Fantasists?

aoleks

BobT36 said:

Not sure how anyone will be able to afford a house, with how it's going.
Normal "houses" (not mini-mansions) around a third to half-a-million quid now. Salaries have NOT risen accordingly. 

Just where is the money coming from to buy these? It used to be that a house was 3x the household salary, now it's over 10x..

No, it’s not…

if you want to generalise, average salary in UK is £38k, in a household of 2 average salaries that’s £76k household income.

the average house is £315000 in England (going with the highest value in the UK to prove a point), that’s just over 4 times the household income (or just under if you have a 10% deposit).

jimbog

BobT36 said:

Not sure how anyone will be able to afford a house, with how it's going.
Normal "houses" (not mini-mansions) around a third to half-a-million quid now. Salaries have NOT risen accordingly. 

Just where is the money coming from to buy these? It used to be that a house was 3x the household salary, now it's over 10x..

There will always be some who are wealthy enough to buy.

For the majority things will revert back to the Victorian era, or what happens in many countries, where most people will have no other option than to rent and there will be a steep rise in HMOs and tenements owned by a few 

vic_sf49

Does the OP ever return to threads they started, or just post and run?

mi-key

BobT36 said:

Not sure how anyone will be able to afford a house, with how it's going.
Normal "houses" (not mini-mansions) around a third to half-a-million quid now. Salaries have NOT risen accordingly. 

Just where is the money coming from to buy these? It used to be that a house was 3x the household salary, now it's over 10x..

In most areas there are nice enough starter homes for under £200K. A joint income of £50K for a couple means borrowing less than 4x when you take into account the deposit. For a single buyer buying their first small flat or cheap house, you can get them for around £100K, so again you don't need to be on a huge salary as long as you can save up the deposit.

Part of the problem is people expecting to buy an average family home as their first house. In the 'olden days' you would get a cheap 1 bed flat, then maybe a 2 bed, on to a small house and wouldn't be looking at a nice 3 bed semi in a decent area until you were into your mid 30s or early 40s. Your  housing improved and increased in size along with your family and income.

The people buying £350K - £500K houses aren't first time buyers, they are selling a house they have already built up equity in, so don't need to borrow the full amount to buy them.

Yes, houses are definitely more expensive these days compared to income, but then borrowing ( even now ) is a lot cheaper than it was in the past. In the late 70s people were paying 11%, and hardly anyone had fixed term deals. In the 80s some people were paying over 18% and the average was over 10%. Even in the 90s the average was around 7%. Getting mortgages for over 25 year was also nearly impossible 

Also there was no minimum wage. My first full time job in the early 90s I was taking home £90 a week, which wasn't uncommon for a lot of young people in unskilled jobs. Today I would take home £356 a week for the same job

Silvertabby

[Deleted User] said:

lookstraightahead said:

RelievedSheff said:

You don't need to trust what a house goes on the market for (whatever that may mean).

It is generally easy enough to compare the asking price with recent sale prices and other similar properties currently on the market.

If a property is already "priced to sell" then you are not going to get a reduction on that. If a property is keenly priced then yes the vendor may accept a lower offer.

ok well maybe it's because most of the houses I've bought have no comparables as they're all different. 

But then the market changes too. And sellers and EA value differently. What are they basing their valuations on? Winning business? Selling a dream?

That's very unusual in the UK, where most houses are identical terraces.

Next time you visit the UK, look a little further than a small area of London.

Elliott.T123

lookstraightahead said:
.

But I've never paid what a seller has initially asked for. 

My experience is that you don't just pay what is asked - or have we changed how we buy houses now, and it's all about not upsetting a seller? 

I don't disagree at all with you that you should try to get a house for the lowest price you can and that it is perfectly acceptable to make an offer below asking.

I am just saying that you cant accuse a seller of wasting anyone's time for not accepting an offer at the price they advertise they are seeking. If you offer asking or above and are rejected then by all means accuse a seller of wasting your time, that is perfectly valid but not if you offer below.

Would you go into Sainsburys (other supermarkets are available) and tell them they are wasting your time when they wont let you buy the milk for 10% less than the sticker price?

Upset a seller all you like, but I just feel like the description of sellers as time wasters for holding out for a price they have made very clear is frankly incredibly entitled.

[Deleted User]

jimbog said:

[Deleted User] said:

lookstraightahead said:

RelievedSheff said:

You don't need to trust what a house goes on the market for (whatever that may mean).

It is generally easy enough to compare the asking price with recent sale prices and other similar properties currently on the market.

