Wednesday, Apr 11, 2007
Why did FTB numbers collapse in the first 2 months of 2005?
Firstrung: First time buyer numbers down on 2006 but in 2005 the devil was in the detail
Well who'd have thought it eh? First time buyers at their lowest levels for two years according to the CML. We avoided this jaw dropping/attention grabbing headline today in the main news sections of the Firstrung site for two main reasons...
Posted by converted lurker @ 12:23 PM (166 views) Add Comment
5 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. tyrellcorporation said...
Very interesting. I have a theory on those 2005 figures. I think stats before 2005 accurately show true FTB numbers and you then see those numbers fall off a cliff in 2005. The VIs then started to include returners into the market (and call them FTBs). This suddenly started to make the figures look more positive (hence the 2006 figure and beyond), which in turn drove sentiment upwards again.
Cynical manipulation of statistics.
2. Sam said...
it's also fits with the BOE reducing interest rates.
3. dugmug said...
A very balanced and sensible editorial from First Rung.
However, I have one issue, with the statement that the "worst numbers" for FTBs were 2004; yes the numbers may have been worst in terms of the overall number of FTBs, but the "worst" year for me is actually 2006 - LTV back up to 90%, interest payments up 16.8% of income, and salary mulitples highest too (3.21)!
By the way, can some enlightened soul out there explain these average multiples to me - 3.21 times national median (full-time) wages equates to a purchase price somewhere around £86,000 (assuming 90% LTV). In a country where the "average" house price is supposedly £200,000, this amount of money wouldn't buy a wendy house, let alone a real house - I don't understand how these figures are (dreamed up) arrived at?
4. george monsoon said...
I HATE the whole establishment. Im officially a NTB (Never time buyer)
There are no first time buyers around..!! well that's a lie, there are some cucky lunts out there with inheritance enough for a deposit, but Darwinian theory suggests that anyone of average income still climbing on the ladder is going to hit a dead end branch on the tree of evoloution.
I will carry on renting.. as per usual.. hopefully the iceage will pass and all the bullish mamouths with it.
5. Sam said...
George, if you are not planning to 'invest' in property then you may be interested in this article;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/02/10/cmtax10.xml