twatmangle

As other have said, there are a lot of people, myself included, who would see a housing correction as a possible buying opportunity, especially if the market undershoots. I suspect that people with money would find it easier to get a mortgage, and get better terms than your average FTBer. Probably not the answer you want to hear, but let's be honest, property as a pension has become ingrained in the population, and with potential yields of 8-12% not being unreasonable, a cheap property would be a good investment for those who 'don't do the stock market' or don't have a pension. Also as others have said, it's a stand-off. There aren't the forced sellers like there used to be, and people are preferring to rent out the house than sell it, with the expectation that the market 'will improve next year'. Then you've got the issue of the Tories. They were kept out of power for 13 years because the last time we were in this mess, they did allow the market to correct itself. Several hundred thousand were repossessed - and they were not forgiven. The stigma of an uncaring government allowing people to be thrown onto the streets haunted then through the Blair years. Now, when the banks are in disgrace, I don't think repossessions will politically acceptable. Banks will be reminded who bailed them out and the government will put pressure on them to keep people in their homes. So another stand-off. Just my thoughts anyway. p.s Shouldn't everyone have mortgage insurance these days anyway?

Not only poor spelling, but entirely wrong too.

Not central London, more like SE in general.. just everyday people with decent, but not fantastically well-paid jobs. A skilled/educated person in their mid 30s could/should be earning 40k, maybe 50k in London. Assuming they've been renting and saving for 10 or more years, it's no surprise that they've got a decent sum ready for a house purchase. Probably not as unusual as you might think.

Which is exactly my point.

Just stating a fact. I'm not providing an opinion, that's up to you. And yes, you are correct, voting rights are a relatively new thing as well, in historical terms.

So, someone ordered them at the start of the year... and presumably fixed a price then. They won't go ahead with the deal despite being guaranteed to make a nice profit just by completing the deal. They would really have to have disappeared or be dead. Even if they were in prison, they'd find a way to complete the deal. Also, a jeweller wouldn't want to send them 'back to their supplier in SA'. Presumably they got them at a good price at the beginning of the year they could sell them on to virtually anyone and realise a nice profit for themselves. Because they need to send them back, it's suggesting that the supplier sent Kruggers from SA to the UK, but didn't worry about payment for almost a year. Maybe I've missed a few things, but this all seems a bit suspect. Take care!

Which is exactly how it has been throughout nearly all of recorded history.

That part could be re-phrased a little better? (Maybe it's just me and my sordid mind.)

Couldn't agree more. Nearly everyone on this site already knows what LLs are. There are a handful of new members joining all the time who perhaps don't. They will pick it up soon enough though. There is no reason to repeat the same tedious message over and over, (especially in a big red font.) This place has lost the intellectual vigour of the previous years, seems nowadays it's the same tires old topics. "Oh look, I'll start another new thread about sheeple and twigs in vases." "I know, I'll post a link to an article about a bloke who killed himself because he was in debt. Look, they've got a picture of the widow outside the house. I bet he MEWed that, and I bet that car was on HP". "Look at me, I've got £500 in the bank for a house deposit, I love renting me, love it. I don't ever want to buy, oooh look interest rates might go up by 0.25% OUR DAY IS COMING COMRADES!!!" etc... Merry Christmas too. Sweet dreams, have fun tomorrow.

and cocaine dealers, pimps for east European hookers and nurseries. Sadly, the genie is out of the bottle.

Oh please not this nonsense again.

