Homes for FTB's at most affordable in 10 years

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

True but let's assum the average prices dropped from £160k to £150k a 10% deposit would fall from £16k to £15k not that much different.

Agree, but it was a big difference when prices doubled, trippled, quadrupled etc over a 10 year period.

Your 50k house turning out at 200k within 10 years turned a 5k deposit into a 20k deposit.

The only saving grace is that no one had to worry with such deposits in the boom. You didn't need one.

The reality is, the boom has affected things such as deposits immensly. It was just an invisible impact at the time. Now, reality has set in.

chewmylegoff

if mortgage lenders started lending to people with a 10% deposit instead of requiring a 20% deposit, has a house with an asking price of £150,000 become more or less affordable, or has affordability stayed the same?

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

if mortgage lenders started lending to people with a 10% deposit instead of requiring a 20% deposit, has a house with an asking price of £150,000 become more or less affordable, or has affordability stayed the same?

Depends which statistics you look at. If it's the "mortgage payments as a percentage of salary", houses become less affordable.

I would assume it stays the same on this set of statistics though, as it simply compares average salary (and inflated version IMHO) against the house price.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Depends which statistics you look at. If it's the "mortgage payments as a percentage of salary", houses become less affordable.

I would assume it stays the same on this set of statistics though, as it simply compares average salary (and inflated version IMHO) against the house price.

well my point, which i expect you agree with, is that the house has obviously become more affordable, but if you blindly rely on an irrelevant measure statistics it would appear not to have changed.

you can't work out whether something has become more or less affordable without taking all of the factors which impact affordability into account, and that is quite simply the end of the matter.

Graham_Devon

It's common sense - therefore I agree!

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Agree, but it was a big difference when prices doubled, trippled, quadrupled etc over a 10 year period.

Your 50k house turning out at 200k within 10 years turned a 5k deposit into a 20k deposit.

The only saving grace is that no one had to worry with such deposits in the boom. You didn't need one.

The reality is, the boom has affected things such as deposits immensly. It was just an invisible impact at the time. Now, reality has set in.[/QUOTE

The thing is a £50k did not become a £200k house over 10 years in 1993 the bottom of the last crash the average house price was £50k so in almost 20 years it has gone from £50k to £160k and that is in nominal terms.

In relation to earnings wages are running about 10% above the long term average.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Agree, but it was a big difference when prices doubled, trippled, quadrupled etc over a 10 year period.

Your 50k house turning out at 200k within 10 years turned a 5k deposit into a 20k deposit.

The only saving grace is that no one had to worry with such deposits in the boom. You didn't need one.

The reality is, the boom has affected things such as deposits immensly. It was just an invisible impact at the time. Now, reality has set in.[/QUOTE

The thing is a £50k did not become a £200k house over 10 years in 1993 the bottom of the last crash the average house price was £50k so in almost 20 years it has gone from £50k to £160k and that is in nominal terms.

In relation to earnings wages are running about 10% above the long term average.

Whatever the figures may been, it doesn't effect the point I was putting across.

5k is easier to save than 16k. A lot easier. Theresfore you can't just ignore the house price, but blame the deposit.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

ukcarper wrote: »

Whatever the figures may been, it doesn't effect the point I was putting across.

5k is easier to save than 16k. A lot easier. Theresfore you can't just ignore the house price, but blame the deposit.

Of course it is but it’s no good hoping for house prices crash 75%.

Graham_Devon

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Of course it is but it’s no good hoping for house prices crash 75%.

That's not what I;m hoping for. I am trying to get the point across to you that you cannot keep disregarding house prices and lay the blame at the door of anything and everything else.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's not what I;m hoping for. I am trying to get the point across to you that you cannot keep disregarding house prices and lay the blame at the door of anything and everything else.

I'm not disregarding house prices all I'm saying is that the deposit on a £160k is not much difference to the deposit on a £150k and the stumbling block for most people is saving the deposit.