The Times warns of negative equity:

PasturesNew

pickles110564 wrote: »

Some BTL are in for profit but as long as they look after their Tenant's why should they not benefit.

I will buy all the bread at the supermarket - but I am good and I will let you pop round and if you ask nicely and don't step on the grass I will sell you two slices every day for the same price I bought it for, plus a bit more of course. I'm not a charity.

Housing, like food, is an essential.

*Oh, but if I decide to throw a party for my friends, then don't come calling for your 2 slices as I'd have made cucumber sandwiches.... should have bought your own loaf if you wanted to be sure to have it every day.

HammersFan

PasturesNew wrote: »

I will buy all the bread at the supermarket - but I am good and I will let you pop round and if you ask nicely and don't step on the grass I will sell you two slices every day for the same price I bought it for, plus a bit more of course. I'm not a charity.

Housing, like food, is an essential.

*Oh, but if I decide to throw a party for my friends, then don't come calling for your 2 slices as I'd have made cucumber sandwiches.... should have bought your own loaf if you wanted to be sure to have it every day.

What a totally ludicrous analogy on all sorts of levels. If you follow this logic then surely you should use all that equity you realised by selling and buy some houses that you then give away for free to the deserving.

dopester

!!!!!!? wrote: »

A programme to buy up defunct BTL stock like city centre apartments to provide more social housing wouldn't go amiss either.

WTH !!!!!!?!

Who's gonna pay the inflated asking prices for this social housing? Tax payers again? Hey.. all you BTL's who spunked borrowed money on property over-valued by 500%.... never fear, taxpayers here to bail you out for top money.

You really should let the free market decide what it's worth, rather than spunking tax-payers money on ludicrous prices, especially 2003-2007 that the current owners would be trying to realize, and propping up an artificial market.

WTF?_2

dopester wrote: »

WTH !!!!!!?!

Who's gonna pay the inflated asking prices for this social housing? Tax payers again? Hey.. all you BTL's who spunked borrowed money on property over-valued by 500%.... never fear, taxpayers here to bail you out for top money.

You really should let the free market decide what it's worth, rather than spunking tax-payers money on ludicrous prices, especially 2003-2007 that the current owners would be trying to realize, and propping up an artificial market.

We need more social housing and there's a hell of a lot of ready-built apartments out there that are otherwise going to go to ruin.

I understand that some of them don't actually meet the standards required by those providing social housing (!) but that still leaves a lot of useful housing capacity that could be snapped up at close to cost price, or even below.

I'm not talking about giving developers the silly sums that they are asking at the moment. This is about satisfying a social need. It would take years, maybe a decade or more, to institute a programme for meeting social housing needs from scratch. Here's a ready made solution.

dopester

Fairly argued intelligent reply !!!!!!. Thanks.

Gorgeous_George

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Scandal of luring first-time buyers

Oh goody, it's somebody else's fault. In Britain, it always is.

Nobody ever makes a mistake.

GG

MiserlyMartin

glen8 wrote: »

I'm 30 and don't want to wait years and years like some of you are suggesting. We want to start a family and therefore need a bigger house. We don't want to wait 5 years for a baby!!!! The mortgage will be paid off when I'm 55 which is good enough for us.

Not everyones in the same boat. I think people need to be a bit more specific in what they post. It winds me up reading posts that say "I don't think people should buy now". Why not put "I don't think first time buyers should buy now unless xyz" or "dont buy if you haven't got £xxxx"

Ok, I change my mind on one of my earlier posts. I think its easy to carried away putting your life on hold waiting for this to play out. Life is indeed short and there has to be a sense of balance between saving money by putting off purchases until the 'right' time. I suppose that comes down to a person being in the living for today category or the planning for tomorrow type. Theres a danger of getting carried away and denying yourself things that you would be better off doing and enjoying while you are young rather than older.

But back back to the NATIONWIDE's figures:

One other misleading thing from their statement about the average desposit being bigger than in 1990 well... figures. There could be 20 people out of 100 with mortgages paid off in full and the other 80 who have 100% or more interest only mortgages with no endowment. That would make an average statistical deposit of 20% from borrowers in this example. But in reality 80 of them could default.

Add the high personal borrowing that did not exist in 1990 and no MIRAS to help out and you have a worse picture than in 1990's.