Majority of houses more affordable than in 1997

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wrong, wrong, wrong.....

The article is based on the HI "Ability To Buy" index. (The clue is in the name)

It uses average incomes, FTB house prices, and mortgage rates available today, then breaks it down by region.

So this is not restricting it to those who have already bought at all Graham..... Do try reading the article next time.

Superb. Take your own advice. It's clearly based on those who can obtain a mortgage and buy. Every reference is regarding money left over after the mortgage payment.

http://www.hamptons.co.uk/news-research/press-releases/mar-20-2015/

Some other key points.

They use the mean, rather than median income average to "better represent those who are likely to buy a home". What's more it's household income.

The ability to buy has actually fallen 3% since 2014.

Their own assessment is that “The ability to buy a home today is on average two per cent better than it was at the time of the last general election, but despite some of the lowest mortgage rates on record, falling food and oil prices and some increase in wages, ability to buy is worse than this time last year. This is largely a result of house price growth outperforming incomes. But for working families with children the growing costs of childcare eats into the amount of money left at the end of the month to service a mortgage."

The ability to buy for the first time buyer has fallen or remained static in every single area of the country.

Infact, if you read the actual report instead of the telegraph version of it it's not nearly quite as exciting as the telepgraph makes out.

mystic_trev

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Define "hasn't gone down well" as you appear to be making things up?

Graham, I'm very upset and may have take you off my Christmas card list.

The last time I was told I was making things up, was when I was at Junior school some 50+ years ago. Your accusations are giving me some terrible flashbacks

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Superb. Take your own advice. It's clearly based on those who can obtain a mortgage and buy. Every reference is regarding money left over after the mortgage payment.

http://www.hamptons.co.uk/news-research/press-releases/mar-20-2015/

Some other key points.

They use the mean, rather than median income average to "better represent those who are likely to buy a home". What's more it's household income.

The ability to buy has actually fallen 3% since 2014.

Their own assessment is that “The ability to buy a home today is on average two per cent better than it was at the time of the last general election, but despite some of the lowest mortgage rates on record, falling food and oil prices and some increase in wages, ability to buy is worse than this time last year. This is largely a result of house price growth outperforming incomes. But for working families with children the growing costs of childcare eats into the amount of money left at the end of the month to service a mortgage."

The ability to buy for the first time buyer has fallen or remained static in every single area of the country.

Infact, if you read the actual report instead of the telegraph version of it it's not nearly quite as exciting as the telepgraph makes out.

Crikey Dev, would probably help if you used the latest version....:rotfl:


From the (current) report...

Ability to buy improved in the first quarter of 2015 (Q1 2015) compared to the last quarter of 2014 (Q4 2014) for all areas of the country.

Lower inflation means people have spent less on essentials and this, coupled with higher earnings and lower mortgage rates, means households in most parts of the country were left with more money with which to finance buying a home.

http://www.hamptons.co.uk/news-research/press-releases/aug-03-2015/

Not "more money to spend on their existing mortgage payment", but "more money to finance buying a home".

The Ability To Buy Index.

Not the "Tracker of People who have already bought's mortgage payment" index.

The clue really is in the name....:)

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Define "hasn't gone down well" as you appear to be making things up?

The thread is here...

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/205883-crisis-what-crisis-majority-of-houses-more-affordable-than-in-1997/

....Can't see anyone having even a minor meltdown.

"".................

The author must of had a gram of coke and a couple of e`s before writing this crap , fuc*king delusional cun*s

MARTYM8`

I see the analysis was provided by an estate agent......

House prices have risen 400-500% since 1997 - wages have not risen by anything like that.

We can have a serious debate - or take notice of the nonsense in this article.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

MARTYM8` wrote: »

I see the analysis was provided by an estate agent......

House prices have risen 400-500% since 1997 - wages have not risen by anything like that.

We can have a serious debate - or take notice of the nonsense in this article.

Excellent.

Perhaps you can provide the data.

Here's what the (economist that works for the estate agent) has included in their fairly comprehensive analysis.....

- Wages
- Interest rates
- Costs of essentials
- Purchase prices
- Running costs

I look forward to seeing your worked examples as to why they are wrong, broken down by region, of course....

Loughton_Monkey

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Crikey Dev, would probably help if you used the latest version....

Please be more kind to the less advantaged.

For those who simply don't know the time of day, how do you expect them to know what day (or even year) it is?

princeofpounds

As far as it goes, it's probably about right. And as far as it goes, it explains why house prices (in the SE at least) have been doing what they have been doing.

Unfortunately, static measures of affordability are pretty stupid ways to think about whether it is a good idea to buy a house or not. But, it has always been thus...

ukcarper

ukcarper wrote: »

Is 1997 the best time to compare to property was extremely cheap then.

MARTYM8` wrote: »

I see the analysis was provided by an estate agent......

House prices have risen 400-500% since 1997 - wages have not risen by anything like that.

We can have a serious debate - or take notice of the nonsense in this article.

Not according to the land registry it's 2.8x earning have increased 1.6x, so considering interest Rates are lower and earnings have increased more than inflation I would say it's far from nonsense.

Graham_Devon

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Please be more kind to the less advantaged.

For those who simply don't know the time of day, how do you expect them to know what day (or even year) it is?

Yet seemingly you felt the need to create a new username, with the sole intention of making me look silly by thanking my post as complete nonsense.

Cus I look incredibly silly when you are going to such lengths.