We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Any other home buyers in NI?
Comments
-
qwert_yuiop wrote: »It matters quite a lot when you're flushing several hundred a month unnecessarily into a large toilet bowl marked "Bank" and you're struggling financially.
I see no advantage in being in the position of those who bought in 2007 which is exactly what you've described. What a ludicrous thing for a "fervent money saver" (or anyone else) to say. Take it you bought in the bubble. Keep whistling.
But we're not in 2007 - we're in 2014. Prices are a fraction of what they were. The bubble has burst and is long gone.
FYI, 3 purchases since 2000
Bought in approx 2002, still own it, renting it out. Bought at a good price, owe usefully less than its worth.
Bought in 2004, sold in 2007, sold it for £100K up.
Built in 2009, when builders rates and materials were in the doldrums, on a site we already owned. Owe a lot less less than its worth
So currently whistling, yes - a happy tune.
0 -
marathonic wrote: »Again, comparisons to 2007-2009 to justify the decision whether or not to buy today. Get that out of your head. It's been and gone. It's history.
Similarly, I see people thinking they made a great decision in buying because the house price is 50% of what it was 7 years ago - forget 2007 and look at the numbers today.
Yes, they dont seem to be able to grasp that.0 -
marathonic wrote: »And again!!!!
Even anecdotally, I have a friend who purchased at the peak and another who has not yet purchased. The friend who hasn't yet purchased is afraid to make the leap because the other friend told them it's the worst mistake of their life.
Of course it was the worst mistake of their life. They purchased at a time when the market rents wouldn't even remotely cover the interest portion of a mortgage. Things are different today and I doubt the people who don't get that will ever purchase. They'll just wait until we're halfway through the next boom whilsting ranting and raving about a 'dead-cat bounce'.
It was a response to a fervent money saver who thinks it doesn't matter what price a house is. Of course it's a better time to buy now than then, unless it doesn't matter what you pay. Neither you nor I know what happens next, but if there is another boom before we're old, I will happily eat my hat. I do not expect this to be easy as I will have no teeth by then.“What means that trump?” Timon of Athens by William Shakespeare0 -
qwert_yuiop wrote: »It was a response to a fervent money saver who thinks it doesn't matter what price a house is. Of course it's a better time to buy now than then, unless it doesn't matter what you pay. Neither you nor I know what happens next, but if there is another boom before we're old, I will happily eat my hat. I do not expect this to be easy as I will have no teeth by then.
Of course it matters what price a house is - can you show me where anyone has said otherwise?
You seem obsessed with the boom / bust cycle. What we had before the "boom" was modest yearly increases. It looks a lot like we're returning to that.
But it would certainly seem to me to make a LOT of sense when market prices are at a LOW and just starting to rise.
The point being, if you're buying at a LOW, it matters not a jot what happens in the housing market after that. It can triple in value and then drop back to a third. You wont care - its just a storm outside your window.0 -
Yes, they dont seem to be able to grasp that.
They're grasping the fact they didn't buy 7 years ago. Fair play to them. Unless it doesn't matter of course.
I'm only going to buy when the farm down the road comes up for sale - pretty soon, I believe. A purely emotionally based decision.“What means that trump?” Timon of Athens by William Shakespeare0 -
Why?
You're £100K house might hit a million in five years time, or it might drop back to £50K, but who gives a stuff? You just keep paying your mortgage on your own home, afterwhich you OWN it. It might be worth £200,000 then, or it might be worth £10,000 then. Its still your home to do with as you please.
Perhaps this jogs your seemingly short memory. My only interest in the boom/ bust is one of relief.“What means that trump?” Timon of Athens by William Shakespeare0 -
qwert_yuiop wrote: »They're grasping the fact they didn't buy 7 years ago. Fair play to them. Unless it doesn't matter of course.
And the justification for not buying NOW seems to be "if i'd bought 7 years ago i'd have lost a fortune because house prices have dropped so much"
Uh Huh.
But this is NOW. You have the opportunity to buy at the LOW in prices not at the HIGH.0 -
Another over-simplified way of looking at it is:
Rent: £7,800 (£650 monthly)
House Cost: £160,000
Repayment Mortgage: £6,100 (75% LTV, 5-year fix at 3% over 30 years)
Rates: £1,000
Maintenance/Other Costs: £1,600
Annual Costs: £8,700.
So you're paying an extra £900 per year and losing £640 interest on your deposit - for a total extra cost of about £130 per month.
In return, after 30 years, your expenses are £2,600 instead of £7,800 and you own the house fully.
That means that, in retirement, you'll have £5,200 less in annual expenses, or £100 per week. You'll also have a house to leave to your children, if any.0 -
qwert_yuiop wrote: »Perhaps this jogs your seemingly short memory. My only interest in the boom/ bust is one of relief.
You're mis-reading and mis-quoting me, but no change there i guess.
If you buy when prices are LOW it doesnt matter a stuff what happens after that. It can go bananas, it can triple and then drop back to half, because you bought at the LOW.
Even at very worst, if you bought for £100K now and by the time you paid your mortgage off it was "only" worth £50K - and lets be honest if that catastrophic economic event were to happen (whereby from this position of LOW there was a further drop that didnt even recover in 20 years), your house value would probably be the worst of your problems - by then you've the house paid off, so its yours.0 -
marathonic wrote: »That means that, in retirement, you'll have £5,200 less in annual expenses, or £100 per week. You'll also have a house to leave to your children, if any.
No, No, No. Its clearly better to rent. I'm sure finding rental payments when you're 80 wont be a problem.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.9K Spending & Discounts
- 244.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards