'Priced Out': homeowners won, renters lost, prices will rise further

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Firstly, in creating no pressure on sellers to sell, the Bank has limited supply into the market. Sellers have every incentive to wait for the highest price possible and this limits buyers to a small wealthy group.

Secondly, it has meant that price adjustment in the housing market is now increasingly happening through rising rents rather than falling house prices – and these costs fall heavily upon Generation Rent.

Thirdly, the largest windfall from lower mortgage costs has gone to buy-to-let investors, who overwhelmingly use interest-only mortgages. We've bailed out a group who have had a significant role in displacing younger buyers.

Fourthly, low transaction levels historically mean low levels of new housebuilding, which makes the long-term outlook for housing affordability worse. The result is a growing number of "priced out" insecure young renters, whilst an ageing homeowner population is given a major wealth windfall.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/poll/2012/mar/05/interest-rates-mortgage-rates

Graham_Devon

Strange way to look at the article.

Pricedout is just one comment on the articles question.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Strange way to look at the article.
.

Not really.

Priced Out, the leading campaign group for crashaholics, have just very publicly admitted the crash has failed to deliver.

As follows:

Homeowners won.

an ageing homeowner population is given a major wealth windfall.

Renters lost.

price adjustment in the housing market is now increasingly happening through rising rents rather than falling house prices – and these costs fall heavily upon Generation Rent.

Prices will rise further.

low transaction levels historically mean low levels of new housebuilding, which makes the long-term outlook for housing affordability worse.

In other words, exactly what many of the "bull" posters have been saying for many years would happen.

Graham_Devon

I'm not sure if this is all out desperation playing out right in front of us, or whether you are reading something completely different.

Firstly, you haven't quoted fully. Secondly, you have ignored what the comment was in response to.

And thirdly, and most importantly, they haven't stated anything you are implying they have stated, such as "homeowners have won" or "renters have lost". And they certainly don't say or imply anywhere house price will rise.

This is worse than the daily express type of ramping, which leads me to believe you are seriously scraping the barrel here.

UrWntr

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is all out desperation playing out right in front of us, or whether you are reading something completely different.

Firstly, you haven't quoted fully. Secondly, you have ignored what the comment was in response to.

And thirdly, and most importantly, they haven't stated anything you are implying they have stated, such as "homeowners have won" or "renters have lost". And they certainly don't say or imply anywhere house price will rise.

This is worse than the daily express type of ramping, which leads me to believe you are seriously scraping the barrel here.

HAMISH's comments on the pricedout statement may be unnecessarily provocative but they are entirely accurate. Not really sure why you have a problem with that.

ruggedtoast

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is all out desperation playing out right in front of us, or whether you are reading something completely different.

Firstly, you haven't quoted fully. Secondly, you have ignored what the comment was in response to.

And thirdly, and most importantly, they haven't stated anything you are implying they have stated, such as "homeowners have won" or "renters have lost". And they certainly don't say or imply anywhere house price will rise.

This is worse than the daily express type of ramping, which leads me to believe you are seriously scraping the barrel here.

You have driven those three points home like deadly daggers Graham. Each more piercing than the last.

McTavish defeated!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

UrWntr wrote: »

HAMISH's comments on the pricedout statement may be unnecessarily provocative but they are entirely accurate.

Guilty as charged.

On both counts.

Not really sure why you have a problem with that.

Oh, I think I know exactly why he has a problem with that.

Graham, to his credit, has kept the same userID for the last 7 years.

The man now has 40,135 posts to his name which are mostly about house prices....

At an average of a minute a post between reading and responding, this equates to 669 hours of his life (or roughly 17 weeks of 8 hour days, 5 days a week) invested in promoting, justifying and ramping a house price crash.

To have the leading advocates for lower house prices come out and admit it was all a big waste of time, must be absolutely soul-destroying.

Graham_Devon

Well thats the desperation confirmed I guess.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

desperation .

So that's your new desperate fall back position.

Accuse anyone who points out the obvious of being, "desperate".

Priceless.:rotfl:

Emy1501

The result is a growing number of "priced out" insecure young renters, whilst an ageing homeowner population is given a major wealth windfall. This unequal settlement is unlikely to be politically sustainable in the medium term.

The above is of interest in view of the fall in homeownership and fact that few outside of London who have bought since 2004 have made any real money out of homeownership.

At what point will the government in a sense be forced to build affordable house. I suspect that is more what they are trying to get out.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And they certainly don't say or imply anywhere house price will rise.

Hmmm.

What does this mean then?

"low transaction levels historically mean low levels of new housebuilding, which makes the long-term outlook for housing affordability worse. "

That would appear to be an implication of rising prices, no?