Rise in first-time buyers predicted

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

1.4% of not much isn't much either. But don't see you taking issue there!?

You're mumbling again.

Then again my brain is starting to hurt because you said you doubted that anyone was saving up, then you said you didn't say that, and then it was proved you did. Then you said these savers (that don't exist) wouldn't have any impact on housing transactions but you didn't mean that and couldn't possibly understand how anyone could interpret what you did (or didn't) say in this way.

To be honest I found Inception easier to follow.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

You're mumbling again.

Then again my brain is starting to hurt because you said you doubted that anyone was saving up,

Well no, I didn't say that, and once again, your brain only hurts because you have decided to confuse what I actually said and then start arguing about your new definition of what I said.

ISTL asked if the rise in FTBs (projected) would be because people have now saved ENOUGH. I..e over the deposit threshold. I suggested I highly doubt that would be the case for the majority of the increase.

I never said, anywhere, people are not saving up. You wanted me to, hence why you have taken it as that (when it quite clearly wasn't) and are now making an argument out of it.

It's forum politics, we all know the score. But it seems it's all you have left, so you carry on fella

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Apparently, this would actually be beneficial to those wanting to buy a house, and thats inarguable - go figure.

Oh go boil your head Graham and stop this pathetic sarcastic sniping.

What I ACTUALLY said - and I appreciate you may be too thick to understand the nuances of this - was that the purchase price is a secondary issue to first time buyers. The barrier is saving 1/4 of the purchase price for a deposit and even if prices fall very signfiicantly that bar is still set too high.

This is preventing people who could comfortably afford mortgage repayments from entering the market and nailing them into ever increasing rental costs which make it more difficult still to save a deposit. It's a vicious cycle and it doesn't get fixed by price reductions.

You can argue the validity of this point, OR you can set up a straw man misrepresentation and snipe around that. You've chosen the latter, not even in the same thread, which I have to say is pretty typical.

DervProf

julieq wrote: »

The barrier is saving 1/4 of the purchase price for a deposit and even if prices fall very signfiicantly that bar is still set too high.

1/4 of the purchase price required for a deposit ?

Really ?

Surely 10 - 20% and proof of reliable income + decent credit score will be enough for a bank to lend to a FTBer. I think I remember an excited post about some 95% LTV deals becoming available.

I think you are "fiddling the figures" to suit your argument.

CRASH_BANG_WALLOP

man its amazing! suddenly 2012 is the year the floodgates will open and ten of thousands of dudes with tens of thousdands of pounds saved up will start to buy. people on here are listening to that dude mr ree to much

DervProf

julieq wrote: »

Oh go boil your head Graham and stop this pathetic sarcastic sniping.

Charming.

I suspect it's a hormonal thing.

Graham_Devon

DervProf wrote: »

1/4 of the purchase price required for a deposit ?

Really ?

Quite.

Last time this was argued the other way around (to suggest young people could buy, they were just far too spoilt and selfish wanting everything handed on a plate) great mortgages were available at 10% deposit, 5% in many cases, showing that lending was not the issue.

Now it's back to 25% demands that's stopping people. Until the next argument proving that the "want it now" brigade of today can actually buy.

Either way, so long as the end result is "house prices are not the issue", the argument will just change to porve the point required at the time.

DervProf

If the average property price was £500k, I bet there'd still be a few who would try to argue that it's the banks fault for not lending enough, or that people should give up eating own brand super noodles in order to buy their first property. They seem to think that the only time the price of property is a problem is when it is falling.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

ISTL asked if the rise in FTBs (projected) would be because people have now saved ENOUGH. I..e over the deposit threshold. I suggested I highly doubt that would be the case for the majority of the increase.

point of correction.
You simply stated that

Quote:
Originally Posted by IveSeenTheLight
Could it be that as another year has passed since the correction, people are now being able to produce the deposits required by the lenders?

Originally Posted by Graham_Devon
Two, sorry, three words.

Highly doubt it.

Nothing about you thinking it would not constitute the majority of the increase.

As others have shown, the correction occured in 2008, were now in 2012. This could be projecting an increase as people have had another year to save and cross over the deposit threshold

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I never said, anywhere, people are not saving up.

It certainly came accross that way when you responce was two, sorry, three words "Highly doubt it."

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Nothing about you thinking it would not constitute the majority of the increase.

Oh come on. This is embarrasing. The context games just go on and on.

We are on a thread about the rise in FTBs.

So desperate are you and others to "win" an argument that doesn't need to exist, were down to pure semantics again that I didn't qualify my direct response to you. It's obvious you were discussing the rise, and I quoted you directed, in reply to you discussing the rise.

You've gone to lengths to then tell me I'm actually referring to something completely different. That actually I was saying people in general are simply not saving at all.

Give it up. I'm actually embarrased to be involved now. We need something proper to argue about, rather than this semantics game.