If a property is already "priced to sell" then you are not going to get a reduction on that. If a property is keenly priced then yes the vendor may accept a lower offer.

ok well maybe it's because most of the houses I've bought have no comparables as they're all different. 

But then the market changes too. And sellers and EA value differently. What are they basing their valuations on? Winning business? Selling a dream?

That's very unusual in the UK, where most houses are identical terraces.

I'm not sure in which country you are based but that is very much not the case

Incorrect. The government has statistics on this: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/council-tax-stock-of-properties-2021/council-tax-stock-of-properties-statistical-summary

The majority of homes in the UK are terrace, semi, or flats. In other words, multiple identical properties. Around half are joined to a neighbouring property, an even most of the detached ones are just identical designs repeated over and over again by developers.

Obviously there will be some variations, things like garden size, maybe some have extensions. But generally speaking you can usually find some comparable properties in the area to compare with.

What has really screwed things up is buy-to-let. Homes that used to be discounted because they needed a lot of work doing are now attracting better prices because the buyers intend to renovate them anyway, or simply don't care if their tenants live in a dump.

[Deleted User]

aoleks said:

BobT36 said:

Not sure how anyone will be able to afford a house, with how it's going.
Normal "houses" (not mini-mansions) around a third to half-a-million quid now. Salaries have NOT risen accordingly. 

Just where is the money coming from to buy these? It used to be that a house was 3x the household salary, now it's over 10x..

No, it’s not…

if you want to generalise, average salary in UK is £38k, in a household of 2 average salaries that’s £76k household income.

the average house is £315000 in England (going with the highest value in the UK to prove a point), that’s just over 4 times the household income (or just under if you have a 10% deposit).

Averages are of little use here, because they are distorted by the UK's unusually high income inequality. It also assumes that every buyer will have two full time incomes, so anyone without a partner in full time employment is stuffed.

Besides, if we want to compare like-for-like then back in the day houses were 1.5-2x average income of two people, so still a massive difference.

Don't make be bring out the graph. I will, I'll post it.

Here's another interesting stat for you. Back in 2021 the average parental contribution to an FTB's deposit was 32.5k. That's not including inheritance. 64% of parents helped their children buy their first homes, and many of them helped with rent and mortgage payments too.

diystarter7

Hi

The last dozen or so posts about "affordability" etc and one poster wondering how people can afford them

The fact is that over 40 years ago those that were moving from the north of the uk to london where prices were many times higher for ordianry houses and even higher when you moved to the swankier parts of london, people manged. My parents did and the best thing they did for us as it was easier for us and our kids to get a job than when compared with Leeds/Midlands etc etc even then and even now

Hosue prices adjust to supply and deman. If no one could afford a property, trust me they would be selling for less than the build costs.

A few workmates told me people moved around in london since the 60's possibly earlier as one parent lived in Fulham and that was relatively expensive when compared with some parts of se London

Supply, deamand and affordability always ajusts accordingly. When interest rates shoot up as they do from time to time, that is when some become unstuck and may lose everything. The economy works in cycles of rising and falling prices.

IMO, if possible, buy in the best location you can as often the are last to fall in price and first to recover.

Thnaks

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] said:

jimbog said:

[Deleted User] said:

lookstraightahead said:

RelievedSheff said:

You don't need to trust what a house goes on the market for (whatever that may mean).

It is generally easy enough to compare the asking price with recent sale prices and other similar properties currently on the market.

If a property is already "priced to sell" then you are not going to get a reduction on that. If a property is keenly priced then yes the vendor may accept a lower offer.

ok well maybe it's because most of the houses I've bought have no comparables as they're all different. 

But then the market changes too. And sellers and EA value differently. What are they basing their valuations on? Winning business? Selling a dream?

That's very unusual in the UK, where most houses are identical terraces.

I'm not sure in which country you are based but that is very much not the case

Incorrect. The government has statistics on this: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/council-tax-stock-of-properties-2021/council-tax-stock-of-properties-statistical-summary

The majority of homes in the UK are terrace, semi, or flats. In other words, multiple identical properties. Around half are joined to a neighbouring property, an even most of the detached ones are just identical designs repeated over and over again by developers.

Obviously there will be some variations, things like garden size, maybe some have extensions. But generally speaking you can usually find some comparable properties in the area to compare with.

What has really screwed things up is buy-to-let. Homes that used to be discounted because they needed a lot of work doing are now attracting better prices because the buyers intend to renovate them anyway, or simply don't care if their tenants live in a dump.

You said identical terraces, now you're saying terrace, semis or flats.

As for the rest of it, maybe spend a couple of weeks travelling around the UK, you might be surprised at how much variation there is in the housing stock?