We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Help To Buy - Overwhelmingly popular with voters
Comments
-
I agree we should revert back to a boe rate roughly 10 times what it is now. That should really stoke up a house buying frenzy.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Nonsense.
If we reverted to historically normal, sensible and prudent lending standards today, volume would soar.
We don't have that.
The fact is that the only reason house prices have not collapsed totally is that the lowest ever boe rate has kept people going. The fight against inflation has been jettisoned and there has been a wealth transfer from savers to borrowers. Without this there would have been mass repossessions leaving banks with thousands of properties they would have been unable to sell, a situation neither the labour nor conservative governments would allow to happen.0 -
-
grizzly1911 wrote: »Which part of the curve would you like us to treat as normal the bit when 95%/100% and 5+x income multipliers with interest only?.
I would say it's obvious that the lending conditions which, for a very brief time in the mid 00's, caused the likes of 125%, interest only, self-cert, etc, were abnormally loose.
Just as the lending conditions of today, causing rationing of mortgages, the exclusion of over a million people who would historically have been considered creditworthy from getting mortgages, and most FTB-s to require 20% plus deposits, are abnormally tight.
The historically normal, prudent, and sensible middle ground is that of 90% and 95% mortgages being available to most applicants with a decent credit score and a job.
We do not have that today.
We have had that for most of the last 100 years.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »I would say it's obvious that the lending conditions which, for a very brief time in the mid 00's, caused the likes of 125%, interest only, self-cert, etc, were abnormally loose.
Just as the lending conditions of today, causing rationing of mortgages, the exclusion of over a million people who would historically have been considered creditworthy from getting mortgages, and most FTB-s to require 20% plus deposits, are abnormally tight.
The historically normal, prudent, and sensible middle ground is that of 90% and 95% mortgages being available to most applicants with a decent credit score and a job.
We do not have that today.
We have had that for most of the last 100 years.
Did the abnormally lose lending create the volume of house building needed to meet demand?
Did the historically prudent lending, whatever figure that may be, create the volume of building needed?
We haven't seen anything like the level of construction needed since social house building collapsed.
Not to mention
Pay has shrunk by 10% in parts of UK, TUC study finds
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22851978
Or that inflation for core essentials of life are rising faster than the CPI/RPI and show no signs of slowing.
By all means suggest that this just represents the bottom of the pile that would never have aspired to home ownership, that 33% and growing you often allude to, but they are still part of the aggregate demand for housing.
If it did just affect that 33% then saving for deposits and proving creditworthiness wouldn't be a problem."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
meaningless utter rubbish
do you really think people in the UK at the moment are worse off than indentured labour?
either yes or no would be a good answer
Depends where on the ladder you are and the degree of real choice you have."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »
Just as the lending conditions of today, causing rationing of mortgages, the exclusion of over a million people who would historically have been considered creditworthy from getting mortgages, and most FTB-s to require 20% plus deposits, are abnormally tight.
The historically normal, prudent, and sensible middle ground is that of 90% and 95% mortgages being available to most applicants with a decent credit score and a job.
We do not have that today.
We have had that for most of the last 100 years.
Just found this looking for something else, thought of you.:eek:.
Table 517 doesn't seem to show 90/95% as normal. Also seems to show >10% deposits as being not abnormal.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-housing-market-and-house-prices"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Just found this looking for something else, thought of you.:eek:.
Table 517 doesn't seem to show 90/95% as normal. Also seems to show >10% deposits as being not abnormal.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-housing-market-and-house-prices
That table is a good source of information. Shows house prices as being incredibly high compared to income too.
For nearly 30 years, the price to income ratio for FTBs never passed 3x. It's now 4.5x. Highest it's ever been bar 2004, and were all supposed to believe it's just as easy today as it's ever been....it's not prices, but "rationing".
Unfortunately, when used before now it just got brushed to the side...something to do with it being the "wrong type of average". Not sure how your point will get brushed to the side though.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Depends where on the ladder you are and the degree of real choice you have.
if yes or no is too difficult what about
1%
2%
3%
etc
of people in the UK are worse off than those in indentured labour a couple of centuries ago?0 -
if yes or no is too difficult what about
1%
2%
3%
etc
of people in the UK are worse off than those in indentured labour a couple of centuries ago?
I think we are all agreed that today's poor are in better shape than many of yesteryear's rich.
But all parts of the social spectrum continue with the same struggles that have been going on since the dawn of 'civilisation'.
It is not at all certain that any group has managed to make a net gain ('in real terms', as the saying goes...)
TruckerTAccording to Clapton, I am a totally ignorant idiot.0 -
On which planet? When I were a lad, the majority of the population couldn't have got their hands on a cheque book, let alone a mortgage. You couldn't get a sofa or a TV on HP without putting a third down.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »The historically normal, prudent, and sensible middle ground is that of 90% and 95% mortgages being available to most applicants with a decent credit score and a job.
We do not have that today.
We have had that for most of the last 100 years.
And if you could get a mortgage at all, the top limit was 2.5 times one salary - wife's earnings didn't count."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards