How many people should we prevent from buying a house?

shortchanged_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

:rotfl:

You've got that completely the wrong way around. They've been desperately trying anything they can to hold prices down.

-Lending, still on it's ar5e. No support from government to increase lending numbers. Failure to include mortgage lending in "project merlin" for banker bonuses. etc

-Stamp duty exemption for FTB-s cancelled. It did nothing to stimulate a market where house prices are too high.

-Stamp duty increases for higher priced houses. To stifle London's out of control market.

-Mortgage assistance scheme only for newbuilds, to increase supply. So builders can try to get top dollar for their properties

-Release of large amounts of government land to builders on a build now pay later scheme. Ain't seen any building yet, have you?

-Changing planning law to presumption in favour of development, and from 1000 pages to 50 pages. Will do diddly squat.

etc etc etc

They couldn't do any more to hold down house prices if they tried, yet prices remain stubbornly high anyway.

We all know the governments measures are not intended to help to reduce house prices Hamish.

shortchanged_2

wotsthat wrote: »

Here's the link to the article I read..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/mar/31/house-prices-north-south-divide



The Nationwide affordability graph which uses median full time male earnings vs prices shows prices falling back towards the long term average but settling a bit above it.

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/historical/Mar_2012.pdf

There's an argument to say that the long term average has been skewed by unusually cheap property in the 90's and that we've found the equilibrium point for now.

I'm surprised that the 'bears' haven't been all over these figures.

Yes wotsthat, but is still shows that house prices are still well above the long term average for prices to earnings, currently at 5 I believe according to that graph whereas the norm is 4. So that highlights there is still a fair way to drop.

wotsthat

shortchanged wrote: »

Yes wotsthat, but is still shows that house prices are still well above the long term average for prices to earnings, currently at 5 I believe according to that graph whereas the norm is 4. So that highlights there is still a fair way to drop.

It doesn't highlight that there's a way to fall - that's just what you want to happen.

I'd be saying that we appear to have levelled out based on that graph. The norm is only the norm because of previous data - there's a bullish POV that says the norm has been skewed by cheap property in the 90's. There's another argument to say that accomodation costs are being held up by a shortage of supply.

Longer term I can only see accomodation costs taking a bigger proportion of people's income.

shortchanged_2

wotsthat wrote: »

It doesn't highlight that there's a way to fall - that's just what you want to happen.

I'd be saying that we appear to have levelled out based on that graph. The norm is only the norm because of previous data - there's a bullish POV that says the norm has been skewed by cheap property in the 90's. There's another argument to say that accomodation costs are being held up by a shortage of supply.

Longer term I can only see accomodation costs taking a bigger proportion of people's income.

I'm just going by what the Nationwide has put on their graph that the long term norm is 4. We are still currently above 5 so I would say house prices are still above the long term norm helped by various factors such as ultra low interest rates etc.

Percy1983

ILW wrote: »

Seems that a 10% deposit and a decent credit file should get you a mortgage. Where is the problem?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It should, but it doesn't.

Just 2% of mortgage approvals are for LTV of 90% or more.

I had a 10% deposit, looked for the best 90% LTV deal, applied directly and got accepted no problem.

Interesting on the 2%, do you know the percentages for 15%, 20% etc? I ask this as I was tempted to go in at 15% for better rates but then found the perfect house so jumped in earlier.

Jimmy_31

NextLegUpIsTheBigOne wrote: »

Why would you assume I don't? I regularly correspond with the local friendly bank manager. What's the saying again, assumption is the mother of all !!!! ups? No, brickies are the mother of all !!!! ups. Keep your head down lad. Remember you were always picked last for sports.

I assume a lot of things about you and im pretty sure most of the time im correct.

If you are not getting anywhere with your local bank manager just go straight to the top and kick off at the BOE, do us a favour and mention intrest rates for savers are not to my liking while you are there.

Plenty of brickies have pi55ed me off in the past as well mate so i know where you are coming from on that one, when im on new build my most used comment is "have you not got a level knob ed" murder some of them are.

I was always picked first for sports and goal defence was my forte.

Percy1983

Just a thought but here is another question on the same subject?

How many people are preventing themselves from buying houses due to poor credit files and just generally not managing there finances?

In short, should the bar be lowered just because some can't deal with it?

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

:rotfl:

You've got that completely the wrong way around. They've been desperately trying anything they can to hold prices down.

-Lending, still on it's ar5e. No support from government to increase lending numbers. Failure to include mortgage lending in "project merlin" for banker bonuses. etc

-Stamp duty exemption for FTB-s cancelled

-Stamp duty increases for higher priced houses.

-Mortgage assistance scheme only for newbuilds, to increase supply.

-Release of large amounts of government land to builders on a build now pay later scheme.

-Changing planning law to presumption in favour of development, and from 1000 pages to 50 pages.

etc etc etc

They couldn't do any more to hold down house prices if they tried, yet prices remain stubbornly high anyway.

and yet you complain about not getting any [in your view] good quality responses!

reading this kind of nonsense why would anyone who's remotely sensible, whose time has anything approaching a value, bother to debate properly with you on your terms?

N1AK

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?

You can assist people in buying houses by making the houses cheaper or by making it easier for them to take on large debts. The better solution for the young and the poor is to keep housing at an affordable level not encourage another housing boom by bringing in excessive, easy to access, credit.

Personally I'd bring in a tax on owning multiple properties (equal to the council tax paid by owner) to make 'investing' in property less attractive.

Emy1501

wotsthat wrote: »

Think about the areas near you that are pleasant and somewhere you'd like to live.

Now think about the areas near you that are horrible and you don't want to live.

I'd hazard a guess that the nice areas have a high number of houses owned by the occupiers and the horrible areas cater more for the rental market.

This isn't a dig at renters but higher levels of owner occupiers correlate with nicer places to live - whether there's a causal link is open to debate. Not everyone can buy of course but the government should be encouraging longer term sustainable ownership and not rental.

There have been 3-4 four developments for rental only in my area in and around houses worth 500k-1m. At the same time there are new builds overlooking markets and roundabouts etc.

There is no reason why rental properties have to be only built in poor areas and there are many rental properties in nice areas.

The reality is that the method of trying to get everyone on the housing market has failed and therefore from now people will need to meet the criteria set out by lenders and the FSA which in the most part is fair and reasonable. It could and suspect will be tweaked to allow more mortgages for people with a 5% deposit and also not to exclude people will single defaults etc which they knew nothing about.

As real term prices become more affordable more people will fit into the criteria for lending and as the banks also re balance their books there will be more money available to lend for building.