Acadametrics: +0.6% MoM +3.7% YoY

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Percy1983 wrote: »

Anybody can sort there finances and buy.

Sorry Percival but just because you repeat the same old rubbish doesn't make it any less a big steaming pile of nonsense.

With mortgage rationing, by definition, most people can never buy.

It doesn't make the slightest difference how many have a deposit saved, or how good their credit is, most will still be refused anyway as the banks simply don't have the money to lend.

Year one - 80 people cannot buy, 20 can.

Year two - 80 people cannot buy, 20 can.

Year three - 80 people cannot buy, 20 can.

Year four - 80 people cannot buy, 20 can.

Year five - 80 people cannot buy, 20 can.

Year six - 80 people cannot buy, 20 can.

Year seven - 80 people cannot buy, 20 can.

Year eight - 80 people cannot buy, 20 can.

Year nine - 80 people cannot buy, 20 can.

Year ten - 80 people cannot buy, 20 can.

After a decade of mortgage rationing.....

-800 people have not been able to buy.

-200 people have been able to buy.

It makes no difference at all if they fix their credit or not, or if they save a bigger deposit or not, most will still not be able to buy so long as mortgage rationing continues.

MrRee_2

What news - it's backed up what I have seen on the ground for over 12 months now.

The market is the market - if people can buy then they will buy, at whatever price it takes to do that. This, more than anything, drives prices up or down.

People are feeling pretty good at the moment, wages have increased 5% a year since the recession/crash, house prices are static and therefore very cheap now ..... so, people are getting on with their lives and buying.

Renting is more expensive than buying - in the short, middle and long term ..... it's a mugs game and only those with their heads in the sand are not buying.

Yes, maybe some are priced out ... but, now, the majority can and will buy - easy funds, easy credit, low deposits are all returning.

Clever people will buy NOW - before the balloon really goes up and their monthly savings are less than the monthly house price rise!

Percy1983

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Sorry Percival but just because you repeat the same old rubbish doesn't make it any less a big steaming pile of nonsense.

With mortgage rationing, by definition, most people can never buy.

It doesn't make the slightest difference how many have a deposit saved, or how good their credit is, most will still be refused anyway as the banks simply don't have the money to lend.

Sorry Hamish McHPI but just because you repeat the same old rubbish doesn't make it any less a big steaming pile of nonsense.

Rampant HPI is not the answer, yes it will solve a short term problem but replace it with a much larger long term problem (where your assets will be worth more, can't think why you support it so much).

As I say, its not your selfeshness which bothers me so much, its the fact you keep trying to hide it behind 'caring for FTBs' which does.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Percy1983 wrote: »

yes it will solve a short term problem but replace it with a much larger long term problem.

No, it's your solution of preventing people buying, and preventing houses being built, that will cause the much larger long term problem.

We all agree prices rise when demand exceeds supply.

And as I've not seen anyone argue to the contrary, I'll assume we also all agree that credit allows for the conversion of housing need to effective demand.

So what people are really arguing for when they argue for restricting credit, is to prevent millions of people from buying houses.

You may as well argue for restricting food, or jobs, or births, or whatever, so that fewer people can live here, and thus fewer people can buy houses.

It's an asinine proposition.

Let the credit flow freely however, and more people will be able to buy, all those "reluctant landlords" will be able to sell, more houses will be built, and the shortage will get much better, very quickly, instead of worsening by the day as it is now.

Yes, prices may rise, but ultimately affordability constraints will limit that.... And if the government is serious about releasing more land for building prices eventually should fall once the shortage is relieved.

Mr._Pricklepants

Percy1983 wrote: »

Now as much as I would love to give that £100k to charity as I haven't done anything to deserve it
.....
I will have to offset the £100k I have done nothing to earn against the £200k the owners of the house I want to be have done nothing to earn.

'have done nothing to earn', what's that all about?

If you buy an ounce of gold today for £20 and sell it next year for £30, are you gonna forfeit the £10 also?

If you put a grand in an ISA today and it will have accrued £50 interest by next year, are you gonna have the same holier than thou attitude also and refuse the £50?

Such financial illiteracy...no wonder you needed a bailout

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Such financial illiteracy...

