Demand for rented accomodation rises

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Loan to salary isn't loan to household income.

A mans salary used to be household income.

Then women started working, part time at first, and now earn as much or more than men in many cases.

Regardless, we're never going back to the days of 3 times a mans salary and one times a womans. Just not going to happen, no matter how much you may want it to.

The figures you have given are loan to two salaries, and the salaries themselves are the highest averages you can get (mean).

Once again for the thick person..... the average income of actual house buyers is higher than the average income of all people.

Theres a lot of head burying going on.

By people like you, desperate for further house price falls.

Why not just accept that prices will stagnate, and rise a lot further next time around?

Stop stressing Graham, it's bad for your health.

Besides, now you know the way the inevitable next boom will play out, and even the approximate time scales, you can do a much better job of planning for it than you did last time around.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

Errr yer, cus people were then locked out.

2. Self cert was not 50% of the mortgage market. Fast track is not the same as true self-cert.

Argue over the semantics if you like. A significant amount of mortgages were not included in the figures.

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.

I didn't say they did buy the average house. All I asked is how people afforded houses if lending didnt pass 3.5x wage. You didn't answer. You merely skirted the question with an untrue acusation

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.;)

How do you know how much I earn? You getting frustrated, hence the name calling and willy waving?

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.

Doesn't answer my question.

If people never borrowed over 3.5x their wage, in 2007, how did they buy houses? It would suggest completely normal families were all in jobs paying just shy of fully qualified GP salaries.

You appear to forget, we don't all live in Scotland. In the south, flats were commonly 200k plus. Yet normal folk, working in Next and on building sites (for example) were buying them.

It's ridiculous to suggest lending never passed 3.5x wages. If that was true, we wouldn't have the problems we do.

Firstly, it's better to suggest it's 3.5x total applicants income. Then acknowledge that not all mortgages were included, especially self certs and other methods for those which couldn't prove they fit the lending requirements which your statistics rely on. I.e. it simply excludes those people to show only those who could afford to buy. Great.

We have to run some audits at work. These audits are asking specifics for targets. However, we have to exclude nearly 60% of the people that would actually use the service, as they would mess up the targets. So the government has a cunning way of proving everything is ok, because we exclude the people who use the services the most, therefore have a leaning bias on those who don't use the service at all, which shows the figures in a great light. These statistics do the same. Exclude those who don't fit into what they want to show.

You only have to look at the two biggest lenders, Halifax and Nationwide, and the lending multiples are nearly DOUBLE what your favoured lending figures state.

If you don't accept this, then I can't really say anything else can I. But everything is in black and white....and I still wonder how on earth you think normal folk bought 200k flats in the south, on 100% mortgages etc if lending never passed 3.5x wages. Not everyone is a qualifed GP, Accountant, or MP.

Edit: Seems you are leaving the discussion now anyway, just skirting any issue I bring up and favouring the "your thick" approach in response to everything. Argument won as far as I'm concerned when thats all you have left!

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A mans salary used to be household income.

Then women started working, part time at first, and now earn as much or more than men in many cases.

Regardless, we're never going back to the days of 3 times a mans salary and one times a womans. Just not going to happen, no matter how much you may want it to.

Latest figures average house price £168k, male mean £38k, and female £26k. So 3x male + 1x female = £140k not that far short.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Latest figures average house price £168k, male mean £38k, and female £26k. So 3x male + 1x female = £140k not that far short.

What would it take for you to accept that the mean average is not earned by the average worker?

What would it take for you to accept people, couples and families, do not, by significant proportions, all work full time, all earning mean wages?

Why not just use median averages, for your average family?

Doesn't give the same positive result, maybe?

On saying that, even using your absolute best case scenerio and best case wages, you are still short.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What would it take for you to accept that the mean average is not earned by the average worker?

What would it take for you to accept people, couples and families, do not, by significant proportions, all work full time, all earning mean wages?

Why not just use median averages, for your average family?

Doesn't give the same positive result, maybe?

You seem to ignore the fact that not all people can buy now or have been able to in the past. You have to use the average salary of the people who can afford to buy.

It has never been the case that all you can borrow is only 3+1 I borrowed over 3x joint in 1972.

PasturesNew

Looking at salaries, I wish I were a bloke.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

You seem to ignore the fact that not all people can buy now or have been able to in the past. You have to use the average salary of the people who can afford to buy.

It has never been the case that all you can borrow is only 3+1 I borrowed over 3x joint in 1972.

I'm not ignoring that at all.

I've specifically reference the people I'm taking about. That HAS been ignored.

As was my question. As I say. Head, sand.

Are you REALLY trying to suggest that the average couple in this country bring in 64k a year. Come on. It's stupidity.

Heres the real incomes for households.



You have basically doubled it, and then suggested everything is ok.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not ignoring that at all.

I've specifically reference the people I'm taking about. That HAS been ignored.

As was my question. As I say. Head, sand.

Are you REALLY trying to suggest that the average couple in this country bring in 64k a year. Come on. It's stupidity.

If you are talking about next and building site workers buying £200k flats. Building site workers in the boom could earn a lot more than mean. But have you any proof that next workers were buying £200k flats in the boom.

I have no doubt that some people lied mortgages and got mortgages of more than 3.5 but nobody knows how many.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not ignoring that at all.

I've specifically reference the people I'm taking about. That HAS been ignored.

As was my question. As I say. Head, sand.

Are you REALLY trying to suggest that the average couple in this country bring in 64k a year. Come on. It's stupidity.

Heres the real incomes for households.



You have basically doubled it, and then suggested everything is ok.

We are talking about a working couple wanting to buy a house. Female 30% percentile £17.3 Male £21.5k total = £39k so a 3.5x joint = £136k.

Average terraced house £123k

20% percentile male £18.5k, female £15k total 3.5x = £117.5k

I’m not saying everything is ok just that a lot of people were able to buy in the boom without resorting to lying

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

We are talking about a working couple wanting to buy a house. Female 30% percentile £17.3 Male £21.5k total = £39k so a 3.5x joint = £136k.

Average terraced house £123k

20% percentile male £18.5k, female £15k total 3.5x = £117.5k

I’m not saying everything is ok just that a lot of people were able to buy in the boom without resorting to lying

Now were getting somewhere.

Did people really get 3.5x joint income though? Or did they always get 1x second income. Certainly all mortgages I looked into when taking mine always stated 1x second income, and for good reason.

3.5x on both incomes is stretching to the max.

So try again on 3x and 1x income (standard on most forms when I bought, though I admit, I did have the choice of other options which ignored multiples).