Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Northern Ireland


headmelter
 Share

Recommended Posts

interesting article

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/1124/1224259337204.html

am i wrong in thinking that we produce as many quantum physicists,rocket scientists etc

per head of population as anywhere in the world?

but do they stay here?

not any i know

can will the knuckleheads on the hill do any thing to change the score ?

or will they simply suceed in b* ggering up the educational system ?

rock on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 7.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • 1 month later...

We used to keep track of the number of properties listed on Property news on this thread. Just for old times sake I checked it tonight and there were 30,556 listed for NI.

Can anyone remember the total when we stopped posting them ? There's a lot of pages to go through and I'm only curious.

I do remember getting close to 30k but can't recall what happened after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arrived at work this am and a colleague informed me she had agreed on a property over the weekend.

EA told her it was originally marketed at £390k (not sure when).

'Reduced' to £295k late last year. My colleague offered £275k which was accepted.

I've put the address into TDGTTS but got no results. Her vendor has also agreed a 'sale', I'm watching with interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Reduced' to £295k late last year. My colleague offered £275k which was accepted.

Did you check the rateable value of the property?

I am currently following a property which was on at £395k in 2007. Then was reduced to £295k. Rateable value £180k

I understand people offering silly money during the boom (nearly made that mistake myself :ph34r: ) At that time, we were all (except HPCers) having the wool pulled over our eyes by the VIs.

What I do not understand is people offering silly money during the downward part of the cycle :rolleyes: Fools and their money are easily parted, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you check the rateable value of the property?

Rateable value = £160,000 :blink::

Today my colleague appears very happy and openly discussed the financial arrangements. Current mortgage of £30k but with the sale of current property will be increasing mortgage to £150k. Intends to stay in house for 10-15 years.

I offered congratulations and wishes of good luck. Had I seen the rateable value I would have given wishes of good luck but may have reserved the congratulations. Hope it works out.

.

Edited by headmelter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just want to copy a link to a chart here so I know where to find it, for reference in future discussions.

It is an updated version of the chart in my signature - showing that we are still clearly in a housing bubble.

areaundergraph.jpg

Is there a chart like this specifically for NI ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just want to copy a link to a chart here so I know where to find it, for reference in future discussions.

It is an updated version of the chart in my signature - showing that we are still clearly in a housing bubble.

areaundergraph.jpg

The trouble with these charts is they go back (early 70's) so far as to include households where a substantially higher number included single income households. When you think about it - it must have been great to be able to survive on one income. Alas it is now rare for anything above a apartment to be purchased by single income households. In the future this will flip as the divorce rates increase, however they are still bringing equity to the table.

FTB'ers, for the most buy in couples and almost 100% are both working. Therefore the household income almost doubles and this has been happening for some time.

The chart you use shows the relationship to single income. And there is no doubt that the average person on average income will struggle, to put it mildly to purchase anything near a average priced house on his/her own. You don't need fancy charts to illistrate this we all know it. Why is this - simple the majority of other parties chasing that house have the benfit of a joint income and therefore the ratio of 3 or 4x single income is not a barrier to them. Put simple, a single party is unlikely to compete with a joint party, if they are all on average incomes.

The average joint income in this country is around £45k (Office of National Statistics - income reports 2009: Average income =£22,800).

The average FTB'er house is £125k (Nationwide) [Ratio = 2.8],

Average House:

Halifax = £128k [Ratio = 2.84]

Nationwide = £137k [Ratio = 3]

UUJ = £167 [Ratio = 3.7]

Unfortunatly, as the average FTB'er house is £128k the single buyer will have to buy in the 50% bracket of FTB'er houses that sell for under that.

Edited by BelfastVI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The average joint income in this country is around £45k (Office of National Statistics - income reports 2009: Average income =£22,800).

The average joint income is unlikely to be double the average single income. Unless the average family is now childless couples.

Though I do take your point about the bottom 20% of households being unable to purchase property. This would therefore push up the average housebuyers income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The average joint income is unlikely to be double the average single income. Unless the average family is now childless couples.

