Terrible time to buy a house?
Discussion
Welshbeef said:
Also another star in the area well over 65% of all houses are owned outright... So the remaining 35% are anywhere from brand new mortgages to one payment to go and of course includes Buy to let.
65%?Ty more like 50%
"However, for the first time since the early 1980s, more households were living mortgage-free. While 7.4 million households were outright owners, the figures for mortgaged-owners was 6.9 million. The majority of outright owners, 4.5 million households, had a resident aged 65 and over."
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/feb/25/owner...
The facts also tell you nothing. As most people 50/60 plus own their house whilst its the young generations that struggle/hihgly mortgaged.
My parents and inlaws are both 60ish .They own their houses outright and so do most of their contemporaries.( Infact most own several BTL mostly in limited companies )Fact is their 5 bedroom houses are worth 10 times what they paid for them 30 odd years ago . Their children and most of their children contemporaries cant afford to buy such houses even with huge maxed out mortgages.
The fact is the vast majority of property wealth is owned by 50/60 plus whilest the youngsters of today cant afford to buy or if they do its with huge mortgagees. (talking of prices going up 20% a year as has been done in this thread negates any saving).
Welshbeef said:
Well when over the last 12 months 70% of purchases have been cash purchases it looks very promising.
Do you make the stats up as you go along ? (like the Reading semi's)70% lmao
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/03/houses-...
http://www.zoopla.co.uk/discover/property-news/two...
All quantitate easing has done over the past 5/6 years is transfer wealth from the youngster to the older people/baby boomers.
Economists and many others have criticised quantitive easing for making the rich richer and widening the gap between the poor and rich.
I see it more as a transfer of wealth from younger generation to older generations , basically making older people/baby boomers richer at the expense of young people.
Look how Q/E and loose monetary policy has caused the stock market to reach an all time high and property prices have been rising at over 20%(in some places) (yet inflation is near nil and so is wage growth and business investment?,)(productivity rates havent increased much since 2008 ,one of the fundamentals of economic growth)
Youngsters starting off in life don’t have many assets yet (possibly a house with a large mortgage and little in terms of pensions provisions), they acquire them over time, older people have their family home, pensions, ISAs and perhaps BTL property. So asset price rises benefit the older populace at the expense of the young. Q/E isn’t a transformation to make the rich richer, rather it enriches older people at the expense of the young.
ex The flat that rises £50kin a year goes in the pocket of the babyboomer when he sells and that extra 50k becomes a biggger burden of debt on the young
Central banks have never before in history pursued loose monetary policy like they have since 2007 and look what its done to asset prices. The question is what happens next? Surely when monetary policy is eventually tightened asset prices will have to fall?*
Economists and many others have criticised quantitive easing for making the rich richer and widening the gap between the poor and rich.
I see it more as a transfer of wealth from younger generation to older generations , basically making older people/baby boomers richer at the expense of young people.
Look how Q/E and loose monetary policy has caused the stock market to reach an all time high and property prices have been rising at over 20%(in some places) (yet inflation is near nil and so is wage growth and business investment?,)(productivity rates havent increased much since 2008 ,one of the fundamentals of economic growth)
Youngsters starting off in life don’t have many assets yet (possibly a house with a large mortgage and little in terms of pensions provisions), they acquire them over time, older people have their family home, pensions, ISAs and perhaps BTL property. So asset price rises benefit the older populace at the expense of the young. Q/E isn’t a transformation to make the rich richer, rather it enriches older people at the expense of the young.
ex The flat that rises £50kin a year goes in the pocket of the babyboomer when he sells and that extra 50k becomes a biggger burden of debt on the young
Central banks have never before in history pursued loose monetary policy like they have since 2007 and look what its done to asset prices. The question is what happens next? Surely when monetary policy is eventually tightened asset prices will have to fall?*
Edited by jonny70 on Wednesday 29th July 16:56
Edited by jonny70 on Wednesday 29th July 16:57
jonny70 said:
Welshbeef said:
Well when over the last 12 months 70% of purchases have been cash purchases it looks very promising.
