We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Demand for rented accomodation rises
Comments
-
I'm also not convinced that raising rates will do anything for imported inflation. it didnt work too well for the eurozone, didnt their currency fall in value after the latest rise?
yes, indeed rate rises are a bit like a surgeoin trying to operate with a hammer - sometiems it has the desrired effect and other times it doesn't.
The euro has fallen majorly due to the eurozone debt concerns, a rate rise normally - and I do say *normally* would result in a strengthening of the currency in question. There are other much bigger issues in play.
IMHO, DYOR0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Indeed.
Height of the boom, never crossed 3.5x income. Even the lenders books themselves are wrong. CML are wrong. Government are wrong. Everyone is wrong, because of ONE singular set of statistics that one singular survey uses to state everything is just spiffingly great.
stupid picture apart Graham, it is a fact that average loan to salary multiple never exceeded 3.5x during the boom. That may be uncomfortable for your theories that reckless lending caused a boom, but it's nonetheless verifiable truth.
What caused prices to rise for the most part was demand against constrained supply. Even with demand being limited by reduced finance to the levels you would consider prudent, and others would consider acting against the interest of first time buyers unnecessarily, prices are sustained. When we get more lending, as we surely will, the slack gets picked up. And there is competition now with BTL investors because of increasing rental yields.
But there are none so blind as those who will not see.0 -
Is it me, or did JulieQ bang on and on and yet completely fail to address GDs actual point.
Heres a little link which demonstrates the verifiable truth that lending multiples rocketed, peaking at 5.4 near the height of the bubble.
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-ftb-average-house-price-to-earnings-ratio.php0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14135553
Which is as predicted really. With a shortfall between number of households being created and homes built, overall demand for housing increases. As it's difficult to buy because of mortgage rationing, the only outcome is increased demand for rented housing.
Five out of ten Julieq. We definitely need more houses but there is no mortgage rationing.
What we need is 2 million new rental properties available at £200 a month.0 -
Is it me, or did JulieQ bang on and on and yet completely fail to address GDs actual point.
Heres a little link which demonstrates the verifiable truth that lending multiples rocketed, peaking at 5.4 near the height of the bubble.
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-ftb-average-house-price-to-earnings-ratio.php
g'nu, you silly, silly boy....
The verifiable truth is that "lending multiples" DID NOT rocket to 5.4.
The link you post to merely asserts that prices rose, not that banks were lending higher than 3.5 times income on average.
From the link....Divide the average house price by the average earnings and you get the 'Average House Price/Earnings ratio'.
Absolutely nothing to do with the actual lending multiple to actual buyers.
Epic fail. Try again. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
stupid picture apart Graham, it is a fact that average loan to salary multiple never exceeded 3.5x during the boom. That may be uncomfortable for your theories that reckless lending caused a boom, but it's nonetheless verifiable truth.
What caused prices to rise for the most part was demand against constrained supply. Even with demand being limited by reduced finance to the levels you would consider prudent, and others would consider acting against the interest of first time buyers unnecessarily, prices are sustained. When we get more lending, as we surely will, the slack gets picked up. And there is competition now with BTL investors because of increasing rental yields.
But there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Oh please Julie.
I have a few words for you...
Self cert. 50% of mortgage market. Hamish always dissapears at this point whenver I mention this in response to those figures you do love so much.
Another one he does a dissapearing act on is: If lending never passed 3.5x income, how the hell did people buy houses!?! You scream mortgage rationing is stopping people from buying...BUT, in your world, with lending not passing 3.5x income, this "mortgage rationing" wouldn't even be a problem, as people wouldn't need to borrow that much if all they borrowed was 3.5x income.
The stupidity of suggesting lending never passed 3.5x and then moaning people can' get enough lending due to mortgage "rationing" is on another level.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Oh please Julie.
I have a few words for you...
Self cert. 50% of mortgage market. Hamish always dissapears at this point whenver I mention this in response to those figures you do love so much.
Who me???
I don't disappear, I've already explained it to you so often I just can't be bothered doing it again.
1. When self cert disappeared, if there was a big problem with people lying on their loans, the LTI ratio should have risen dramatically. It didn't. It fell (by more than house prices have) instead.
2. Self cert was not 50% of the mortgage market. Fast track is not the same as true self-cert.
3. Nobody has ever produced a shred of evidence that a significant percentage of self cert loans had material variances in actual income versus stated income.Another one he does a dissapearing act on is: If lending never passed 3.5x income, how the hell did people buy houses!?! You scream mortgage rationing is stopping people from buying...BUT, in your world, with lending not passing 3.5x income, this "mortgage rationing" wouldn't even be a problem, as people wouldn't need to borrow that much if all they borrowed was 3.5x income.
Graham, you prize dunce.
The average person does not buy the average house.
The average income of actual house buyers is significantly higher than the average income of all people.
Actual house buyers generally don't need to lie. We just earn more than people like you.:)
Try and get that into your thick head.;)The stupidity of suggesting lending never passed 3.5x and then moaning people can' get enough lending due to mortgage "rationing" is on another level.
Mortgage rationing is about adjusting deposit requirements and credit scores to artificially suppress the pool of borrowers until it shrinks to match the pool of available funding.
If any bank offered 3.5 times verified salary with a 5% or 10% deposit tomorrow at sensible and historically normal margins above base, they'd have a rush of qualified borrowers tomorrow so large they couldn't handle the applications. Let alone find the money to lend.
Which is why they have to ration mortgages with absurd deposit requirements and absurd credit scoring criteria.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Oh please Julie.
I have a few words for you...
Self cert. 50% of mortgage market. Hamish always dissapears at this point whenver I mention this in response to those figures you do love so much.
Another one he does a dissapearing act on is: If lending never passed 3.5x income, how the hell did people buy houses!?! You scream mortgage rationing is stopping people from buying...BUT, in your world, with lending not passing 3.5x income, this "mortgage rationing" wouldn't even be a problem, as people wouldn't need to borrow that much if all they borrowed was 3.5x income.
The stupidity of suggesting lending never passed 3.5x and then moaning people can' get enough lending due to mortgage "rationing" is on another level.
In 2007 the mean male full time pay was £33.5k and the female was £24k giving a total of £57.5k, 3.5x that is £201k. The average house price was some where between £172k and £182k so why would they need to lie.0 -
In 2007 the mean male full time pay was £33.5k and the female was £24k giving a total of £57.5k, 3.5x that is £201k. The average house price was some where between £172k and £182k so why would they need to lie.
Loan to salary isn't loan to household income.
The figures you have given are loan to two salaries, and the salaries themselves are the highest averages you can get (mean).
Theres a lot of head burying going on.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Loan to salary isn't loan to household income.
The figures you have given are loan to two salaries, and the salaries themselves are the highest averages you can get (mean).
Theres a lot of head burying going on.
I was just answering your question how could people buy which if they were earning mean salaries they obviously could. I believe the joint median was about £160k so they would have needed a deposit.
30% percentiles male £20k, female £16k total £36k 3.5x £126k. Average terrace £135k to £145k0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards