The homeowners who cannot move home

homelessskilledworker

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

jules, whatever you do, don't be guided by some misguided muppets on here who claim your house is overpriced without even having the slightest knowledge about your local housing market. Good luck.





Shame on you both.

Well share with him some of your great wisdom prickpants/rees

The question again...

He cannot find a buyer

ukcarper

shortchanged wrote: »

But whichever way you look at it carper, things would be easier for buyers if house prices were lower. Lower price = Lower deposit needed, whether that is a 10, 15, 20% deposit or whatever, so ultimately less money for people to find.

Assuming mortgages were available what do you think would increase sales the most a drop in deposit requirement to 5% or a 5% fall in house prices.

shortchanged_2

Joeskeppi wrote: »

If it's only price preventing purchase then why here the number of transactions so much higher when house prices were 20% higher?

Come on joeskeppi, don't be the prize numpty now. Surely you are aware that there was this thing called loose lending back then, banks were throwing money at people, easy credit fueled demand.

Breaking news.........financial markets can change, therefore something that was once obtainable by credit may no longer be.

Now I'm sure as you are aware, those times are no longer here, so under the current financial circumstances house prices are overpriced because they are unaffordable to many as they can't get the credit which is reflected by the low level of transactions.

shortchanged_2

ukcarper wrote: »

Assuming mortgages were available what do you think would increase sales the most a drop in deposit requirement to 5% or a 5% fall in house prices.

Well I wouldn't be an advocate of 5% deposits anyway and I certainly think house prices need to drop by more than 5%.

But answering your question of course a 5% deposit would make buying easier but then that would be a return to loose lending. Hell why bother with deposits at all lets bring back 100% mortgages. Do you think that would help house sales carper?

Mr._Pricklepants

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Well share with him some of your great wisdom Rees..

The question again

He cannot find a buyer

First off, I'm not Ree, I think that's clear now, obviously not to you. Whatever.
The question I can not answer, as I have no knowledge about jules' local housing market. Neither do you. So stop making assertions that it's overpriced from your armchair in Orton Longueville.

'pent up demand' was mentioned earlier. shorty and devon got all confused about it and dragging in the Ferrari analogy.
It might just be there are people willing to pay the price, but can't get finance? Cue Graham Devon : "if they can't get the finance, they can't afford it, muddle muddle...". Baffling.

Percy1983

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

jules, whatever you do, don't be guided by some misguided muppets on here who claim your house is overpriced without even having the slightest knowledge about your local housing market. Good luck.

jules, whatever you do, don't be guided by some misguided muppets on here who claim your house is worth more without even having the slightest knowledge about your local housing market. Good luck.

You say there was one locally and the only difference was a conservatory, was that really the only difference? ie bathroom, kitchen generally how it is decorated.

There is a house near me still up for sale, the house is exactly the same (built the same time), yet it was nowhere near as nice as the one we bought and has a much smaller garden and they still want more for it than we paid for ours.

shortchanged_2

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

It might just be there are people willing to pay the price, but can't get finance? Cue Graham Devon : "if they can't get the finance, they can't afford it, muddle muddle...". Baffling.

Do you understand how financial markets work?

Let me put this simply for you. If they can't get the finance, then they can't afford it. Is that really difficult to understand.

And if they can't afford it then they can be willing to pay the price all they like but the result will be................ NO TRANSACTION. See, it's quite simple really.

Mr._Pricklepants

shortchanged wrote: »

Let me put this simply for you. If they can't get the finance, then they can't afford it. Is that really difficult to understand.

And if they can't afford it then they can be willing to pay the price all they like but the result will be................ NO TRANSACTION. See, it's quite simple really.

Ok, we agree it's about mortgage availabilty then.

Because earlier you claimed price was the main factor.

shortchanged wrote: »

Price is the main barrier no matter what some on here will say.

shortchanged_2

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Ok, we agree it's about mortage availabilty then.

Because earlier you claimed price was the main factor.

Aahh damn you got me there.

OK, let's put it this way. Do you think if house prices dropped by say 50% from their current levels and we had the same level of lending criteria we currently have that we would still have the same level of transactions as now?

ukcarper

shortchanged wrote: »

Well I wouldn't be an advocate of 5% deposits anyway and I certainly think house prices need to drop by more than 5%.

But answering your question of course a 5% deposit would make buying easier but then that would be a return to loose lending. Hell why bother with deposits at all lets bring back 100% mortgages. Do you think that would help house sales carper?

Unsurprisingly I don’t agree that 5% deposits are lax lending they were available well before the last boom. I would say that as long as strict affordable criteria is used and we don’t return to self cert mortgages and high salary multiplies that is ok.

I’m not totally against 100% mortgages but I can see the reasons for not allowing them. by the way if you use the same lending criteria with 100% as 90% you would only be able to buy a cheaper property