The First Time Buyer - How do they have it really?

martinsurrey

thedalmeny wrote: »

There seems to be allot of articles about on how the typical first time buyer is essentially screwed, left with only the bank of mum and dad and decades saving for their first property..... Personally, i think people have got it pretty good in general...

thedalmeny wrote: »

Ok a few issues with this.


You are now speculating on determining factors, such as the impact of children. This has always been stated looking at a single first time buyer in full-time employment. I've made no attempt to account for household income or family types, this was stated in a post within the thread.

rubbish, your opening line is about a TYPICAL first time buyer, and a typical first time buyer is a family, fact.

also its about an unassisted first time buyer, which account for only 25% of first time buyers, per you own link.

what your analysis says is that if you wait until your mid 30's and dont have a family you can comfortably afford to buy a flat...

that is NOT an analysis of the expected profile of first time buyers and as such your concusion

Conclusion;

• It is relatively easy to achieve the deposit required in all areas with the exception of London and the South West.
• A mortgage is perfectly affordable in all areas with exception of London, the South West could narrowly be considered affordable.

is rubbish for all but a minority of the population, and so is not representative, which makes it a rubbish conculsion. (which is again backed up by the fact that 75% of FTB's get help!)

your analysis is fine, but this should be re titled as it has nothing to do with actual first time buyers, it's to do with a small niche population, 30+ singles.

I know you'll come back with some defence, but I'm not going to reply again, the facts are clear, your analysis is flawed (but valid for a small subset of FTB's), which shows nothing for the general state of the situation facing FTB's in the real world.

and to say they have it pretty good is an insult to the housing mess a lot of people find themselves in, through no fault of thier own, other than the decade they were born

N1AK

thedalmeny wrote: »

I can see some of your points however;

• The interest rate used in my analysis is 5%, historically an average.
• If you look the countries Price to Income ratio for property but then really drive into the details you'll see that London massively unbalances the statistics.

If you take away Greater London and parts of the South West then the U.K compare to other European countries in terms of Price to Income, isn't to bad

The problem we have is London is the second most city to buy property in the world, this in turn has a disproportion affect on any statistic that views the U.K as a whole. I think my analysis shows that also.

I think if you're going to claim that then it really needs to be backed up with a more nuanced investigation.

For example, if excluding London and the South West is excluding 20% of houses in the most expensive regions then this should be compared to the cheapest 80% of other countries.

Given the price of property in decent parts of Paris, Barcelona, Cologne, Prague, Budapest etc vs the country as a whole I think you'll find that although we have a rather extreme example of market distortion in London most other countries have some as well.

N1AK

Loughton_Monkey wrote:

But these days, people pretend it's down to 'luck' or 'blame'. In other words, your own success will be down to the 'luck' of being born at the right time, the ability to live with your parents for a short while, the luck of not 'needing' a loan, the luck of finding a good job.....

There are few things less impressive than someone who genuinely thinks they've earned everything they have without luck playing a part when it obviously isn't the case. For every person who pulled themselves up through adversity to make something of themselves there are dozens of people who got born into a wealthy country, to parents who cared for them, went to good schools and entered the workforce when employment is high.

I know people just as smart, and probably harder working, than I am who left Uni a couple of years later. I got good jobs thrown at me, they had to search for months and take lesser opportunities. Chances are that leaving Uni in 2005 has already made me considerably wealthier than I would be if I'd left in 2008 and I'm still benefiting from that bit of luck.

martinsurrey

I'll leave with this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics


"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments."

thedalmeny

martinsurrey wrote: »

rubbish, your opening line is about a TYPICAL first time buyer, and a typical first time buyer is a family, fact.

Fact is it? Please show me a reputable source breaking down first time buyers by age and family profile.

The average first child age for women is 29.5, based on that statistic alone it's enough assume your statement is incorrect.

also its about an unassisted first time buyer, which account for only 25% of first time buyers, per you own link.

No, i suggest you read the CML report properly, it also contains the average across all first time buyers. It even has a nice pretty graph to illustrate that age (more your kind of thing im sure), which is 29, furthermore the study is from 2011 and across all studies the average FTB age has risen since. So again, this does not support your claim to perform an analysis on the 22-29 age range.

I know you'll come back with some defence, but I'm not going to reply again, the facts are clear, your analysis is flawed (but valid for a small subset of FTB's), which shows nothing for the general state of the situation facing FTB's in the real world.

My defense is the analysis supported by the data, so far all you've managed to do is the following;

• State what you believe is fact based on your opinion
• Incorrectly interrupt the ONS findings
• Incorrectly estimate the average FTB age (as proven by the data)
• Waffle on

[Deleted User]

martinsurrey wrote: »

I'll leave with this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics


"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments."

What i love, is that people are using the results of statistical studies, rather than the raw data, so they have no idea of trends, distributions, skew or outliers.

84% of all internet statistics are made up

thedalmeny

N1AK wrote: »

I think if you're going to claim that then it really needs to be backed up with a more nuanced investigation.

For example, if excluding London and the South West is excluding 20% of houses in the most expensive regions then this should be compared to the cheapest 80% of other countries.

Given the price of property in decent parts of Paris, Barcelona, Cologne, Prague, Budapest etc vs the country as a whole I think you'll find that although we have a rather extreme example of market distortion in London most other countries have some as well.

I would agree, it's a difficult one to analysis and i did attempt to find some data on the subject to illustrate it but i was unable to. It would be interesting to see.

ringo_24601 wrote: »

What i love, is that people are using the results of statistical studies, rather than the raw data, so they have no idea of trends, distributions, skew or outliers.

84% of all internet statistics are made up

Goodluck finding raw data in most cases, i think providing people use reputable sources and not the Daily Mirror we'll be ok..

As i've repeatedly said though, this is simply a broad look with the sources referenced. Some people seemed determined to debate beyond that and suggest other factors / their own impression on what further refinement would impact the results... Ideally you'd hope they'd actually do their own research, reference the credible sources they've used and state how in a logical and supportable way that unbalances this.

[Deleted User]

But wouldn't you say an incoherently flawed analysis is worse than no analysis at all?

ukcarper

martinsurrey wrote: »

rubbish, your opening line is about a TYPICAL first time buyer, and a typical first time buyer is a family, fact.

If that is true they would have another income to save.

thedalmeny

ringo_24601 wrote: »

But wouldn't you say an incoherently flawed analysis is worse than no analysis at all?

I would - i've yet to have anyone show any statistical data from a reputable source which would prove that in this case...

What i set out to find out is clearly stated, how i reached the figures i did are clearly supported by credible sources and i've also included the base data sheet from which the graphical representations have been produced.