Home Ownership to fall to 63%, lowest level since 80's

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Home ownership will fall to its lowest level since the mid-1980s over the next decade, a new study has found.

The National Housing Federation said the number of property owners will drop to just 63.8% as house prices soar, compared to 72.5% in 2001.

The study says rising prices, the need for huge deposits and a tightening of lending criteria will force ownership numbers down.

It also predicts prices in the rental market will increase sharply as people struggle to own their own home.

I see that crash and mortgage rationing worked out well for the young then. An entire generation locked out of home ownership whilst prices and rents rise anyway.

So much for a crash leading to more people being able to buy a house.

Welcome to the world the bears made.:cool:

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Welcome to the world the bears made.:cool:

I thought the US made it?

ILW

It happened when the money ran out.

abaxas

So what happens if it drops to <50%.

Answer on a 'please vote for us as we'll take all the money from landlords and homeowners and give it to the people who rent' postcard.

ultrawomble

Interesting that the NHF chose 2001 as their reference point. Owner-occupation peaked in 2002 and has been falling since 2006 such that the 2010 level (~65.2%) is already lower than the 2001. That means owner-occupation levels were actually falling during the housing boom. Does that mean people were priced out by ever rising house prices even though easy lending terms were available? So why the cause for concern now?

Source

IveSeenTheLight

ultrawomble wrote: »

Interesting that the NHF chose 2001 as their reference point. Owner-occupation peaked in 2002 and has been falling since 2006 such that the 2010 level (~65.2%) is already lower than the 2001. That means owner-occupation levels were actually falling during the housing boom. Does that mean people were priced out by ever rising house prices even though easy lending terms were available? So why the cause for concern now?

Source

Remember, a percentage is jsut that, a percentage.
If one factor is static whilst the other increases, then the percentage can change.

We know that BTL mortgages were increasing and indeed there was property built for BTL purposes.

We've seen that BTL mortgages as a proportion of all mortgages also increase, thus it's reasonable to accept that the owner occupancy percentages will decrease, even during the boom times.

this thing is and as many have commented on previously, the opportunity to be an owner occupant may be decreasing such that only the higher earner may retain the opportunity.

doire_2

Grant to the rescue

Mr Shapps said that he was determined to "pull out all the stops" to help first-time buyers.

Housing Minister Grant Shapps says the coalition government's planning reforms will help the situation


"That's why I've held summits with lenders to encourage them to do more to help people take their first step onto the housing ladder, and I've launched the FirstBuy scheme as a valuable alternative to the 'Bank of Mum and Dad' for those struggling to get together that much-needed deposit."

Last week he was telling people to live on boats :rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight

doire wrote: »

Grant to the rescue



Last week he was telling people to live on boats :rotfl:

Yep, they've set asside £4.5Billion to help FTBers to obtain the deposit requirement

Conrad

As I said in my thread a long while back, we're getting a 2 tier divide between owners and renters which is exactly what one could expect when the state seeks to highly regulate mortgages.

We avoid a comparative handful of repo's by tightening the rules, but we cause millions to be excluded a mortgage. As ever state intervention leeds to many an unforseen outcome.

doire_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Yep, they've set asside £4.5Billion to help FTBers to obtain the deposit requirement

4.5 billion?

Announced in the Budget, the £250m scheme aims to help up to 10,000 people buy their first home by helping them out with a deposit

Graham_Devon

doire wrote: »

4.5 billion?

It's not 4.5bn at all thats set aside for deposits. Someone getting excited me thinks.

4.5bn has been set aside for lower cost housing, aiming to deliver 170,000 homes over the next 4 years.