The Nice Decade Poll-Who missed out?

Dithering_Dad

I went for number 4. cos I'm a contrarian and I thought no one else would.

I actually think the last decade was a party and now we're starting to wake up to the hangover.

mizzbiz

Why is I missed out due to age in italics? Does this option have some special significance. (Edit: I take it on reflection the italicised is the choice you made! Doh re me!)

Unfortunately for me, I'm like poster number 5. I got whacked with the student loan and of course was at uni during most of that period. By the time I had a decent job, there's no way on this earth I would bought a house at the prices they were. I knew they would crash.

My now partner did buy one though, so it's as good as having done it myself. However, it was cheap and we can afford the remortgage even if one of us is on minimum wage and the other unemployed!

chrisandanne

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

I went for number 4. cos I'm a contrarian and I thought no one else would.

I actually think the last decade was a party and now we're starting to wake up to the hangover.

No 4.....I take it your Summer Balls cancelled this year then ? I don't think you're going to be the only one ball less in the coming year. A x

Lotus-eater

I put I enjoyed hpi, but I didn't really, if when I bought my first house (98), had I got the most expensive and biggest one I could have afforded, I would have done very well indeed when I moved up to a bigger/better one.
As it was, I played safe and got one I knew we could easily afford.

Missed opportunity there, but I don't worry about it at night,

John_Pierpoint

chrisandanne wrote: »

After Mum died he could no longer afford the repayments and was in the proverbial at the age of 85. I had no choice but to pay off his mortgage with what could have been our house deposit in 2002. So I bought his house.

When he became frail in 2005 he had to come and live with us. I then sold his house and because of hpi I made a profit. I kept all the money the house made (except for £10k which I gave to my sister) and my sister has not spoken to me since because she thinks I should have given her half the hpi.

So sister did half the care needs of dad, half the maintenance on the house and has a written agreement to indemnify you for half of any loss, should the house have fallen in value? While living in a bed sit?

WTF?_2

mizzbiz wrote: »

Why is I missed out due to age in italics? Does this option have some special significance. (Edit: I take it on reflection the italicised is the choice you made! Doh re me!)

It's about the lottery of timing. You generally aren't in a position to buy until you reach an age where you have some sort of a decent income or maybe buying isn't right for you when you are young and moving around.

Therefore lots of people, especially younger ones, weren't in a position (financial or persoal) to buy before prices took off, leaving them in a tricky situation when they wanted to buy.

However, it's not like you can't rent and wait it out - though the boom went on beyond all reason.

The people to feel sorry for are the ones who bought close to peak on the 'buy now or you'll miss the boat forever' vibe that was very prevalent.

They are now looking at maybe a decade stuck in a small overpriced rabbit hutch and an even nastier 'recession experience' due to the likelihood of negative equity leading to repossession and even possible bankruptcy should they lose their income stream in the recession. Very nasty, no wonder just about everyone who was dishing out 'advice' on MSE forums to go ahead and buy in 2007 seems to have made themselves scarce from the board.

JayZed

macaque wrote: »

This is a bit like asking who drank the most at a party. The ones who had the most to drink during the 'nice decade' face the biggest hangovers (unless they sold up in 2007).

I disagree. Sure, there are quite a few people who foolishly overstretched their credit and/or piled onto the bandwagon at the top of the market, and they're going to be suffering now. But there are also many people who benefited significantly from hpi without silly borrowing, who now have a very large cushion of equity in their homes and are in a position to take advantage of lower house prices by putting down a huge deposit and taking out a small mortgage at relatively low rates.

There are also a lot of people who benefited from the nice decade in other ways - good, well-paid jobs, career development etc. If they haven't overstretched themselves then even if their jobs are less secure now they should be in a good position to face the downturn.

The two acid tests are (a) whether people borrowed beyond their means, and (b) when people got into the market in the first place. In terms of the housing market, those who snapped up bargains in the mid-late 90s have done very well for themselves; those who got in after 2005 may find things difficult now. Those who got in around (roughly) 2001-04 and didn't over-borrow will probably be doing okay with no substantial gains or losses.

For the record, I'm in the doing okay category. Got into the housing market in 2004, traded up in 2007, but never borrowed silly amounts and always maintained a decent LTV. I've also benefited from a good career trajectory over the past decade, which I wouldn't have had in a period of low growth. Can't complain.

macaque_2

JayZed wrote: »

I disagree. Sure, there are quite a few people who foolishly overstretched their credit and/or piled onto the bandwagon at the top of the market, and they're going to be suffering now. But there are also many people who benefited significantly from hpi without silly borrowing, who now have a very large cushion of equity in their homes and are in a position to take advantage of lower house prices by putting down a huge deposit and taking out a small mortgage at relatively low rates.

There are also a lot of people who benefited from the nice decade in other ways - good, well-paid jobs, career development etc. If they haven't overstretched themselves then even if their jobs are less secure now they should be in a good position to face the downturn.

The two acid tests are (a) whether people borrowed beyond their means, and (b) when people got into the market in the first place. In terms of the housing market, those who snapped up bargains in the mid-late 90s have done very well for themselves; those who got in after 2005 may find things difficult now. Those who got in around (roughly) 2001-04 and didn't over-borrow will probably be doing okay with no substantial gains or losses.

For the record, I'm in the doing okay category. Got into the housing market in 2004, traded up in 2007, but never borrowed silly amounts and always maintained a decent LTV. I've also benefited from a good career trajectory over the past decade, which I wouldn't have had in a period of low growth. Can't complain.

The house price time machine is going backwards faster and further than you might think. Read this link.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/property_and_mortgages/article5336374.ece

boyse7en

macaque wrote: »

The house price time machine is going backwards faster and further than you might think. Read this link.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/property_and_mortgages/article5336374.ece

That article says the market peak was 2003, what was it doing from 03-07?


I'd like to see their calcs for this, rather than just the headline figures. I bought in 2001 for £140k. Value 2007 was about £300k ish. If it loses 50% from peak it will be worth £150k ish, but my mortgage is only £80k, so I'd still have more-or-less 50% equity. Why, apparently, has everyone else got virtually no equity after 10 years?

Dithering_Dad

boyse7en wrote: »

That article says the market peak was 2003, what was it doing from 03-07?


I'd like to see their calcs for this, rather than just the headline figures. I bought in 2001 for £140k. Value 2007 was about £300k ish. If it loses 50% from peak it will be worth £150k ish, but my mortgage is only £80k, so I'd still have more-or-less 50% equity. Why, apparently, has everyone else got virtually no equity after 10 years?

The figures probably don't work out with the peak in 2007, so they changed it. Just rubbish journalism I'm afraid.