The so called "housing ladder"

Graham_Devon

nicko33 wrote: »

No, for most people, prices are stable or falling
(my most is bigger than your most)

edit:
would you still be saying the same if it were
prices are only rising in 1% of areas.
Stable in 51% of areas.
And falling in 48% of areas?

He'd say prices are stable or rising in 52% of the country and then highlight that this is more than the total falling.

100% guaranteed.

Only because he's actually used these definitions in the past.

the_flying_pig

house price inflation always makes it harder to trade up to a bigger house. always has done, always will do, by definition. the only thing that enables you to move to something bigger is increasing wages or possibly accumulated savings.

with prices currently flat or falling* in 90% of areas the rungs on the housing ladder are in fact closer together than they would be if, all else being equal, prices were mostly rising.


* - I don't apologise for using 'flat or falling' because it seems important here - the OP, absolutely incorrectly, seems to be implying that inflation is a prerequisite for moving up the ladder. so I'm interested here in places where there isn't inflation. Not like Hamish just bundling flat and rising together to make things sound more inflationary than they are.

ultrawomble

the_flying_pig wrote: »

with prices currently flat or falling in 90% of areas the rungs on the housing ladder are in fact closer together than they would be if, all else being equal, prices were mostly rising.

Which is good news for potential buyers who can jump over the bottom rungs such as one bedroom flats straight into bigger properties.

ruggedtoast

Forest_12 wrote: »

Sense at last. I don't know where the idea comes from that you have to have HPI before you can trade up. It's clearly more difficult to buy a more expensive house when prices go up because although your own house has increased in value, the next house has as well and by a larger margin.

A stagnant market is great for moving up the ladder, but even a falling market is fine because, as you rightly say, the rungs just get closer together. If someone is in negative equity then he obviously can't move but the number of people in N.E. is a tiny part of the overall housing market.

I tried explaining this to my father in law, I attempted to very gently suggest that while spiralling house prices may be very nice for his generation they arent quite so good for any of his children.

He looked at me like I'd just recommended boiling babies.

DervProf

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Do you ever get the impression that everyone on this board is obsessed by money.

And as for you Devon, I'm keeping my eye on you.

I wouldn't say that we are all obsessed by money. I am interested in money, sure. And as long as I have enough to pay the bills and live life to a reasonable standard, then money doesn't bother me too much. Yes, there are some who seem to want more money, even if they don't clearly state they do. I think it's fairly easy to work out who these people are.

the_flying_pig

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I tried explaining this to my father in law, I attempted to very gently suggest that while spiralling house prices may be very nice for his generation they arent quite so good for any of his children.

He looked at me like I'd just recommended boiling babies.

my dad 'gets' this point quite well. although not an educated man at all

he would prefer to see lower prices for this reason.

my mother doesn't get it at all though [despite having passed her eleven plus back in the day]. she just seems to think that a big new pwoperdee bubble would make the boomers so rich that they'd be able to use the proceeds to buy houses for all of their kids. or something. the idea that if one house became very expensive then it'd be incredibly expensive to buy a whole bunch of houses was just an intellectual hurdle too far for her, sadly.

Caveat_Mortgagor

Forest_12 wrote: »

Sense at last. I don't know where the idea comes from that you have to have HPI before you can trade up. It's clearly more difficult to buy a more expensive house when prices go up because although your own house has increased in value, the next house has as well and by a larger margin.

A stagnant market is great for moving up the ladder, but even a falling market is fine because, as you rightly say, the rungs just get closer together.


If someone is in negative equity then he obviously can't move but the number of people in N.E. is a tiny part of the overall housing market.

A lot of sense until you ruined it with the last statement.

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/simon-read-rising-poverty-worries-means-advice-is-crucial-2314442.html

Financial Services Authority figures suggests that 760,000 mortgages are subject to some form of forbearance by lenders (forbearance is when a lender agrees not to foreclose on a mortgage even though a borrower has failed to make repayments). It means the number of homeowners in financial distress – either in arrears, going through repossession or in forbearance – now stands at 1.2 million, or more than one in 10 of the current total of outstanding mortgages.

pinkteapot

Two different things - people in negative equity and people in arrears/being repossessed.

Caveat_Mortgagor

pinkteapot wrote: »

Two different things - people in negative equity and people in arrears/being repossessed.

I take your point, maybe I confused the issue for you by highlighting only a small section of the text quoted.

However, one in ten mortgagors are in arrears or being repo'd, they wont be able to take advantage of the shortening of the rungs on the fabled ladder.

Percy1983

HPI has helped many up the ladder. It has increased there equity meaning they can get bigger without saving meaning they have bigger percentages to put on the next house.

As other have mentioned I do like the way Hamish always groups stable with increasing, do you care to list the 3 seperate figures (ncreasing, stable, decreasing) please?