64% of FTB's have parental help

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL, you will go to any length to disagree!

Taking two percentages and working out how the numbers of people getting help have changed - extraordinary lengths indeed!

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

Its not in the numbers who are getting help, its in the numbers of those who are managing without help.

So in 2007 249930/215940 managed it without help.

So in 2012 only 78480 managed it without help. so that is only 31%/36% of what it use to be can afford without help.

You can thank me for unravelling that yawn you just tried to spin.

OK.

More people were able to buy without help in 2007 vs 2012 (your calculation).

More or less the same number of people got help in 2007 vs 2012 (my calculation).

The proportion of those needing help has increased since 2007 (OP).

Wouldn't that lead you to the conclusion that those who don't get help have are now much less likely to buy?

Deposit requirements have changed significantly since 2007. Less of an issue for those getting help hence the reduction in total transactions and increase in the ratio of help/ no help.

This is an article showing how deposit requirements have impacted FTB's.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So if so few can buy that there are only 20,000 first time buyers, and 98% of them need help.....it must be even more affordable, as only 19,600 needed help, whereas today 139,000 need help.

You might be better served by trying to understand the real maths rather than making your own up.

You thought the OP was about people needing help because prices are 'simply' too high rather than relating to changes in deposit requirements (you wouldn't have posted it otherwise).

Houses are expensive today, they were less expensive in 2007 - all other things being equal transactions should have risen. All other things aren't equal - the changes in deposit requirements seems to be the most likely thing that isn't equal.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

You might be better served by trying to understand the real maths rather than making your own up.

You thought the OP was about people needing help because prices are 'simply' too high rather than relating to changes in deposit requirements (you wouldn't have posted it otherwise).

Houses are expensive today, they were less expensive in 2007 - all other things being equal transactions should have risen. All other things aren't equal - the changes in deposit requirements seems to be the most likely thing that isn't equal.

And you and trying to make out that prices have nothing to do with deposits.

Give up Wotsthat. You make yourself look incredibly silly.

The deposit is larger and therefore harder to achieve the higher the house price. You can't get away from this, no matter how hard you try.

You will literally argue anything.

chewmylegoff

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The first thing my dad said after I mentioned in passing on the phone that we were looking to buy a house, before hearing any other detail was, "I can't help you with it."

Yeah don't worry, you've never helped with anything else, I don't expect you to start now (is what I wish I'd said but didn't).

How vile. I presume he is a boomer.

OffGridLiving

Graham_Devon wrote: »

These sorts of statistics show you the true picture (IMO).

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The news isn't that "FTBs get parental help", but thats a great way to ignore the message.

Hi, sorry if I missed it in the text of your posts, but I'm struggling to understand what you feel these statistics show?

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And you and trying to make out that prices have nothing to do with deposits.

Give up Wotsthat. You make yourself look incredibly silly.

The deposit is larger and therefore harder to achieve the higher the house price. You can't get away from this, no matter how hard you try.

You will literally argue anything.

Err. His logic is pretty sound.

If you have, say 400,000 people a year who want to buy a house and 200,000 of them have rich parents who will give them money to help them buy then those 200,000 are likely to have larger deposits to put down. Say for simplicity the 200,000 with rich parents have a 10% deposit and everyone else only 5%.

If you then shift deposit requirements so that only people with a 10% can get a mortgage then suddenly you have half the number of proceedable first time buyers.

You go from having 50% of people having parental help to 100% of people having parental help. But only the same number of people have rich parents as before - BOMD's resources are not unlimited.

This means that the % figure soars when the number of people receiving help from their parents stays the same. This suggests that the deposit requirement is the major limiting factor. If the absolute price of the house was the issue you would expect to see the absolute number of people receiving help from their parents to also fall as despite their larger deposits they would still struggle to borrow enough money from the bank as a multiple of their salary.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Percy1983 wrote: »

Its not in the numbers who are getting help, its in the numbers of those who are managing without help.

Precisely the point that some of us have been making for a very long time.

So in 2007 249930/215940 managed it without help.

Yes, with higher house prices and higher interest rates, three times as many people managed to buy without help as did in 2012.

So in 2012 only 78480 managed it without help.

so that is only 31%/36% of what it use to be can afford without help.

Despite mortgage rates and house prices falling.

Because mortgage rationing, and today's higher deposit requirements, are the main barrier to entry.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chewmylegoff wrote: »

This suggests that the deposit requirement is the major limiting factor. .

Of course it is.

Although probably also worth noting that the deposit requirements are primarily in place to limit demand.

It's how the banks shrink the pool of buyers until it matches the much smaller pool of limited funding available.

Otherwise known as mortgage rationing.

Percy1983

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Precisely the point that some of us have been making for a very long time.



Yes, with higher house prices and higher interest rates, three times as many people managed to buy without help as did in 2012.



Despite mortgage rates and house prices falling.

Because mortgage rationing, and today's higher deposit requirements, are the main barrier to entry.

sorry but you are still comparing a time of lax lending to a time of sensible lending.

Just because more people got through with lax lending (and subsequently pushed prices up) it doesn't mean it is the correct way of doing things.