Though I do take your point about the bottom 20% of households being unable to purchase property. This would therefore push up the average housebuyers income.

If you look at the work the HE produce you will see, (and I'm sure you know anyway) that the people on the lowest income stream, along with those on benefits are the people who seek the services of the social housing providers. This was always the case, even without the boom.

Will the average couple = 2x average incomes. The £22.8k (average income) is obtained from the average of male and female. So if you place two of them together you should, on average get the average, shouldn't you?(you could go crazy thinking about this)

Apart form the 3 mths or so of materanty leave where you don't receive your whole pay the majority of people return to the pay they were on. The averages, I assume take account of this.

However, as discussed before the income to H P ratio is more relevant to FTB'ers and the majority of them purchase a property before they have children. BTW, as a father my self I can say I don't look at the children as an expence expensive when you consider the changes they bring to your lifestyle. With nappies and childcare bills will come (sadly) less nights in the pub, less holidays and weekends away etc. It balances out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you speak a lot of sense BVI, and i don't like talking costs in terms of children, but there is no way the cost of a child 'balances out'!

first off reduced pay during maternity as you note, then when starting back at work creche, feeds, nappies, clothes and toys tots up to circa £650 a month, then add the huge inital outlay for prams, car seats, cots etc and its getting on for £7k a year until the child gets to school! There is no way an average person saves that sort of money staying in more, and that's just for one nipper!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you speak a lot of sense BVI, and i don't like talking costs in terms of children, but there is no way the cost of a child 'balances out'!

first off reduced pay during maternity as you note, then when starting back at work creche, feeds, nappies, clothes and toys tots up to circa £650 a month, then add the huge inital outlay for prams, car seats, cots etc and its getting on for £7k a year until the child gets to school! There is no way an average person saves that sort of money staying in more, and that's just for one nipper!

We had 3 inside three years. . . . . . . . I'm still living like a hermit. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always a lot of talk about how most houses are now bought with two incomes and that this will account for a permanently higher price to income ratio. Now I'm not an expert, but I doubt that this only started happening in the last 7 or so years when prices started to get really out of control.

Does anyone have figures for working couples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I do not understand is people offering silly money during the downward part of the cycle :rolleyes: Fools and their money are easily parted, I guess.

Same here. I wanted to move from a Terrace to a Semi-D around Queen's University area.

Asking price for the SemiD was £126k plus there was a previous offer of £117k cash which was not accepted.

I offered £120k (my mortage was approved in principle - have about 35% deposit for the new house).

Estate agent informed me that seller wants £125k. I made a final offer of £123K.

Other buyer (£117k cash) raised his offer to £125k.

I informed the estate agent "Pass on my congratulations to the buyer". I have left the still bearish market and will only buy when I hear growth headlines of more than 5% (which I don't think will be this year).

In the meanwhile, I have place my deposit into a supersaver account earning 2.8% (rather than pay in full my 0.63% interest only flexible mortgage of £40K).

Will wait and see.

Edited by cfphoenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble with these charts is they go back (early 70's) so far as to include households where a substantially higher number included single income households. When you think about it - it must have been great to be able to survive on one income. Alas it is now rare for anything above a apartment to be purchased by single income households. In the future this will flip as the divorce rates increase, however they are still bringing equity to the table.

FTB'ers, for the most buy in couples and almost 100% are both working. Therefore the household income almost doubles and this has been happening for some time.

The chart you use shows the relationship to single income. And there is no doubt that the average person on average income will struggle, to put it mildly to purchase anything near a average priced house on his/her own. You don't need fancy charts to illistrate this we all know it. Why is this - simple the majority of other parties chasing that house have the benfit of a joint income and therefore the ratio of 3 or 4x single income is not a barrier to them. Put simple, a single party is unlikely to compete with a joint party, if they are all on average incomes.

The average joint income in this country is around £45k (Office of National Statistics - income reports 2009: Average income =£22,800).

The average FTB'er house is £125k (Nationwide) [Ratio = 2.8],

Average House:

Halifax = £128k [Ratio = 2.84]

Nationwide = £137k [Ratio = 3]

UUJ = £167 [Ratio = 3.7]

Unfortunatly, as the average FTB'er house is £128k the single buyer will have to buy in the 50% bracket of FTB'er houses that sell for under that.