Do you make the stats up as you go along ? (like the Reading semi's)70% lmao
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/03/houses-...
http://www.zoopla.co.uk/discover/property-news/two...
jdw1234 said:
The only "demand" that matters is determined by the availability of credit.
Old article but true to the pointBetween 1995 and 2007 the UK population increased by 5%, the housing stock increased by 10% and house prices increased by 350%, meanwhile mortgage lending by banks increased by 630%. Which of these figures is more likely to have led to a 350% rise in house prices: a 5% rise in population growth which is matched by an increase in supply of housing; or an unprecedented increase in mortgage lending from the banks?
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/08/28/why-exac...
jonny70 said:
Q/E isn’t a transformation to make the rich richer, rather it enriches older people at the expense of the young.
ex The flat that rises £50kin a year goes in the pocket of the babyboomer when he sells and that extra 50k becomes a biggger burden of debt on the young
That 50k ends up as equity in a more expensive property which will eventually be passed on as inheritance (one would expect), or be paid out in care home costs...ex The flat that rises £50kin a year goes in the pocket of the babyboomer when he sells and that extra 50k becomes a biggger burden of debt on the young
jonny70 said:
jdw1234 said:
The only "demand" that matters is determined by the availability of credit.
Old article but true to the pointBetween 1995 and 2007 the UK population increased by 5%, the housing stock increased by 10% and house prices increased by 350%, meanwhile mortgage lending by banks increased by 630%. Which of these figures is more likely to have led to a 350% rise in house prices: a 5% rise in population growth which is matched by an increase in supply of housing; or an unprecedented increase in mortgage lending from the banks?
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/08/28/why-exac...
Also your comparing apples with pears or a bit like the SNP did in the Indy ref "we collect 9.7% of tax revenue Yet only spend 9.3%" mugs fell for that one - lots clearly.
So UK population increased by 5% - how many new households did this creates/add to the market?
Property grew by 10%
The facts as have been stated many times is we have needed to build 250k new houses year on year since 2000 at best we've done 180 with many years 120-150k so a missive gap.
Neil H said:
That 50k ends up as equity in a more expensive property which will eventually be passed on as inheritance (one would expect), or be paid out in care home costs...
The middle classes will live till their 90s (projected) so inheriting wealth in your 60s possibly 70s wont be much helpful if that wealth allows one to buy a humble dwelling. As people live longer reliance on inheritance becomes less relevantWelshbeef said:
How many households were created/wanted to be created?
Also your comparing apples with pears or a bit like the SNP did in the Indy ref "we collect 9.7% of tax revenue Yet only spend 9.3%" mugs fell for that one - lots clearly.
So UK population increased by 5% - how many new households did this creates/add to the market?
Property grew by 10%
The facts as have been stated many times is we have needed to build 250k new houses year on year since 2000 at best we've done 180 with many years 120-150k so a missive gap.
The accuracy of how exact the figures for population/immigration are,is insignificant to the figures for the huge increasing in mortgage lending/debt. Also your comparing apples with pears or a bit like the SNP did in the Indy ref "we collect 9.7% of tax revenue Yet only spend 9.3%" mugs fell for that one - lots clearly.
So UK population increased by 5% - how many new households did this creates/add to the market?
Property grew by 10%
The facts as have been stated many times is we have needed to build 250k new houses year on year since 2000 at best we've done 180 with many years 120-150k so a missive gap.
There are plenty charts/graphs out there if you want to have that show how mortgage debt has risen vastly since the late 90's.
te in and around Reading.jonny70 said:
All quantitate easing has done over the past 5/6 years is transfer wealth from the youngster to the older people/baby boomers.
Economists and many others have criticised quantitive easing for making the rich richer and widening the gap between the poor and rich.
