How many people should we prevent from buying a house?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

According to the FSA (and as Shelter are so keen to point out), had the lending restrictions envisaged under the proposed MMR been enforced from 2005 to 2007, around 17,000 fewer people would have been repossessed in this downturn.

However, as we all know, those lending restrictions are similar to the mortgage market of today.

And that has led to a million fewer FTB-s being able to buy houses since 2007.

So how many people should we prevent from buying a house in order to prevent 17K of them being repossessed?

Is locking a million people out of the housing market an acceptable price to pay?

And on a similar note, given that the bears wish to see restricted lending continue to suppress demand and hold down house prices, how many more millions of people should we prevent from buying a house in order to keep prices down to current low levels?

Jimmy_31

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

According to the FSA (and as Shelter are so keen to point out), had the lending restrictions envisaged under the proposed MMR been enforced from 2005 to 2007, around 17,000 fewer people would have been repossessed in this downturn.

However, as we all know, those lending restrictions are similar to the mortgage market of today.

And that has led to a million fewer FTB-s being able to buy houses since 2007.

So how many people should we prevent from buying a house in order to prevent 17K of them being repossessed?

Is locking a million people out of the housing market an acceptable price to pay?

And on a similar note, given that the bears wish to see restricted lending continue to suppress demand and hold down house prices, how many more millions of people should we prevent from buying a house in order to keep prices down to current low levels?

5 million minimum.

mystic_trev

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

5 million minimum.

That's an awful lot of small mothers.

shortchanged_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And on a similar note, given that the bears wish to see restricted lending continue to suppress demand and hold down house prices, how many more millions of people should we prevent from buying a house in order to keep prices down to current low levels?

I'll tell you what Hamish why don't sellers reduce their prices a lot more and then we'll see how many are locked out of the market.

You blame restricted lending and I say house prices are too high.

Do you seriously believe that the level of sales would be as low as they are now if house prices were say 50% cheaper?

townendwig

Hi hamish I don't follow your logic...

Are you saying the banks should start lending money which they don't have again? The ready availability of cheap credit backed by little or no collateral is exactly what bought the global financial system to the brink four years ago!

Cheers
Wig

Jimmy_31

NextLegUpIsTheBigOne wrote: »

The banks need to open up their vaults again. Closing them caused the crisis in the first place. And there is a lot of pent up demand from FTBs out there. Let's get them on the ladder. This would then feed upwards.

Good idea, you should let the banks know that they are doing it wrong.

Wookster

Omg hamish is getting desperate...

Seeing as there is so much tinkering in the housing market at the moment, why not go the whole hog and build a house for every man woman and child and give it them for free.

Or just let the housing market find its market derived equilibrium price point.

kabayiri

This question should obviously be multiple choice!

(What can I say? I like scrolling )

CRASH_BANG_WALLOP

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

According to the FSA (and as Shelter are so keen to point out), had the lending restrictions envisaged under the proposed MMR been enforced from 2005 to 2007, around 17,000 fewer people would have been repossessed in this downturn.

However, as we all know, those lending restrictions are similar to the mortgage market of today.

And that has led to a million fewer FTB-s being able to buy houses since 2007.

So how many people should we prevent from buying a house in order to prevent 17K of them being repossessed?

Is locking a million people out of the housing market an acceptable price to pay?

And on a similar note, given that the bears wish to see restricted lending continue to suppress demand and hold down house prices, how many more millions of people should we prevent from buying a house in order to keep prices down to current low levels?

just for you dude

DervProf

townendwig wrote: »

Hi hamish I don't follow your logic...

Are you saying the banks should start lending money which they don't have again? The ready availability of cheap credit backed by little or no collateral is exactly what bought the global financial system to the brink four years ago!

Cheers
Wig

According to Hamish, the banks aren't lending enough for more people to buy up housing which is in short supply.

Now, I might be wrong, but that's the "logic" of someone who simply want's HPI.

I know he'll explain this by saying that if lenders lend, builders will build. That didn't seem to work when lenders were lending. I was told, several times, that there still wasn't enough building going on.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

According to the FSA (and as Shelter are so keen to point out), had the lending restrictions envisaged under the proposed MMR been enforced from 2005 to 2007, around 17,000 fewer people would have been repossessed in this downturn.

However, as we all know, those lending restrictions are similar to the mortgage market of today.

And that has led to a million fewer FTB-s being able to buy houses since 2007.

So how many people should we prevent from buying a house in order to prevent 17K of them being repossessed?

Is locking a million people out of the housing market an acceptable price to pay?

And on a similar note, given that the bears wish to see restricted lending continue to suppress demand and hold down house prices, how many more millions of people should we prevent from buying a house in order to keep prices down to current low levels?

you know that music that simon bates used to play during 'our tune'?

anyway, if the market says that there need to be fewer mortgages, fine by me. what's the alternative? more subsidy? if [in the view of the electorate] too many of the mortgages that are being issued are going to BTL then, fine, tax it, 10+% stamp duty for all BTL [or second/third homes, whatever].