Yes, that's pretty much it. The whole dynamic of the housing market has changed. There is no longer a housing ladder as there used to be. But at the same time, people don't get married at 19 any more, people don't have 3 children, houses now have 2 or 3 cars, 2 or 3 tvs, 2 or 3 foreign holidays instead of one if you were lucky. Times change, people change, so why do people ignore all of the other changes, but still (erroneously as described above) maintain that a house should cost 3x salary as if it were the 11th commandment? You can't just cherry pick the good bits. That's my beef with the whole thing.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, but it's not really the answer to what I'm trying to ask. I am not talking about bank lending being affordable or not, so we shouldn't get bogged down on this. I know it's relevant, but it not what I'm asking. I am talking about the price of the average house. Why should it be 3x the average salary. The statement that an average house should be 3x the average salary is wrong analysis of the data. It is just over-simplistic. It assumes the same population wage distribution curve as house price distribution curve - it's unlikely to be, also it doesn't take into account the number of residents per house, it doesn't take into account taxes or interest rates, it doesn't take into account savings, inheritance, and it assumes that every earner is expected to, or wanting to buy a house. It doesn't take into account people wanting to downsize, upsize, nor does it take into account a repayment mortgage, paying off chunks of the mortgage, then upsizing. You can double the size/price of your house, but earn the same simply by paying off the first one. In previous generations, (just guessing some figures here for illustration purposes only..) those earning the lowest 20 percentile of salaries (could be anything from 20-40% of the population) didn't bother with home ownership, they rented privately or got council houses. The fact that the remaining 60-80%, in the upper 80 percentile salaries, could get a mortgage of 3x their salary, meant that purchases of houses were linked to the salary of a self-selecting group only, who's salary was, by definition, higher than average. Still with me? All I am saying is that the average is a very poor way to look at things. To extrapolate to the extreme, if only doctors, bankers and lawyers could afford houses, then lending might be capped at 2x salary, but the average mortgage might still be >£200k, the average house £300k, but average salary still £20K. IMO averages are generally worthless for all but the most basic analysis. As for historical context, go back to Victorian times, you might have 6 adults and 4 children in a 2 bedroom terraced house. Of these 6 adults, 5 might be in full time work... if it's historically accurate that house prices have always been 3x average salary, how come these average workers are still renting a (below average) house? To buy it would be too expensive. Banks did exist then so what was to stop them getting a mortgage 3x mortgage and buy the house on the cheap amongst themselves? Go back further in time and people had even fewer opportunities to buy, and it was probably an intergenerational project to build your own place. Just as a 14 year old girl working in a northern mill in Victorian times was unable to buy a house for 3x her salary, a call centre worker on 12K now, should not expect to buy on 3x their salary, I think the last generation was a one-off, people were encouraged, and probably subsidised to some extent to buy a house. Under these conditions, interest rates were anything from 9-12%, and taxes were 33%. 3x seems sensible. Now we have a completely different scenario. Just because a bank will lend you £1000, doesn't mean a new car should be £1000. I think beer is overpriced, but I would get laughed at for demanding it should be a specific multiple of my salary. I need to lie down for a bit now.

Utter rubbish. What I am trying to get an answer to is why people expect that a house should be 3x the average salary. This isn't a historical norm. People seem to expect this as a birth right. All I've heard so far is people saying that people shouldn't borrow more than 3x their salary, which is an answer to another question entirely. I know the two things are linked, but being able to borrow 3x salary does not mean that a house should be 3x the average salary. Your analogy with the moon and cheese is nonsense, I am just questioning why the average house should be 3x the average salary. People would risk death to steal a sheep 500 years ago. Would you do the same now?

Not enough details, but generally 10% will get you a mortgage, but not a decent rate. Maybe you were declined a particular rate, but could get a similar product with a higher rate. In answer to your question about FTBers, there are lots of people with a lot of money out there. I know ftbers with >100k deposits.

So lots of stuff written, but nobody has answered the question. Why should the price of the average house be 3x the average salary, and just as importantly, why 3x, why not 1x or 10x? It is not a long term average, it is not a gold standard, it is not an immutable number, it is not a fundamental law of physics that cannot be broken.

Why should they, and why will they? The 'the average house should be equal to 3x the average salary' argument is just nonsense.

We need Eric-style [sarcasm] tags to avoid confusion.

I'm not being selfish at all. I'm just stating the fact that it is entirely relevant that the pound has fallen in value. Not only do individuals benefit, but this probably also maintains prices in desirable areas. It's like saying the National Lottery is irrelevant because you've never won the jackpot, or you've never received a lottery grant. (It's unfortunate you're calling me a liar, it's one of the downsides of the internet that you can do things you wouldn't normally do face-to-face. PM me your email address and I can give you more details if you want.)

Depends how much gold you have. If it's in tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds, then it's relevant.

I've been buying gold for years, the bulk of which was pre- 07. I had converted >100k GBP to EUR at 1.54. and converted it back to GBP at c.1.02 I have some income in Euros and work for a Eurozone company. For me, houses in 09 were 40% off peak, and for a cash buyer, this is very attractive. Very very relevant IMO.

Just because YOU didn't gain, doesn't make it irrelevant.

Indeed, it was a crash. About 40% if you had anything but Sterling or Zim Dollars.

Is Geoff's bike shop still up the road from there? I'm still waiting for the Maidstone pub meet.

Was talking to my dad about this, just last weekend. I admit it's not the same era, but it's data. He was on £19 per week (c.£1000 pa), as a 20-ish year old non-skilled worker when he bought his first house in 1968. Purchase price was c£3500 for a nice 3 bed semi in a reasonably nice area. My mother had a very small income at the time and this probably didn't come into the calculations. They were both living with their parents, and saved for at least 6 months for the deposit, I am not sure about how much they had saved - if they needed a 10% deposit, I doubt that they could have saved £350 in 6 months from a gross annual salary of £1000, bear in mind income tax was at least 33%. Maybe they had help from their parents, or had additional savings to fall back on. (I suppose I should just ask them really.) Also they/parents were funding a wedding at the same time. They sold the house for £50K in 1987, but it did have an extension added and some improvements, currently might sell for £135k, probably £150k at peak. 1968 - 1987 = 14x price increase in 21 years 1987 - 2007 = 3x price increase in 20 years or 1987 - 2010 = 2.7x price increase in 23 years Just some numbers to chew on. As a side question just for fun.... the house I currently live in was sold for £x in 1987, what year did it sell for £2x