Rise in first-time buyers predicted

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

......................

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Two, sorry, three words.

Highly doubt it.

LydiaJ

DervProf wrote: »

Charming.

I suspect it's a hormonal thing.

You're not usually like that, DervProf. You can tell julieq that her facts are wrong, or that she doesn't understand HP, or that her comment to Graham was rude, or whatever, and I won't complain. Julieq seems to like a "robust" debate and can give as good as she gets.

Speculating about her hormones is uncalled for, though. Please don't.

DervProf

LydiaJ wrote: »

You're not usually like that, DervProf. You can tell julieq that her facts are wrong, or that she doesn't understand HP, or that her comment to Graham was rude, or whatever, and I won't complain. Julieq seems to like a "robust" debate and can give as good as she gets.

Speculating about her hormones is uncalled for, though. Please don't.

I don't think what I did was any worse (in fact I think it was a lot less offensive) than if I had told her to "go boil your head". However, if you were offended, I do apologise.

Batchy

My FTB friend has just gone to Tenerife cause he isn't able to work, due to recent op on foot, and earn and may as well, to make his gf feel better about him going with his cousin he brought her an iPhone.... Excellent use of the hard save circa 6k deposit. His opinion it's not enough for house, so enjoy it. The idea of sacrifice just doesn't exist

wotsthat

Batchy wrote: »

My FTB friend has just gone to Tenerife cause he isn't able to work, due to recent op on foot, and earn and may as well, to make his gf feel better about him going with his cousin he brought her an iPhone.... Excellent use of the hard save circa 6k deposit. His opinion it's not enough for house, so enjoy it. The idea of sacrifice just doesn't exist

The high deposit requirements will have the effect of reducing the owner-occupier rate in the UK.

There will be a steady supply of motivated FTB's coming along who have managed to save (or been given) a deposit.

There will be some who would normally have been able to buy a £120,000 house with that £6k deposit and would have had no problems paying it back either but have got 'lost along the way' and end up renting and paying someone else's mortgage and a margin on top.

I don't feel sorry for them but I really don't think that a reduction in owner-occupiers is a good thing for the UK.

LydiaJ

wotsthat wrote: »

The high deposit requirements will have the effect of reducing the owner-occupier rate in the UK.

There will be a steady supply of motivated FTB's coming along who have managed to save (or been given) a deposit.

There will be some who would normally have been able to buy a £120,000 house with that £6k deposit and would have had no problems paying it back either but have got 'lost along the way' and end up renting and paying someone else's mortgage and a margin on top.

I don't feel sorry for them but I really don't think that a reduction in owner-occupiers is a good thing for the UK.

I agree with you, wotsthat. But I also agree with what ISTL said on a different thread:

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Now as you may know, I'm a LL and it would be easy to consider that I have a bias towards defending BTL's, which of course is a natural consideration.
I have time and again justified it by saying that in part, I have watched and seen what is happening, can see that supply is not being kept up with the growing demand (population increase) and am protecting my family interests for the future.

He's providing a service (and from the sounds of him he's a more conscientious LL than many) and providing for his family within the rules of the system in which he finds himself. He's not doing anything wrong.

It's a bit like my friend on benefits. She's a single mother whose kids are now at school, and she's looking for part time work for now, with the intention of going full time when they're older. She found out about a job that was 10 hours/week. She wants to work more than that, but she thought perhaps she'd take it and then look for something else to do as well. However, she's worked out that if she did that, then by the time she'd paid for childcare (before/after school and in school holidays) she'd be worse off than she is now, and would continue to be worse off for as long as it took to find the second job - which could be ages. So she's holding out for a 16+ hours/week job and not bothering to apply for anything under that.

