FSA advisers urge delay to mortgage reform and more 'flexible' lending

Percy1983

chucky wrote: »

i understand totally what you mean but i'm not sure how that can be done without building up demand and creating a future bubble.

I would say its working right now, it may have created a short term future bubble but in the longer term it will just a be a general flow of of those proven able to buy.

The other reason I would say its working is recent news reports of many being resigned to never buying a house, which yet again shows the current system has killed some demand.

As mentioned by many other tenancy rules/laws need to be changed which yet again reduce demand.

The way I see it is if we left it as the free for all it was, the houses just went to the first to get to the bank and say please (generally favours older generations over the younger), now the current system promotes hard work, its not the first to the bank, its the first to the bank witha deposit. Yes you will always get the BOMAD funded children but as it is most of the population have to stand on there own 2 feet as adults.

Graham_Devon

Really, I said I would end the debate with you. Since then, you've posted in response to me three times.

In those 3 posts, you have agreed with me, disagreed with me and are now asking weird questions.

Would 30/40 year mortgages incease affordability? Therefore, would there be more demand on current stock? Therefore, would prices rise?

Yes....No?

Simple question. Simple answer. No need for a song and dance.

Really2

Percy1983 wrote: »

I would say its working right now, it may have created a short term future bubble but in the longer term it will just a be a general flow of of those proven able to buy.

The other reason I would say its working is recent news reports of many being resigned to never buying a house, which yet again shows the current system has killed some demand.

As mentioned by many other tenancy rules/laws need to be changed which yet again reduce demand.

The way I see it is if we left it as the free for all it was, the houses just went to the first to get to the bank and say please (generally favours older generations over the younger), now the current system promotes hard work, its not the first to the bank, its the first to the bank witha deposit. Yes you will always get the BOMAD funded children but as it is most of the population have to stand on there own 2 feet as adults.

Does the current situation not favour those with money?
I presume those that resign not to own will need to rent?
With cash sales of lower end property higher than usual (normal times) it kind of indicates a system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
In that situation it is not hard work that wins, it is those that have excessive funds. That could be for many other reasons than hard work.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Really, I said I would end the debate with you. Since then, you've posted in response to me three times.

Would 30/40 year mortgages incease affordability? Therefore, would there be more demand on current stock? Therefore, would prices rise?

Yes....No?

Err was not aware you saying you would not debate means I could not post??

30/40 year mortgages at current levels may increase prices. But I would argue if you did that more houses would be built mitigating future price increases.
All the current situation is doing making the demand increase (due to less builds) until the tap opens.
The tap will open one day you can be sure of that, so if you don't sort out the supply you are just making the next bubble worse.

Easier credit is not the major cause like you make out, if people did not have a desire to buy at any price it does not matter how much easy credit there is. People just would not buy.

Desire + affordability makes the demand
They meet supply to make the price.

If you hold of changing supply to meet demand all it will do is make a bigger bubble when things change.

If people have a desire and would own with 30-40 year mortgages could you give a good reason why they should not do what they want?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Err was not aware you saying you would not debate means I could not post??

30/40 year mortgages at current levels may increase prices. But I would argue if you did that more houses would be built mitigating future price increases.

Have no idea why you would argue that.

We have just been through a massive, part credit led boom. All the evidence that we need is here for us right now. Yet you are arguing that this time it would be different.

Righty-o chap.

Blind it is. And you are still dancing by the way.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Have no idea why you would argue that.

We have just been through a massive, part credit led boom. All the evidence that we need is here for us right now. Yet you are arguing that this time it would be different.

Righty-o chap.

Blind it is. And you are still dancing by the way.

So Graham when more houses sell and affordability was easier were more houses being built?

We have just been through the the biggest financial disaster since the 1920's and house prices are 10% off peak.
That is with the average deposit now being 25%.
Less than half of the houses to reach targets are being built.
Did more people get to own with lower prices?
How does it look for the children now (you have to think of them as you like to put it) chances of owning with less houses being built?

So if it is blind in mind where does this all change to make things more affordable?
And what does the effect of supply have on future demand.

Don't accuse me of being blind, all you are doing is simply ignoring future effects of not increasing supply.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Don't accuse me of being blind, all you are doing is simply ignoring future effects of not increasing supply.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Not often I get the rolly heads out. But for you to tell me I'm now ignoring future effects, when my first post on this thread went straight into future effects and you have been ignoring them and twisting ever since!! Comicle. Just proves how your twisting has led you to accusing me of that.

Give it up and leave me alone. You twist to the absolute extreme, won't answer any questions directly, and are now dancing the hot step.

Percy1983

Really2 wrote: »

Does the current situation not favour those with money?
I presume those that resign not to own will need to rent?
With cash sales of lower end property higher than usual (normal times) it kind of indicates a system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
In that situation it is not hard work that wins, it is those that have excessive funds. That could be for many other reasons than hard work.

Very true, but at least this way those who do work hard and get in to reasonable payed jobs still can get somewhere.

As I say the current system isn't perfect, but its better than the previous 'first to the bank' system.

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

So Graham when more houses sell and affordability was easier were more houses being built?

We have just been through the the biggest financial disaster since the 1920's and house prices are 10% off peak.
That is with the average deposit now being 25%.
Less than half of the houses to reach targets are being built.
Did more people get to own with lower prices?
How does it look for the children now (you have to think of them as you like to put it) chances of owning with less houses being built?

they're very good points.

you won't get an answer, it will be the usual nonsense taking the thread on a tangent.

[Edit - I see that he did just that.]

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Not often I get the rolly heads out. But for you to tell me I'm now ignoring future effects, when my first post on this thread went straight into future effects and you have been ignoring them and twisting ever since!! Comicle. Just proves how your twisting has led you to accusing me of that.

Give it up and leave me alone. You twist to the absolute extreme, won't answer any questions directly, and are now dancing the hot step.

All you have done in this tread is call me blind so I can say your use of the rolly heads are all commonly seen when losing a debate.

Again you have ignored my points on supply and make up an attention post.

Any chance of answering questions next time instead of acting like child?