I see it more as a transfer of wealth from younger generation to older generations , basically making older people/baby boomers richer at the expense of young people.
Look how Q/E and loose monetary policy has caused the stock market to reach an all time high and property prices have been rising at over 20%(in some places) (yet inflation is near nil and so is wage growth and business investment?,)(productivity rates havent increased much since 2008 ,one of the fundamentals of economic growth)
Youngsters starting off in life don’t have many assets yet (possibly a house with a large mortgage and little in terms of pensions provisions), they acquire them over time, older people have their family home, pensions, ISAs and perhaps BTL property. So asset price rises benefit the older populace at the expense of the young. Q/E isn’t a transformation to make the rich richer, rather it enriches older people at the expense of the young.
ex The flat that rises £50kin a year goes in the pocket of the babyboomer when he sells and that extra 50k becomes a biggger burden of debt on the young
Central banks have never before in history pursued loose monetary policy like they have since 2007 and look what its done to asset prices. The question is what happens next? Surely when monetary policy is eventually tightened asset prices will have to fall?*
QE/Zirp has damaged boomers annuities and savings, yea property has increased but it's not liquid, and can only be released on death/sale of assets, bit of a one trick pony. Bigger long term problems include parking capital in bubbles, which Economists and many others have criticised quantitive easing for making the rich richer and widening the gap between the poor and rich.
I see it more as a transfer of wealth from younger generation to older generations , basically making older people/baby boomers richer at the expense of young people.
Look how Q/E and loose monetary policy has caused the stock market to reach an all time high and property prices have been rising at over 20%(in some places) (yet inflation is near nil and so is wage growth and business investment?,)(productivity rates havent increased much since 2008 ,one of the fundamentals of economic growth)
Youngsters starting off in life don’t have many assets yet (possibly a house with a large mortgage and little in terms of pensions provisions), they acquire them over time, older people have their family home, pensions, ISAs and perhaps BTL property. So asset price rises benefit the older populace at the expense of the young. Q/E isn’t a transformation to make the rich richer, rather it enriches older people at the expense of the young.
ex The flat that rises £50kin a year goes in the pocket of the babyboomer when he sells and that extra 50k becomes a biggger burden of debt on the young
Central banks have never before in history pursued loose monetary policy like they have since 2007 and look what its done to asset prices. The question is what happens next? Surely when monetary policy is eventually tightened asset prices will have to fall?*
Edited by jonny70 on Wednesday 29th July 16:56
Edited by jonny70 on Wednesday 29th July 16:57
Serves no one long term. It's totally nihilistic, and is a direct result of the destruction of the savings culture. If a Ferrari goes up £15k a year, you make paper increases, but most alarmingly, there is no regular roi like a btl, if you get out too early you lose potential increases and possibly the ability to buy said car again, if you get out too late and everyone dumps their car on the market, fingers get burned. No one has a crystal ball, who would of imagined Northern Rock 2007, the first run on a UK bank in over a hundred years.
jonny70 said:
Welshbeef said:
Also another star in the area well over 65% of all houses are owned outright... So the remaining 35% are anywhere from brand new mortgages to one payment to go and of course includes Buy to let.
65%?Ty more like 50%
"However, for the first time since the early 1980s, more households were living mortgage-free. While 7.4 million households were outright owners, the figures for mortgaged-owners was 6.9 million. The majority of outright owners, 4.5 million households, had a resident aged 65 and over."
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/feb/25/owner...
The facts also tell you nothing. As most people 50/60 plus own their house whilst its the young generations that struggle/hihgly mortgaged.
My parents and inlaws are both 60ish .They own their houses outright and so do most of their contemporaries.( Infact most own several BTL mostly in limited companies )Fact is their 5 bedroom houses are worth 10 times what they paid for them 30 odd years ago . Their children and most of their children contemporaries cant afford to buy such houses even with huge maxed out mortgages.