The trouble with these charts is they go back (early 70's) so far as to include households where a substantially higher number included single income households.

Have you any data to support this. As a FTB in the the early 80's both myself and husband had full time jobs as did my parents when they bought in the early 70's. It could be argued that with the average age of FTBs increasing it is now more likely that they already have children and perhaps one parent is not in full time employment. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but If you are challenging the assertion that houses for FTBs are not unaffordable, or not any more unaffordable than 30 years ago, then some data to support your argument should be produced. I have no trouble with the graph, it tells us without doubt that house prices relative to salaries are now dearer (i.e less affordable) than in the past - period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble with these charts is they go back (early 70's) so far as to include households where a substantially higher number included single income households.

Have you any data to support this. As a FTB in the the early 80's both myself and husband had full time jobs as did my parents when they bought in the early 70's. It could be argued that with the average age of FTBs increasing it is now more likely that they already have children and perhaps one parent is not in full time employment. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but If you are challenging the assertion that houses for FTBs are not unaffordable, or not any more unaffordable than 30 years ago, then some data to support your argument should be produced. I have no trouble with the graph, it tells us without doubt that house prices relative to salaries are now dearer (i.e less affordable) than in the past - period.

I am the first to agree, as these charts show that purchasing a house, as a single household income, is much more difficult than it was. I have stated that in my previous posts.

The point I am making is as the vast majority of FTB'ers are duel household income units, using the single income multiplier is becoming less and less relevant.

I am basing this, as I do most things on what I see on the ground and what I have been seeing for over 20 years. Also the Council of Mortgage Lenders recent report shows that the average FTB'er's household income is £42k, which is just slightly less than two average incomes in NI. This would lead me to believe that the vast, vast percentage of FTB'ers are duel income household units.

Yes I agree the FTB'ers are getting older. It has moved from around an age 29 to 32 over the last 20 years. I also believe people are also pushing back the age they start a family at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am the first to agree, as these charts show that purchasing a house, as a single household income, is much more difficult than it was. I have stated that in my previous posts.

The point I am making is as the vast majority of FTB'ers are duel household income units, using the single income multiplier is becoming less and less relevant.

I am basing this, as I do most things on what I see on the ground and what I have been seeing for over 20 years. Also the Council of Mortgage Lenders recent report shows that the average FTB'er's household income is £42k, which is just slightly less than two average incomes in NI. This would lead me to believe that the vast, vast percentage of FTB'ers are duel income household units.

Yes I agree the FTB'ers are getting older. It has moved from around an age 29 to 32 over the last 20 years. I also believe people are also pushing back the age they start a family at.

Whether the single income multiplier is becoming less or more relevant is really irrelevant - the chart doesn't purport to demonstrate that houses are bought by single income families. But by using a consistent measurable parameter of single income, it simply shows us how house prices have varied in relation to that parameter over time. The shape of the graph would be the same if the y axis scale was measured in x2 average income, so really there's no problem with these graphs if the data is simply interpreted as it is presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether the single income multiplier is becoming less or more relevant is really irrelevant - the chart doesn't purport to demonstrate that houses are bought by single income families. But by using a consistent measurable parameter of single income, it simply shows us how house prices have varied in relation to that parameter over time. The shape of the graph would be the same if the y axis scale was measured in x2 average income, so really there's no problem with these graphs if the data is simply interpreted as it is presented.

I don't agree at all with your statement. The ratio should look at household income. The multiplier they then use to determine affordability is up to others.

The chart as it stands ignores the fact that the vast majority of homes are purchased by duel income households. One person on an average sal can't expect to be able to afford or compete in the market for the house a duel income family on average income.

Put it this way. If for some reason we started to revert back to a single bread winner, as bb recently suggested, I would have to conclude that the single income multiplier would be very relevant indeed and its historic relevance profound. Apart from the forced unemployment, which has and will continue to occur, I can see no reason why we as a society would move back to single bread winners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.