FTB House Prices +3%, FTB Sales +12%

Graham_Devon

Whats the celebration actually about Hamish?

Can you explain?

You've wrote two threads today. One on FTB houses getting more expensive for FTBs and one about food becoming more expensive for everyone.

Only one is cause for your celebration. So what is it that you are actually celebrating here?

Graham_Devon

Mallotum_X wrote: »

So the average first time buyer spends more on the first property and this is celebrated?

What a pointless thing to be celebrating. Perhaps you should think why this may be the case when average house prices are stable/down a bit.

Maybe the make up of a FTB has continued to change? and that many less well off FTB who would have bought slightly cheaper properties are not buying. Remove them and the average goes up a bit. Even if slightly more are buying at the higher end. Plenty of other reasons that may be behind it. Without comparing the typical FTB house against a benchmark the figure means nothing.

Clearly overall they are having no real impact on the housing market, or we would see average prices up everywhere.

Newbuy is probably behind it in all seriousness.

Or whatever the hell the scheme is called now. Easier credit for a more expensive purchase, aimed specifically at FTBs.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Mallotum_X wrote: »

You do appear to be confusing the stats.

Not at all.

I'm simply stating the most probable explanation. Halifax state that the average price paid by first time buyers has risen 3%. They do not specify a change in sales mix.

Nothing in the article says house prices have risen. Only that the average price of houses currently being bought by FTB are higher than last year. This may well be down to the make up of FTB changing over the period and therefore the type of house being bought having changed.

Theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.

The elite, high income, spotless credit, large deposit, FT buyers could already get mortgages.

An increase in lending beyond those buyers would therefore almost certainly include buyers in a not-quite-so-elite category, those without such a high income, or such a large deposit. Those people would probably be buying cheaper houses than the elite, not more expensive ones.

In which case the rise in FTB house prices could well be more than 3%.

We know from the recent nationwide figures that Y-on-Y average prices were down slightly. So using your logic a 12% increase in FTB has negatively influenced the overall average house price.

Eh?

We don't know that at all.

Land Registry is up 1%, Halifax is almost exactly flat, and ONS & Acadametrics are both up around 3%.

Of the 5 major indices, only one is showing any notable fall in prices (of 1%), one is flat, and three are markedly up.

I would agree, however that the lending changes probably have had an influence on assisting FTB to buy.

Indeed.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Whats the celebration actually about Hamish?

Can you explain?

Do you often have a problem reading?

Or is it just today.....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

This increase in lending has enabled 12% more FTB-s to purchase than last year, when prices were 3% cheaper.

Excellent news for the economy as well. As there will be no sustainable recovery in the wider economy without a sustainable recovery in house prices.

Looks like a double cause for celebration.

12% more FTB-s able to buy, AND good for the wider economy.

:beer:

Mallotum_X

Hamish you are just getting your self in more and more knots here and you haven't given anything resembling an explanation. All we know is an average FTB has paid more on average for a home than an average FTB did a year ago.

There is not enough data provided to make any comparison between the homes or FTB's concerned in either period. The actual properties bought this year by FTB's may have risen, fallen or remained flat on the value of those exact properties a year ago. The samples are different. Nothing in the data gives information on geography where these extra 12% are buying. It could be an even 12% change in every town in the country, but more likely its not.

If the 12% were concentrated in say London you would expect that to influence the figures.

All we know is that the average value of a small sample of homes sold this year at a higher average value than a different small sample of homes a year ago.

Are now ignoring the Land Reg, Nationwide and Halifax and using just the ONS and Acadametrics stats for comparison? What figure do you think house prices changed by last year?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Do you often have a problem reading?

No, you have specifically celebrated the prices of the houses getting higher for FTB's. If you are going to tell me this isn't the case, I, and probably others, will come to the conlusion that it's you who has a problem reading (and writing, it would seem!) as what you stated, clebrates higher house prices for FTBs.

Chasing your own tail while tying yourself up doesn't help you.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

FTB house prices rising in real terms, not just nominal.

:beer::beer::beer:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Mallotum_X wrote: »

All we know is an average FTB has paid more on average for a home than an average FTB did a year ago.

Exactly.

And the first thought that comes to your mind is an improbable sales mix change towards wealthier buyers purchasing more expensive housing types.

Pretty much the opposite of what you'd expect to see with an expansion of lending to more people.

Are now ignoring the Land Reg, Nationwide and Halifax and using just the ONS and Acadametrics stats for comparison? What figure do you think house prices changed by last year?

Eh?

I said, quite clearly, that Nationwide is the only survey showing a fall. Halifax is flat. ONS is up markedly, Acadametrics is up markedly, and LR is up around a percent.

What do I think prices changed by? Well, three of the indices show a 1% to 3% rise, one is flat, one shows a 1% fall.

I reckon somewhere in the middle of those results is probably about right.

Prices rose last year for sure, how much is up for some debate, but I'd guess Land Registry isn't too far off.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, you have specifically celebrated the prices of the houses getting higher for FTB's.

Indeed.

Excellent news all around.

Mallotum_X

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Exactly.

And the first thought that comes to your mind is an improbable sales mix change towards wealthier buyers purchasing more expensive housing types.

Pretty much the opposite of what you'd expect to see with an expansion of lending to more people.




Eh?

I said, quite clearly, that Nationwide is the only survey showing a fall. Halifax is flat. ONS is up markedly, Acadametrics is up markedly, and LR is up around a percent.

What do I think prices changed by? Well, three of the indices show a 1% to 3% rise, one is flat, one shows a 1% fall.

I reckon somewhere in the middle of those results is probably about right.

Prices rose last year for sure, how much is up for some debate, but I'd guess Land Registry isn't too far off.

So lets just recap here..

You think prices rose by circa 1%, yet its good that one category of purchasers are paying 3% more for identical housing stock from a year ago.

Do FTB buy a typical house or do they buy a mix or property. Why would they be paying more than the rest of the market is doing?

Or more likely the make up of FTB and Houses (size/location/value) has changed slightly.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed.

Excellent news all around.

Again, what's to celebrate?

Tell me... I may even join you! I just don't know what I'm supposed to be celebrating.