Number of first-time buyers plummets to lowest on record

DervProf

RenovationMan wrote: »

Oh dear, looks like someone is forgetting his 'back story'. Didn't buy a house in 1995? Could have been 'priced out', but manfully stuck at it. LOL what a joker. :rotfl:

I don't know I even bother trying to debate with people like yourself and geneer. Your back stories and circumstances change faster than the tyres on an F1 car. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

~ 1995.

Do you not know what ~ means ?

I was priced out, until the crash in the early nineties. Although house prices had gone beyond my means, I did keep on saving for a deposit, in the hope that prices would fall.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

DervProf wrote: »

With low deposit requirements, you will speed up HPI and eventually end up with large deposit requirements. Not only that, you end up with very large borrowing requirements.

Actually, low deposit requirements just enable more people to buy houses.

Whether this then leads to higher prices depends on whether or not we build enough houses for them to buy....

Of course, the one way to ensure we don't build enough houses is to restrict lending. After all, builders won't build what they can't sell.

DervProf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Of course, the one way to ensure we don't build enough houses is to restrict lending. After all, builders won't build what they can't sell.

I'm with you there, but my fear is that buyers will pay any price if they can borrow enough, and vendors will ask ever higher prices if the lending is loose enough. The banks will lend as much as they can, if they think they can keep sourcing the funds. I think we now know where that can lead to.

RenovationMan

DervProf wrote: »

I already told you that I didn't buy in 1995, but you know better, I suppose.

DervProf wrote: »

~ 1995.

Do you not know what ~ means ?

I was priced out, until the crash in the early nineties. Although house prices had gone beyond my means, I did keep on saving for a deposit, in the hope that prices would fall.

I give up. It really is pointless discussing anything with people who forget their own stories and then when you show evidence they try and divert attention away.

Oh well, I'll notch that down to another victory for me. As soon as your debating opponent starts creating ad hominem arguments (your stock in trade) or start changing their past to fit their argument, it's time to give up and leave the battlefield as victor, leaving your opponent on his knees gibbering on and gnawing old plots and fantasy previous victories.

Ho hum. It's too easy. :rotfl:

yertiz_2

drc wrote: »

2012 there will be virtually no first time buyers. With the perfect storm of needing a huge deposit and the scarcity of mortgages and bank of mum and dad all but spent, the housing market, imo, is going to revolve around equity rich homeowners buying and selling to each other. I am not sure how the loss of the FTB to the market will affect the rest of the ladder. Anyone want to guess...?

I have 2 sons at Uni, both expecting to get good degrees. The eldest is currently in 3rd year and has applied to countless companies on their graduate programmes with no response as yet. When / if they eventually get a job, they will need to earn over £15000 pa before they start to pay off their student loans. Then if they want to save for a deposit they will have to live with us as they would not be able to afford rent as well. I read somewhere that FTB's current age is 36 so I guess that's how long it takes tosave up for a deposit these days. So, what with the ever growing current jobless youngsters how many potential FTB's are out there?

geoffky

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Economically illiterate nonsense there Brit, I'm afraid.

The cost of rent was always going to rise when the housing shortage is so severe..... and mortgage rationing prevents people buying, and builders building.

Rents have started to fall...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/money/article-24022096-rents-fall-for-first-time-in-10-months.do

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

geoffky wrote: »

Rents have started to fall...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/money/article-24022096-rents-fall-for-first-time-in-10-months.do

Yes, they do in winter every year, as Brit found out to his cost when he started bragging about the seasonal decline 12 months ago, only to see rents soar for the 10 months since.

From your article:

"Despite the seasonal decline, the average rent for a property is still £25 a month more expensive than it was this time last year."

DervProf

RenovationMan wrote: »

I give up. It really is pointless discussing anything with people who forget their own stories and then when you show evidence they try and divert attention away.

Oh well, I'll notch that down to another victory for me. As soon as your debating opponent starts creating ad hominem arguments (your stock in trade) or start changing their past to fit their argument, it's time to give up and leave the battlefield as victor, leaving your opponent on his knees gibbering on and gnawing old plots and fantasy previous victories.

Ho hum. It's too easy. :rotfl:

You showed me evidence which stated ~1995. I previously informed you that I did not buy in 1995. The evidence you displayed proves that I never stated that I bought in 1995.

A hollow victory, retardationman.

Graham_Devon

RenovationMan wrote: »

Ignore DervProf, he's just a troll. :mad:

One of the most ridiculous statements I've seen on the board. You seem to be sat there salivating for an argument.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

One of the most ridiculous statements I've seen on the board. You seem to be sat there salivating for an argument.