Nationwide May: + 0.7% MoM + 11.1% YoY

cells

Only some 1 million households own multiple homes and truly benefit from HPI

17 million households are not mucj better or worse off as they own just 1

10 million households are worse off as they rent off of the state or from a private landlord.

Cheering because 1 million have benefitted and 10 million lost is a bit pathetic.


Also owner occupation is falling by around 300-400,000 homes a year. By 2025 we may well have leas than half of households own. That isn't good news by any standards

ChopperST

As Jack Johnson in the post above yours illustrates those 17 million households are better off as they can access lower LTV mortgage products with a decreased interest rate meaning they can either overpay and be mortgage free sooner or have extra cash in their pocket each month and spend as they choose benefiting the wider economy, so the vast majority are actually better off.

wotsthat

cells wrote: »

Only some 1 million households own multiple homes and truly benefit from HPI

17 million households are not mucj better or worse off as they own just 1

10 million households are worse off as they rent off of the state or from a private landlord.

Cheering because 1 million have benefitted and 10 million lost is a bit pathetic.

18 million households are discovering that buying is better than renting.

The other 10 million probably realise that too.

Blacklight

cells wrote: »

Only some 1 million households own multiple homes and truly benefit from HPI

17 million households are not mucj better or worse off as they own just 1

10 million households are worse off as they rent off of the state or from a private landlord.

Cheering because 1 million have benefitted and 10 million lost is a bit pathetic.


Also owner occupation is falling by around 300-400,000 homes a year. By 2025 we may well have leas than half of households own. That isn't good news by any standards

That's 18 million with an asset that's increasing in value while their debt inflates away and 10 million happy landlords.

28m > 10m so I'm not sure what your point is.

cells

ChopperST wrote: »

As Jack Johnson in the post above yours illustrates those 17 million households are better off as they can access lower LTV mortgage products with a decreased interest rate meaning they can either overpay and be mortgage free sooner or have extra cash in their pocket each month and spend as they choose benefiting the wider economy, so the vast majority are actually better off.

This is not true. The explanation isn't easy but I will try

as a nation we want to live at a lower occupancy. That means if you own 1 house now as a household you will likely need 1.1 homes in the future to meet yoyr demand, on average. A clear example of this is a period in the 1970s. During 4 years the population did not go up at all it acually fell a tiny bit but just for arguments sake assume it was perfectly flat. Well during that time 1.2 million additional homes were built. What that meant is that although there was the exact same number of people they lived at a lower occupancy rate.

now would the population have been better off with those 1.2 million additional homes costing 200k each or 150k each? Clearly the cheaper those additional homes were the better just as cheaper energy or food wpuld have helped.

so as a nation we actually need more homes irrespective of population growth. This is because we need to live at a lower occupancy rate.

so even if you own 1 home. On average you are still a net buyer of housing going forward.

So the 17 million or so households who own are worse off because theu need to purchase some 2 million additional homes over the next 20 years. They are net buyers still so lower prices is better for them not higher.


with regards to higher prices leading to the ability to birrow cheaper because of lower LTV again im not so convinced. Firatly over a say 3 year repayment mortgage you would have already paid down some 10% of the mortgage so if uou bought at 10% down you would remortgage at 80% so you naturally go down in LTV. Add in 3% general inflation so no real term inflation and you are at 70% LTV. You sont need 10-20% hpi yearly to benifit fom lower LTV over time.

also the banks have certain costs and profits they will try to meet. You will prpbably find thay not everyone can see lower costs its more an accounting trick. Eg of everyone went from 90% to 70% LTV mortgages im sure the banks are not going to accept half their previous spread.

also the reason lower ltv costs reasonable less is becuase of regulations om capotal so its artifical and not a natural benefit

cells

[QUOTisn't any=wotsthat;65699369]18 million households are discovering that buying is better than renting.

The other 10 millionh realise that too.[/QUOTE]

You don't seem to understand the system is currently going towards more landlords and less owner occupation. And it is happening very rapidly. more than 1000 homes a day are switching to landlords.

Something is definitely broken.
by comparison both Germany and France are heading towards more OO

This isn't anything to do with price or price increases its got everything to do with far too few new builds. Its a trend that has been going on aince around 2004-2005 during which prices increased prices fell prices were flat and in all those different circumstances landlord properties increased.

The nation desperately needs to build more to stop and reverse that. Building more will not see prices fall it will just mean they increase less rapidly. Eg france builds and has been buildig 400k homes a year fpr many yeara and prices are up vs last yr vs 3 yrs ago vs 5 yeats ago etc etc

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

cells wrote: »

Only some 1 million households own multiple homes and truly benefit from HPI

17 million households are not mucj better or worse off as they own just 1

10 million households are worse off as they rent off of the state or from a private landlord.

Cheering because 1 million have benefitted and 10 million lost is a bit pathetic.


Also owner occupation is falling by around 300-400,000 homes a year. By 2025 we may well have leas than half of households own. That isn't good news by any standards

Yh why don't you just make up a bunch of stuff to support your opini............ Oh I see 😒

cells

Blacklight wrote: »

That's 18 million with an asset that's increasing in value while their debt inflates away and 10 million happy landlords.

28m > 10m so I'm not sure what your point is.

Your asset isn't increasing in value its value is the same
if liver prices went up to 10x as much as last year are you as a liver owner better off? What are you going to do sell your liver? Likewise what is a homeowner going to do, sell up and live on their car?

The only people who truly benefit are the some 1 million households who own more than 1

The 17 million households who own just 1 are actually net buyers going forward so higher prices isn't great for them.

BTW im not arguing that we should see a HPC there are problems with that too. I just think it would be farm more sane and healthy for the UK to be building towards 400-500k unitd a year. This extra supply will imo jist reduce HPI to French levels of around general inflation or a little higher

cells

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Yh why don't you just make up a bunch of stuff to support your opini............ Oh I see ��

Please state and prove what part is wrog or keep quiet


Of coirse there is some rounding but the figures are very close and for all intents for a debate like this there isn't much value in statig nimbers to the tenth decimal place

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

cells wrote: »

Please state and prove what part is wrog or keep quiet

with regards to higher prices leading to the ability to birrow cheaper because of lower LTV again im not so convinced. Firatly over a say 3 year repayment mortgage you would have already paid down some 10% of the mortgage so if uou bought at 10% down you would remortgage at 80% so you naturally go down in LTV. Add in 3% general inflation so no real term inflation and you are at 70% LTV. You sont need 10-20% hpi yearly to benifit fom lower LTV over time.


Of coirse there is some rounding but the figures are very close and for all intents for a debate like this there isn't much value in statig nimbers to the tenth decimal place

There is just so much fail here...... oh f**k it.

1, Increased value of asset
2, lower interest payments from increased LTV
3, larger available equity withdrawal
4, Pass on greater wealth to loved ones


Now keep quiet numpty.