'Squaring the house price circle' blog discussion 24 April 2008 at 4:50PM in Martin's blogs & appearances & MoneySavingExpert in the news 25 replies 4.3K views

Former_MSE_Lawrence

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's "Squaring the house price circle" blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.

Read Martin's "Squaring the house price circle" Blog.

Click reply to discuss below.

kezbabybabe

I know a couple of couples (I know that sounds strange!) who are now sitting tight before trying to buy their first homes together.

Which is the right thing to do, why overstretch when you don't need to? We're in a society which wants everything now and not wait until the time is right.

jamtart6

we're going to hold tight for our first home, unless we grab one at a fantastic price (which needs doing up)

cheeky_lil_monkey

first time buyers are needed on the market - without first time buyers, people like me can't move on to being 'second time buyers' so our property prices are falling and are going to get to the point where a lot of us need to stay here rather than move, so then there will he a shortage of available homes for first time buyers.....which means those available are going to go up in price again........and you won't necessarily get the bargain you're after!

meester

cheeky_lil_monkey wrote: »

first time buyers are needed on the market - without first time buyers, people like me can't move on to being 'second time buyers' so our property prices are falling and are going to get to the point where a lot of us need to stay here rather than move, so then there will he a shortage of available homes for first time buyers.....which means those available are going to go up in price again........and you won't necessarily get the bargain you're after!

um, no.

If first time buyers don't buy, the value of FTB properties will fall. This will make your second-time buyer properties cheaper as well, because people won't have the equity to pay the asking prices.

Good news all round.

Stephen_Leak

In my current unenviable situation - recently separated, poorly paid but still needing a little place of my own - I specifically note the comment about renting.

cheeky_lil_monkey

no my point is - if we hit neg equity, which those not long on the market (depsite a good deposit) are likely to do first, we won't be able to move as there's no way to get a mortgage for another property when you're in neg equity. Plus we've put all our hard earned cash and our first time hefty 15% deposit into this place and now we're looking at losing a lot on it - a little unfair don't you think??

jezebel

I have just crossed the point of having just enough deposit to buy somewhere with 4 times my income, but I'd be overstretching at present as soon as there was any rate rise (which is possible) so I'm holding out for at least a year, I will continue to save at the rate I have been and hope that things settle down or at least I'll have a bigger deposit for when I start to look to buy.

DotComBoyUK

So if all property's are an asset is it ethical to scare the market into starving itself to ensure all presently owned assets fall in value? If the asset was on the stock market right now and houses trades as the stock ticker HOUSE you would in effect be trashing the stock price just by marketing. Allowing others to take advantage of the market in the same manner as those traders who short sell stock to maximise there profits.

This marketing campaign against property prices has been on going for the past 3 years. I have continually seen friends sell there property to capitalise on any crash that may happen in the future and then seen the property prices increase.

What has happened is they now rent a home where a growing market is now occurring. Rental prices are increasing faster than mortgage costs and inflation locally. Landlords who invested wisely over the past 3 years are capitalalising by raising the rents every time a contract renews as they know they have 3 other potential tenants wanting to rent.

Being the skeptic I am and listening to the Machines of Doom and Gloom (News Channels) I have to ask the question "How many people who control the content of these channels own more than 1 home and rent the second?" As these are the people how have the most to gain, They win with increasing rental income and they also win when the market recovers by increasing the asset value of the property.

shaz_mum_of__2

we are in the oposite position we have around 100k in equity in our home


we want to sell up and move into rented the 4 bed bungalow we have been offered(not advertised to rent)is £400pcm inc except water rates not sure about council tax as its a religious proprty ie a vicarage although we are not vicars(any clarification welcomed)

We estimate that we would save about £400 pcm by doing this and have 100k to invest

This would enable us to retire from mainstream work and try our hand at self sufficiency


Biggest prob at the moment is we can't sell our house!

Think a lot of people are watching and waiting our house is on at £140k so in the 1st time buyer bracket

Any advice

Shaz

sailorchief

Shaz,

Can't help thinking that way lies madness. Suppose you managed to get, say, 6% on your $100k AND you managed to get the £6k paid GROSS, then after rent of £4800 you will be left with £1200. If you have (very likely) to pay council tax - probably in Band D which is likely to be about £1400 then you are already out by £200.

Then consider that you will have to pay for water, and with 2 kids - if you were on a meter you would likely be paying about £250 in a year, more if not on a meter.

What are you going to live on whilst your crops grow because family allowance won't cover it!

Do like your way of thinking BUT....Darling Buds of May it aint!