The Nice Decade Poll-Who missed out?

Dithering_Dad

macaque wrote: »

Hello? People keep moving the date back. A year ago every home owner in the land was humming a smug tune. That changed to: 'I'm safe because I bought in 2006'. The 'window of smugness then started creeping back year by year. Today the Times ran a story on prices falling back to 1999 levels. Now we have reached the; 'I'm safe because I bought in 1998' stage.

I'm safe because I bought in 2002 and had a large deposit from a the equity of my first house bought in 1995. I am also safe because I have overpaid my mortgage and the only money I MEWed out of the martgage was to fund an extension that we built so that we didn't have to move house again in order to comfortably house our growing family.

Not sure I'm 'humming a smug tune' about this; my situation is simply what it is.

chrisandanne

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

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?

Thanks John...the answer to all of the above is no. A x

Mitchaa, I agree with you that everything should be split fairly, fifty fifty, this includes bailing out and long term care of elderley parents.

My sister was asked to go halves in the bail out £9k x 2...she declined. Even though she has a house that's paid for and plenty of cash in the bank.

She has a three bedroomed house and her children are grown up and have homes of their own......would she have Dad over for the day occasionally to give us a break.....she declined.....ok so would they take him out occasionally......it never happened.

The amount of equity in the house when it was sold was a much much smaller amount than your figures.... I also put cash into my Dad's account to give him independance and to pay for his funeral when the time came.

Why is my sister !!!!!! off with me.....it turned out I wasn't quite as big a mug as they were taking me for.

A x

StevieJ

macaque wrote: »

Hello? People keep moving the date back. A year ago every home owner in the land was humming a smug tune. That changed to: 'I'm safe because I bought in 2006'. The 'window of smugness then started creeping back year by year. Today the Times ran a story on prices falling back to 1999 levels. Now we have reached the; 'I'm safe because I bought in 1998' stage.

Hello! Sorry, I thought a decade was 10 years as 'the nice decade who missed out' Oh by the way the Times article did not mention prices dropping to 1999 prices.

John_Pierpoint

chrisandanne wrote: »

Why is my sister !!!!!! off with me.....it turned out I wasn't quite as big a mug as they were taking me for.

A x

Expectation is a much more powerful emotion than gratitude.
That is why everyone hates the banker.

ShelleyC_2

I think I've been very lucky - I bought in 1998 and sold early 2008 for a price agreed in late 07. Can't claim its through any foresight. I just relocated at the right time and due to slow sale didn't end up buying straight away.

I've ended up with money in the bank whilst renting and watching my dream house become a possibility :j

bo_drinker

Bought in 92, sold Sept 06. No mortgage, banked the money we are sitting and waiting for the right one to come along. No rent to pay so no hurry. Never had a c c. What does MEW stand for ?? Never done it anyway.

WTF?_2

chrisandanne wrote: »

Thanks John...the answer to all of the above is no. A x

Mitchaa, I agree with you that everything should be split fairly, fifty fifty, this includes bailing out and long term care of elderley parents.

My sister was asked to go halves in the bail out £9k x 2...she declined. Even though she has a house that's paid for and plenty of cash in the bank.

She has a three bedroomed house and her children are grown up and have homes of their own......would she have Dad over for the day occasionally to give us a break.....she declined.....ok so would they take him out occasionally......it never happened.

The amount of equity in the house when it was sold was a much much smaller amount than your figures.... I also put cash into my Dad's account to give him independance and to pay for his funeral when the time came.

Why is my sister !!!!!! off with me.....it turned out I wasn't quite as big a mug as they were taking me for.

A x

Beats me why she would expect anything related to the HPI profit given that she declined to pay a share of buying the house.

skap7309

Too young.

However - please move over for the new era.
A new dawn is upon us.

JayZed

That Times article really is a load of nonsense, isn't it? There are so many holes in it I don't know where to begin.

For example, "[those who bought in 1998] will have £74,762 or exactly 25% equity in their home by 2010, tumbling from 51% this year." Even if we assume that this 51% equity is at the peak (rather than "this year"), and that these people never repay a single penny off their mortgage, the maths is still way out.

If £74,762 represents 25% of equity in the home in 2010, then in 2010 this mythical home will be worth £299045. If prices have fallen by 25%, then at peak the house would have been worth £398,731. If they had 51% equity at peak, that was £203,353 of equity. So the house has lost almost exactly £100K in value, but these people have lost £128,951 in equity. Where has this additional £29K loss come from?!

Since the article actually implies that the point at which they held 51% equity was this year, i.e. after the peak, then the maths is even further out.

subarusty

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Beats me why she would expect anything related to the HPI profit given that she declined to pay a share of buying the house.

I've got to agree with this post. Its nice when everything is 50:50, but that involves good and bad times. To expect half the profits without helping out in the tough times is just jealousy.
Its a real shame when it breaks up a family, though.