Housing Crash Coming

ukcarper

Windofchange wrote: »

Nope. What impact are social tenants and private renters going to have on the number of homes owned outright? They by definition aren't residing in 'owned' property, and therefore why do they impact on the total figure of homes owned? Granted, there may be some exceptions where an owner occupier owns a house and chooses to rent elsewhere, as I did myself for a period, but how many do you think this accounts for? The below is a different source showing the number of 'families' in each kind of housing situation.

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/data/housing/

2018 Q3 28.2% of homes owned outright. 2018 Q3 24.5% own with a mortgage. If you can show me how more than 50% of the population own their house outright please do.

That's not What he said, he said more than 50% of homes are not mortgages which is correct.

Windofchange

ukcarper wrote: »

That's not What he said, he said more than 50% of homes are not mortgages which is correct.

So all the social tenants, private renters and university students are going to keep the property market buoyed up by buying houses? What is the point that he, and by the looks of things yourself are trying to make here?

ukcarper

Windofchange wrote: »

So all the social tenants, private renters and university students are going to keep the property market buoyed up by buying houses? What is the point that he, and by the looks of things yourself are trying to make here?

I'm not trying to make any point other than what he said is correct, personally I learned a long time ago that trying to predict property market is a fools game.

Windofchange

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not trying to make any point other than what he said is correct, personally I learned a long time ago that trying to predict property market is a fools game.

I'm sure he'll be along soon enough to put things straight - I'll check back in another couple of years. Perhaps he's with me on Ironman now watching the Ironman World Championships given his username.

MobileSaver

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Slight flaw in your argument is that a third of all properties are owned outright.

This means that number of cash buyers will be a fair bit less than a third.

Say what?!?! Cash Buyers and Owned Outright are two entirely different statistics for the very reason you noted (i.e. after 18 or 25 years many originally mortgaged properties become owned outright - ironically this is one of the fundamental flaws in the HPC philosophy as many of them have now been paying their landlord's mortgage instead of their own for 16 years while they wait for a property crash.)

My statement was absolutely correct, yours was flawed:

Cash sales account for between 30% and 40% of all transactions

phillw

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not trying to make any point other than what he said is correct, personally I learned a long time ago that trying to predict property market is a fools game.

Not trying to predict the property market is also a fools game.

Windofchange wrote: »

They by definition aren't residing in 'owned' property, and therefore why do they impact on the total figure of homes owned?

Why can't someone else own them? Are you saying the owner has to occupy the property?

Zero_Sum

MobileSaver wrote: »

Say what?!?! Cash Buyers and Owned Outright are two entirely different statistics for the very reason you noted (i.e. after 18 or 25 years many originally mortgaged properties become owned outright - ironically this is one of the fundamental flaws in the HPC philosophy as many of them have now been paying their landlord's mortgage instead of their own for 16 years while they wait for a property crash.)

My statement was absolutely correct, yours was flawed:

Cash sales account for between 30% and 40% of all transactions

It depends which buyers we're talking about?
Given that the discussion is largely about affordibility for people buy & actually live in. So if a third own outright then the number of cash buyers (for the buyer to live in) has to be less.

Your stats include BTL investors. I wasnt including these.

MobileSaver

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Given that the discussion is largely about affordibility for people buy & actually live in. So if a third own outright then the number of cash buyers (for the buyer to live in) has to be less.

Sometimes if you find yourself in a hole, just stop digging!

Your new flaw is your "a third own outright" claim, the last time I checked more than 50% of owner occupiers did so without a mortgage, hence 30%+ cash buyers is perfectly doable and as it happens actually correct.

phillw

bartelbe wrote: »

Once mortgages become unaffordable, there will be no buyers on the market.

If it happens quickly then some shock could cause a temporary problem, but looking back these problems have had a knack of resolving themselves eventually.

As long as you aren't in the small minority of people who get caught out requiring to sell the property at the wrong time or have borrowed so much that you can't afford to pay it back any longer if things fall apart, then it works out fine.

Prices are set by the people who can afford to buy. So there is no pending correction, if house prices fall then the seller left some money on the table. We can't know what is going to happen in the future, putting faith in Boris may pay off or not.

triathlon

ukcarper wrote: »

That's not What he said, he said more than 50% of homes are not mortgages which is correct.

don't waste time on him, I just treated his post with the contempt it deserved, "Great ape, bedsit", I have no idea what he is on about.