Your programme last night used the example of a house that has tripled in price in five years to point to how buying a house is such a good investment, however it struck me that this may not be so. A commodity with such a volatile price that can triple in price over five years can surely drop by as much over the next five years.
If the chap in London were to take the mortgage out where his repayments equal his salary (especially on historically low interest rates) he is stuffed if interest rates rise by a historically small amount such as 1% (remember 15% interest rates in 1992?)
The house I'm renting is worth £150,000, to buy now with a 10% deposit and an interest only mortgage fixed for 2 years from C&G is £595pcm, repayment £812pcm. I rent it for £500pcm.
Don't be fooled by the rent is dead money line, what is the interest payment if not rent paid to the bank or building society?
I save £95 per month compared to the interest only mortgage, have a £15,000 deposit, don't have to pay maintenance, buildings insurance, stamp duty or solicitors fees, and am able to move as and when I like within one month (there are plenty of desperate amateur landlords out there with three empty investment properties) .
An ING account adds £51pcm interest after tax to my deposit and monthly saving.
Surely these figures say that buying now is foolish, live off the folk who thought it wise to buy three properties as an investment, and wait. There property certainly won't triple in price over the next five years, the one you want won't either. Your savings will increase opening up better mortgage deals with a lower LTV ratio, your wages will rise as you advance in your job.
To suggest that young buyers should buy now whatever, without even a word on the alternatives to buying, is quite frankly negligent of the BBC.
You are advising young people to sign their lives away to debt and drudgery for the next 25 years, just to be able to say "I own this ex council bedsit".