Yes it's quite bizarre that he doesn't understand the things he calls for will prevent most people from ever buying.

Or perhaps he just doesn't care, if it means his next purchase will be cheaper.

Percy1983

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Let the credit flow freely however, and more people will be able to buy, all those "reluctant landlords" will be able to sell.

I keep meaning to ask this one, why can't they sell?

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

'have done nothing to earn', what's that all about?

If you buy an ounce of gold today for £20 and sell it next year for £30, are you gonna forfeit the £10 also?

If you put a grand in an ISA today and it will have accrued £50 interest by next year, are you gonna have the same holier than thou attitude also and refuse the £50?

Such financial illiteracy...no wonder you needed a bailout

I can see clear differences in all 3 here.

ISA, quite simple, I take an ISA, it doesn't stop anybody else taking one, I am guessing there is an unlimited supply of them.

Gold, is a limited resource to which some buying more means there is less for others and prices rise, not really a problem as we don't all need gold.

Houses, are limited resource to which some buying more means there is less for others and prices rise, this is a big problem as everybody needs shelter.

As for the 'bailout' I really can shoot you down on this one, firstly I didn't 'need' a bailout, all debts where perfectly serviced and well within my means (hence my perfect credit file when we came to buy a house).

Secondly the 'bailout' was effectively just juggling debts around between me and the wife to get all of our debts (as in both mine and hers) into 0% deals which of course lead to said debts getting paid a lot quicker for both us.

So yes I am guilty as charged in interest payments avoidance and agree without the help of my now wife it wouldn't have been possible to pay the debts as quickly.

Just admit it was a brilliant plan which went amazingly well and it just annoys you I am doing well in life.

Mr._Pricklepants

Percy1983 wrote: »

Just admit it was a brilliant plan which went amazingly well and it just annoys you I am doing well in life.

Some random internet bloke I've never met doing well is hardly annoying.

What is slightly annoying is the same bloke moaning for years on a forum about being locked out of homebuying due to his birth date, then acquiring a property, and then calling for more restrictive lending for future FTB's.
It's that 'pull the ladder up Jack, I'm okay' attitude which grates. Don't be so greedy and let others enjoy the chance of getting on the property ladder like you did.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

Now as much as I would love to give that £100k to charity as I haven't done anything to deserve it, the problem is the house I want to buy has £200k HPI on it which the owners have done nothing to earn.

They have done something to earn it - they've risked their own capital for the deposit and leveraged the risk by borrowing the balance. The alternative is to rent where the capital risks are zero.

There is absolutely nothing to stop you forming a club, setting the 'correct' price and agreeing to only buy and sell at those agreed prices to like minded people.

If you're that bothered write a clause in your will to say that whatever the difference between what you paid and the value when the grim reaper visits is donated to charity.

You won't do either of those things because when you bought you weren't interested in thoughts of the 'children' or the mantra 'a house is a home and not a pension' - your only thought was to pay the lowest price possible.

You'll do the same when you sell and be looking for the highest price possible and for sure will include any HPI accrued in the sale price.

It's a little hypocritical really.

Percy1983

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Some random internet bloke I've never met doing well is hardly annoying.

What is slightly annoying is the same bloke moaning for years on a forum about being locked out of homebuying due to his birth date, then acquiring a property, and then calling for more restrictive lending for future FTB's.
It's that 'pull the ladder up Jack, I'm okay' attitude which grates. Don't be so greedy and let others enjoy the chance of getting on the property ladder like you did.

Fair enough, but the big flaw in your whole arguement is I am not wanting to pull the ladder up, I just expecting people to claim the same ladder I did.

The way I see it is the whole market is still in shock, for years it was based on rampant HPI, now its not people are having trouble adjusting.

Sooner or later developers will stop waiting for bigger profits and just start building for lessor profits, when the rate of building starts to increase again then the 'rationing' (still haven't seen that term used officially anywhere) will loosen as the market can support it. Yes this will be a slower more painful process in the short term, but will do much good for many generations in the future.

Yes we could just go back to loose lending, it would get more buyers and developers may start building a little quicker, but at the cost of pushing us back into another HPI fueled pyramid scheme.