative cheers them up. We won't allow prices to drop. Pull the ladder up quick :j

You're not normal.

System

wotsthat wrote: »

Maybe you should set up a consultancy to bring a wider understanding of averages to the public.

There seem to be lots of potential customers on this thread.

Nice, "Cleaver's Average School"

Except, you'd need to make it clear it's not a school that's average, but a school about averages.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Works quite well if you're like us.

A pair of London lawyers on 6 figure incomes........ each.

Yes, I'd rather imagine it does.

But given that even you had issues getting a mortgage from some providers, imagine how difficult it must be for mere mortals....

Cleaver

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Nice, "Cleaver's Average School"

Except, you'd need to make it clear it's not a school that's average, but a school about averages.

So... "Cleaver's School of Averages" then?

I'm not really sure whether it's a good idea to be honest, so I might start a poll asking whether it's a good idea or not and go with the median answer.

System

Cleaver wrote: »

So... "Cleaver's School of Averages" then?

Oh, I see what you did there. Yeah that makes a lot more sense.

Jimmy_31

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Sure......:D

There aren't enough buyers to buy all the houses, even if they all dropped by 10%, or 15%, or 20%.

Mortgage lending is at 35% or so of peak levels. The banks are rationing mortgages quite simply because they don't have the money to lend.

Example:

In Cleavertown, there are 10 houses for sale, and 2 buyers with access to a mortgage.

Changing the price on all the houses by 10% makes no difference. There will still only be 2 buyers with access to a mortgage, and 80% will remain unsold.

Now you could argue the case that if you drop the prices far enough, then nobody will need a mortgage, and all the houses will sell. This is true. But mental.

You could also argue the case that reducing prices will allow more people to get a mortgage as their deposit will increase. This is also true, but utterly insignificant within the bounds of reality. A 10% decrease in price turns a 10% deposit into an 11.1% deposit. And almost nobody would be daft enough to drop by the 30% or 40% required to make a difference in that regard, when by doing so they'd almost certainly be allowing a speculator to jump in and get a 7% to 10% rental yield in most places. Better to rent it out themselves, which is what we're seeing when people realise they can't sell.

There aren't enough buyers to buy all the houses, even if they all dropped by 10%, or 15%, or 20%.

But you said there are not enough houses for people to buy, supply and demand i think you said.

Plenty of 20% drops im seeing and i am not buying yet because im still not willing to pay that much and there are plenty more like me.

Also if a seller reduces their asking price by 10% then whos to say that 5,6,7 more buyers wont become available now that the bank decides that these 5,6,7 people can now afford the house due to the lower asking price of 90k as opposed to the original asking price of 100k, or at the further end of your example a 100k asking price being reduced to an 80k asking price.