British house prices are 31% too high

Graham_Devon

Percy1983 wrote: »

Proving all those who bought houses can afford houses doesn't prove much does it.

No, not really.

Private airliners are affordable if you only look at those people buying private airliners.

All depends on what you want to prove as to how you look at it.

buglawton

Here's the real reason the UK is overpriced and always will be:
- Most foreigners speak English so can move (& work) here competitively
- The British do not speak any other language so can't move (& work) there competitively

Talking mainly about the EU here, where the labour market is meant to be free flowing in all directions.

Also interesting to note that when Germany had a major inward migration of ethnic Germans from Russia in the 90s, the German govt responded by building a number of major size new suburbs with ALL affordable homes to cope.

In the UK, when faced with a similar problem, the govt does....

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

Proving all those who bought houses can afford houses doesn't prove much does it.

All those that have bought houses are finding that they're more affordable than they have been for a long time.

Mortgage costs are lowish, prices have fallen in real terms across most of the UK and banks are lending to comparatively lower risk customers than they have in recent years who have a higher deposits and/ or higher income ratios.

Simple if you think about it.

Percy1983

wotsthat wrote: »

All those that have bought houses are finding that they're more affordable than they have been for a long time.

Mortgage costs are lowish, prices have fallen in real terms across most of the UK and banks are lending to comparatively lower risk customers than they have in recent years who have a higher deposits and/ or higher income ratios.

Simple if you think about it.

The low mortgage costs are only really available to those who already has mortgages to which they most likely got them much cheaper than they are today.

A FTB now doesn't gain anything but higher margins for the banks.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

The low mortgage costs are only really available to those who already has mortgages to which they most likely got them much cheaper than they are today.

A FTB now doesn't gain anything but higher margins for the banks.

Data is showing that affordability for FTB's is the lowest for some time too.

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

Data is showing that affordability for FTB's is the lowest for some time too.

Just need the deposit and the ability to meet strict affordability criteria.

Not against those points, shouldn't have gone to wide off the mark in the first place, but it requires expectations to be managed.

buglawton

Lately there's been a lot of talk in the press about the Help to Buy scheme making homes more affordable...

Budget 2013: Help to Buy mortgage scheme 'will create housing bubble' - Telegraph

Now, what kind of baby thinking about economics says that increasing the demand for something (i.e. the amount of money chasing a fixed supply) makes it easier to get?

IveSeenTheLight

wotsthat wrote: »

I really can't see the point of dividing one number by another and only looking at the result in the context of the long term average.

Of course, it's just an indicator.
Just one factor of consideration.

My point was that Prices to Rents was not a stable comparison given the balance of types of properties supply and demand.

wotsthat wrote: »

Not a single person said to me in the nineties when I bought that it was a good decision because prices were too cheap - everyone I knew thought they were too expensive then too.

Interesting point in that people thought (even though we can now see it was a relatively cheap time to buy) that prices were too high.

Surely then personal thought / feelings need something more factual / statistical to provide some weighted consideration

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Old ground? Not really.

Most definitely Graham,
You are the King of groundhog day.

It seems you are incapable of recalling or committing to memory previous posts / topics

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just highlighting your rather silly way to define the affordability of something.

Basically what you are saying is it's affordable if you can afford it.

Which is brilliant and all that for your rose tints ....but is hardly a measure of affordability.

Once again Graham, I'm separating the issue of property being affordable to all and the affordability of homeowners.

I accept and have even suggested that you canvas for far more property to be built in order to achieve affordability for all.

In reality however, we peaked at 68% of owner occupancy (which is now falling), essentially and simplistically meaning that only the top 68% wealth of society can afford the supply of properties available.

Are you able to differentiate?

My wife works part time, many people do.
Are they realistically able to afford property on their own?
If they were, average earners would be able to buy seaside and countryside retreats.

Your looking for a Utopian society which is unrealistic in the modern world.

That said, most affordability stats don;t differentiate from homebuyers or not but fix on a statistic which is comparable throughout time such as the Halifax use of the male full time mean average

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

That said, most affordability stats don;t differentiate from homebuyers or not but fix on a statistic which is comparable throughout time such as the Halifax use of the male full time mean average

Yer - so after all your huffing and puffing, you basically agree that no other index does what you have done in order to increase the strength of your rose tints.

Does amuse me that the BTL's on here often state the same thing "oooo, you want everyone ot have access to a roof" as if it's some kind of bad thing.