The fact is the vast majority of property wealth is owned by 50/60 plus whilest the youngsters of today cant afford to buy or if they do its with huge mortgagees. (talking of prices going up 20% a year as has been done in this thread negates any saving).
Edited by Bedford Rascal on Thursday 30th July 07:09
Welshbeef said:
jonny70 said:
Welshbeef said:
Well when over the last 12 months 70% of purchases have been cash purchases it looks very promising.
Do you make the stats up as you go along ? (like the Reading semi's)70% lmao
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/03/houses-...
http://www.zoopla.co.uk/discover/property-news/two...
KTF said:
Best get building some more houses then. The locals will be pleased about that given the shortage of housing for their kids to live in, general increasing property prices, etc.
Oh.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/13503181.Fight_con...modern_ghettoHampshire_development/
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/13502310.Green_lig...
Even this misses the point though - the location of the new houses is key. You could build 100,000 houses in the highlands of Scotland and it would have next to no impact on house prices in the South East of England. Oh.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/13503181.Fight_con...modern_ghettoHampshire_development/
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/13502310.Green_lig...
One of the reasons why the South East is seeing record house prices is that there simply isn't the available space to build the type of houses that people want to live in.
Note that's not saying there isn't space at all, just that it's either restricted (green belt) land, or it's nowhere near a train station, town, or decent roads. We're essentially at capacity - hence the number of cheaply built rabbit hutches being put up in less than desirable areas and still going for decent money.
This lack of supply is one of the key drivers of current house prices and isn't going to change anytime soon.
daytona365 said:
We don't, don't, don't want millions more crappy houses being built.......I'm quite happy in the house I've got. Like to visit open countryside now and again.
Next time you take a flight, look out the window at the British landscape below - it's almost all countryside (98% in 2012 according to the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096).What we need to do is stop shoe-horning blocks of flats and tiny houses into town centres and their fringes and start creating entirely new towns, complete with well-thought out infrastructure and room for growth.
Of course, that costs money, so no developer or politician is interested.
youngsyr said:
daytona365 said:
We don't, don't, don't want millions more crappy houses being built.......I'm quite happy in the house I've got. Like to visit open countryside now and again.
Next time you take a flight, look out the window at the British landscape below - it's almost all countryside (98% in 2012 according to the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096).What we need to do is stop shoe-horning blocks of flats and tiny houses into town centres and their fringes and start creating entirely new towns, complete with well-thought out infrastructure and room for growth.
Of course, that costs money, so no developer or politician is interested.
The comment "Quite simply, the figures suggest Britain's mental picture of its landscape is far removed from the reality" in that BBC article was reinforced on a Radio 1 prog some years ago when I was still taking in BBC radio and TV content from time to time. The studio was discussing this question after a related news item. The thoughts from a handful of beeb folks on how much of the UK's area was concreted over (as a general term) varied from ~40% to ~80%. Quite incredible really.
Maybe the subsequent move to Salford has helped a few beeb people to get a better grip on reality.
turbobloke said:
youngsyr said:
daytona365 said:
We don't, don't, don't want millions more crappy houses being built.......I'm quite happy in the house I've got. Like to visit open countryside now and again.
Next time you take a flight, look out the window at the British landscape below - it's almost all countryside (98% in 2012 according to the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096).What we need to do is stop shoe-horning blocks of flats and tiny houses into town centres and their fringes and start creating entirely new towns, complete with well-thought out infrastructure and room for growth.
Of course, that costs money, so no developer or politician is interested.
The comment "Quite simply, the figures suggest Britain's mental picture of its landscape is far removed from the reality" in that BBC article was reinforced on a Radio 1 prog some years ago when I was still taking in BBC radio and TV content from time to time. The studio was discussing this question after a related news item. The thoughts from a handful of beeb folks on how much of the UK's area was concreted over (as a general term) varied from ~40% to ~80%. Quite incredible really.
Maybe the subsequent move to Salford has helped a few beeb people to get a better grip on reality.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff