One Million FTB-s prevented from buying

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

If the definition of rationing is based on price and affordability, surely everything in a free market is rationed. Think of a different word Hamish. Anyone one that has the wherewithall can get a mortgage.

No, the definition of rationing is controlling the distribution of a scarce commodity.

In this case, mortgage funding.

Here's the reality..... If the banks suddenly had 500,000 FTB-s show up with a 25% deposit and good credit, they'd have to move the goalposts to a 30% deposit, or a 40% deposit. Because they don't have enough money to lend.

ILW

There is a difference between rationing (eg controlled distribution) and raising the entry criteria (eg pricing). All commercially available products are controlled by price, but I hear no mention of Bentleys being rationed because some people cannot afford to buy one.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

There is a difference between rationing (eg controlled distribution) and raising the entry criteria (eg pricing). .

And there is nothing in rationing (controlling distribution of a scarce product) that suggests everyone must get an equal share.

Even during WW2, rationing of some items was different according to the type of job you did, your age, sex, etc.

Rationing is simply controlling the distribution of items where a shortage exists. In this case, through requiring high deposits to reduce the number of people eligible.

You could argue that price is another effective means of rationing scarce products, but that's not the case here.

Jimmy_31

Cleaver wrote: »

Do you think? All the information I see seems to suggest that prices are heading more and more towards nominal price stagnation.


Source: Nationwide.

Over the last 36 months we've seen the positive and negative results all come closer to zero, there's been a pretty even distrubition of negative (19) and positive (17) months and after a 2008 of largely falls, and a 2009 of largely rises, we're just seeing noisy, random positives and negatives each month around the zero mark.

So as I say, looks like stagnation to me and I think it'll stay like this for years to come as buyer struggle to get mortgages and sellers refuse to sell. I reckon that ss wages and inflation start to creep up over the next five years or so the nominal house price will stay the same, so will slowly become more and more appealing and affordable to buyers.

Obviously you see the stats differently though Jimmy, and see prices heading towards a tenner. I guess we all see stuff differently.

Yes i see prices in my area heading in the direction of a tenner ie lower than they are now, lots of price reductions on houses in my area and more reductions happening every week.

Yes some buyers are struggling to get a mortgage due to sensible lending practices.

Yes some sellers will refuse to sell at a lower price but some sellers will have no choice but to sell at whatever they can get for their house.

I have said before i wont be basing the timing of my house purchase on information given to me by banks or newspapers as i will just keep looking in the EAs window for my information, and when i see a house that is priced at a level i am willing to pay then i will buy a house.

Cleaver

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Yes i see prices in my area heading in the direction of a tenner ie lower than they are now, lots of price reductions on houses in my area and more reductions happening every week.

Yes some buyers are struggling to get a mortgage due to sensible lending practices.

Yes some sellers will refuse to sell at a lower price but some sellers will have no choice but to sell at whatever they can get for their house.

I have said before i wont be basing the timing of my house purchase on information given to me by banks or newspapers as i will just keep looking in the EAs window for my information, and when i see a house that is priced at a level i am willing to pay then i will buy a house.

For the love of sweet Jesus on a bicycle Jimmy, not this again? I thought we made a breakthrough on that last thread? I feel a bit like Father Ted when he had to explain the difference between 'small' and 'far away' for Father Dougal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

The chart above shows house prices as an average for the entire country. Which is a national measure of houses prices. Okay? Are we agreed?

The houses in your local Estate Agent windows that are houses for sale in your area. Okay? Cool?

Right. This is the bit you need to have a think about again (and that's dissapointing Jimmy, as I'm sure we had a breakthrough last time). It is possible, and stay with me here, for a house to decrease by £20k, £30k or £40k in asking price, and for this to not be obvious in the monthly national figures released by Nationwide. With me so far? That doesn't mean however, that the figures from Nationwide are wrong. Yes? Because the house for sale in your Estate Agent is one of tens of thousands for sale or selling each month. Add up these all together, and you get the Nationwide figure. You cool with this? So whilst the two things are kinda connected, you're not going to see direct connections. Are you with me? Take this to the next step and it's entirely possible for houses across your whole area to be reducing by 20% or 30% (theortically), but the national stats may hold up as another area is rising. Does that make sense too?

It's a bit like me saying, "there are apples available for sale across the UK." And you then saying, "but I went down my local shop and they didn't have any! How can there be apples available?" And the answer is the same, one is your personal perspective on one thing, the other is a national perspective using all the information available. Both are true. Y'gemme?

Small. Far away. Small. Far away. Small. Far Away.

iandury

Running_Horse wrote: »

Big deposits are not rationing. They're just big deposits, like there used to be. I'm not sure if they are the right way to go long term, and we can argue what percentage is best, but anyone with the required deposit and a good credit history can have a mortgage. That's not rationing; just common sense in a moribund market.

And lets not forget, i needed 25% deposit today of £50k could well become a 25% deposit of £25k in a few years times.

It's actually quite likely

iandury

Cleaver wrote: »

For the love of sweet Jesus on a bicycle Jimmy, not this again? I thought we made a breakthrough on that last thread? I feel a bit like Father Ted when he had to explain the difference between 'small' and 'far away' for Father Dougal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

The chart above shows house prices as an average for the entire country. Which is a national measure of houses prices. Okay? Are we agreed?

The houses in your local Estate Agent windows that are houses for sale in your area. Okay? Cool?