Do I blame her? No
Would I do the same in her situation? Yes
Do I think it's a good thing for the UK that the system produces incentives that work this way? No

So likewise:
Do I blame people like ISTL who find that in their circumstances, a BTL is a good way to provide for their families? No
Would I do the same in their situation? Probably
Do I think it's a good thing for the UK that the system as it currently stands is resulting in a decrease in the proportion of owner-occupiers? No

We often hear on here that whatever new policy is being suggested wouldn't actually result in any increase in the proportion of owner-occupier households. So my question (for anyone, but I'm particularly interested in the views of the more bullish posters) is:
What changes in government policy could result in maintaining (or at least limiting the decrease in) the proportion of owner-occupier households?
I think it's reasonably obvious that building lots more houses might well help, but can you think of anything else?

Thanks.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

LydiaJ wrote: »

We often hear on here that whatever new policy is being suggested wouldn't actually result in any increase in the proportion of owner-occupier households. So my question (for anyone, but I'm particularly interested in the views of the more bullish posters) is:
What changes in government policy could result in maintaining (or at least limiting the decrease in) the proportion of owner-occupier households?
I think it's reasonably obvious that building lots more houses might well help, but can you think of anything else?

Thanks.

There are three factors at play here...

1) Population is increasing.

2) Bank lending restrictions are preventing entry into the market.

3) House building has reached record lows.

The absolute number of owner occupiers peaked in 2006, the percentage peaked a couple of years earlier.

Regardless, the biggest effect of the expansion in lending over the last couple of decades was to increase the numbers of people who were able to buy a house. The secondary effect of more people being able to buy a house than there were houses for them to buy, was that prices rose until the market was able to ration the limited supply of housing through price. In other words, some people were priced out, which is exactly what was supposed to happen in a relatively free market....

The only way to enable an increase in owner occupation is to both increase lending and build more houses.

In the short term, an increase in mortgage lending would transfer stock from rented back to owner occupation, as the "just rent it out instead" brigade were able to sell.

In the long term, an increase in mortgage availability would enable more houses to be built. Obviously, builders won't build what they can't sell, hence the record low house building numbers today.

Jimmy_31

MrRee wrote: »

Deposits and Mortgages are there now ...... the properties are not.

Not many jobs about either.

Rich_by_Name_2

MrRee wrote: »

The peak was 2007, the crash 2008 - that means that FTB's have had 4 years to save a deposit.

Let's assume a young couple on average wages can save £2,000 a month - that's a deposit sitting in an account of around £96,000 ........ when the Mortgages start flowing, which they will in 2012, we shall see plenty of sales.

In fact, in the South, that has happened already ...... everything under £250,000 sells within hours.

Can I have a return ticket to Cloud Cuckoo Land please?


The median wage in 2010 (smack bang in the middle of your 'four year' savings period) was just over £20,000 per annum. Median is a much more appropriate way to establish an average here than mean, because mean figures will be distorted by high earners.


So if there are two people earning £20k, that's £1666.67 per month before tax and £1330 after it. So this 'average' couple that you describe have to live on £330 per month each so that they can put their £1000 into the savings pot?


Does this average couple not have to pay an average amount of bills too, or are they so special that they don't and therefore aren't 'average' at all? Perhaps the average couple lived by candlelight in a tent?

I can assure you that there are not that many 'average' couples able to save £96,000 in four years.

Jimmy_31

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

There are three factors at play here...

1) Population is increasing.

2) Bank lending restrictions are preventing entry into the market.

3) House building has reached record lows.

The absolute number of owner occupiers peaked in 2006, the percentage peaked a couple of years earlier.

Regardless, the biggest effect of the expansion in lending over the last couple of decades was to increase the numbers of people who were able to buy a house. The secondary effect of more people being able to buy a house than there were houses for them to buy, was that prices rose until the market was able to ration the limited supply of housing through price. In other words, some people were priced out, which is exactly what was supposed to happen in a relatively free market....

The only way to enable an increase in owner occupation is to both increase lending and build more houses.

In the short term, an increase in mortgage lending would transfer stock from rented back to owner occupation, as the "just rent it out instead" brigade were able to sell.

In the long term, an increase in mortgage availability would enable more houses to be built. Obviously, builders won't build what they can't sell, hence the record low house building numbers today.

Id say an increase in jobs would get people buying again.