Right. This is the bit you need to have a think about again (and that's dissapointing Jimmy, as I'm sure we had a breakthrough last time). It is possible, and stay with me here, for a house to decrease by £20k, £30k or £40k in asking price, and for this to not be obvious in the monthly national figures released by Nationwide. With me so far? That doesn't mean however, that the figures from Nationwide are wrong. Yes? Because the house for sale in your Estate Agent is one of tens of thousands for sale or selling each month. Add up these all together, and you get the Nationwide figure. You cool with this? So whilst the two things are kinda connected, you're not going to see direct connections. Are you with me? Take this to the next step and it's entirely possible for houses across your whole area to be reducing by 20% or 30% (theortically), but the national stats may hold up as another area is rising. Does that make sense too?

It's a bit like me saying, "there are apples available for sale across the UK." And you then saying, "but I went down my local shop and they didn't have any! How can there be apples available?" And the answer is the same, one is your personal perspective on one thing, the other is a national perspective using all the information available. Both are true. Y'gemme?

Small. Far away. Small. Far away. Small. Far Away.

What a patronising attitude you have!!

Please try to remember that we(on this board) are not just blindly taking national stats and the opinions of vested interests and the media at their word, actually some are quite good at fibbing incase you had not noticed, like the Bankers and FSA for example.

I personally take whatever i hear in the media and by VI's with a pinch of salt, and anything by you i might add.
Anacdotal evidence is worth listening to at the moment(so keep it up jimmy), and where his argument and anacdotal evidence is stronger than your insulting reply is that in a very bad credit crunch(and that is what this is) you would have to be a complete mug/numpty to pay over the odds for a property right now, so jimmy is more likely to be right than you in this argument, IMO.

Jimmy_31

Cleaver wrote: »

For the love of sweet Jesus on a bicycle Jimmy, not this again? I thought we made a breakthrough on that last thread? I feel a bit like Father Ted when he had to explain the difference between 'small' and 'far away' for Father Dougal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

The chart above shows house prices as an average for the entire country. Which is a national measure of houses prices. Okay? Are we agreed?

The houses in your local Estate Agent windows that are houses for sale in your area. Okay? Cool?

Right. This is the bit you need to have a think about again (and that's dissapointing Jimmy, as I'm sure we had a breakthrough last time). It is possible, and stay with me here, for a house to decrease by £20k, £30k or £40k in asking price, and for this to not be obvious in the monthly national figures released by Nationwide. With me so far? That doesn't mean however, that the figures from Nationwide are wrong. Yes? Because the house for sale in your Estate Agent is one of tens of thousands for sale or selling each month. Add up these all together, and you get the Nationwide figure. You cool with this? So whilst the two things are kinda connected, you're not going to see direct connections. Are you with me? Take this to the next step and it's entirely possible for houses across your whole area to be reducing by 20% or 30% (theortically), but the national stats may hold up as another area is rising. Does that make sense too?

It's a bit like me saying, "there are apples available for sale across the UK." And you then saying, "but I went down my local shop and they didn't have any! How can there be apples available?" And the answer is the same, one is your personal perspective on one thing, the other is a national perspective using all the information available. Both are true. Y'gemme?

Small. Far away. Small. Far away. Small. Far Away.

And for the love of sweet jesus on a bicycle cleaver, i get every bit of information i need from the EAs window(i know this may be affected by the national average price), its my choice not to take notice of the data released by banks or whoever.

I have been watching the housing market in my area for the last 12 months, i have been mainly concentrating on 5 or 6 streets because that is where i would like to live, the prices of the houses for sale in these streets have dropped and are still dropping (yes i know this may change the national average).

So can you now understand that i do not need any data other than the price tag of the houses im looking to buy to help me in my house buying decision.

I am aware of how their data is collected and how it represents an average throughout the country but my point is that i do not need to look at all this data that is released because i have all the information i need from keeping track of the houses im looking at in the streets i want to live in and coming to my own conclusions.

When i buy my house it will be because i have been watching certain houses in certain streets over a period of time and then one of them houses will have dropped to a level that i am willing to pay. At no point have i took any notice of what data has been released(even though i know it exists and may have some impact on what the prices are set at in the EAs window).

What i dont understand is why it winds you up so much that i am not consulting other peoples data and instead im just using the price in the EAs window (yes i know this can be related to the national average) to decide wether i should by or not.

It's a bit like me saying, "there are apples available for sale across the UK and im thinking of buying one." And you then saying, i know that there is a price tag attached to that apple but wouldnt you be better finding out what the national average price of apples is currently set at, and then i would say no i know what the price of an apple is in my area and to be honest its still a bit more than im willing to pay so i think ill keep an eye on that apple and wait for it to drop to a price that i am willing to pay.

So in conclusion cleaver, yes, i dont really take note of what the national average house price is, yes , i know how they come up with the figures for the national average and yes i am aware that this data exists, the only bit i dont understand is why you keep pulling me up when i say i wont be consulting the national average price when i buy a house.

It is now becoming more and more likely that i wont be buying an overpriced apple in my area:)

Also are you a school teacher, policeman, or something like that, you know somebody who has a bit of power given to them in their jobs.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And there is nothing in rationing (controlling distribution of a scarce product) that suggests everyone must get an equal share.

Google "define rationing"

The very FIRST sentence you will get states:

rationingpresent participle of ra·tion (Verb)
1. Allow each person to have only a fixed amount of (a particular commodity): "shoes were rationed from 1943".

Said this to you on another thread, allbeit in slightly different words. You just gloss over, ignore, and then go state the very same thing to someone else hoping they will listen.

the.ciscokid

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No, the definition of rationing is controlling the distribution of a scarce commodity.

In this case, mortgage funding.

Here's the reality..... If the banks suddenly had 500,000 FTB-s show up with a 25% deposit and good credit, they'd have to move the goalposts to a 30% deposit, or a 40% deposit. Because they don't have enough money to lend.

!!!!!!!!.

Fractional-reserve banking. If a shed load of people turned up with 25% deposits, they could magic up plenty of money.

You are talking out of your !!!! again.