10 years of hard saving for a house, what should I do now?

Decadent_Fool

thelawnet wrote: »

Looks like we need to drink to each other. :beer:

I'm geared at 6.5%, so why not? :beer:

snafu21

Rent for the next six months, then ask again.

Doomcow

Cat695 wrote: »

So your already in NE.....and why would the OP want to buy now when house prices still have a long way to fall.....or are you another one that thinks they will rise in a few months time even though the country is in a recession with thousands losing their jobs every month and the banks are only lending to people with HUGE deposits.

yeah demand is going to be REAL big.....I think not

why dont you apply for that post of chancellor then?

and yeah, i think in a few months prices will go up. they seem steady at the minute here, ok a couple thousand loose jobs and its plastered over the media, but millions are still in work and need to eat, grow and go forward with their lives.

but hey, i guess OP could rent forever, throw money away at a property developer who is already rich. hey, why dont we *all* do that, have no ownership and no responsibility, then we wont have to grow up, and ya know, invest in our future.

just my thoughts... to recap, you should still buy a house if you want to and feel its right

luvpump

melbury wrote: »

They said on the news last week that house prices had gone up by 1.9% in January, so have they bottomed out yet?

No they have not.. dont believe the Hype, as the saying goes, House prices have a long way to fall yet !!.. Dont be fooled by the vested interest brigade

Aegis

luvpump wrote: »

No they have not.. dont believe the Hype, as the saying goes, House prices have a long way to fall yet !!.. Dont be fooled by the vested interest brigade

Which vested interest brigade? The home-owners or the people who were harping on about a crash from about 2002 until it actually happened (i.e. missing out on the huge gains and feeling a bit sheepish about it all)? It's a little difficult to actually find anyone without a vested interest in property.

Decadent_Fool

luvpump wrote: »

No they have not.. dont believe the Hype, as the saying goes, House prices have a long way to fall yet !!.. Dont be fooled by the vested interest brigade

It doesn't matter how much further they have to fall (although I think they're bottoming), it matters how much you pay for a property. In this buyers market you can buy significantly below prices that comparable homes are selling for, if the vendor is desperate to sell, thus taking allowing for any further falls.

If the op sees a home he likes, which he can afford, and wants to stay in for a while, then why shouldn't he buy it?!

thelawnet

Aegis wrote: »

Which vested interest brigade? The home-owners or the people who were harping on about a crash from about 2002 until it actually happened (i.e. missing out on the huge gains and feeling a bit sheepish about it all)? It's a little difficult to actually find anyone without a vested interest in property.

Well indeed, but you could say the same thing about investors in internet stocks. Things rose for too long, people who sold in time made large profits, but then things fell for years, below the early buy-in levels. And of course most people only started harping on about a crash relatively recently. The house price crash board here dates from April 2008, since which time prices have fallen dramatically.

jon3001

Aegis wrote: »

Which vested interest brigade? The home-owners or the people who were harping on about a crash from about 2002 until it actually happened (i.e. missing out on the huge gains and feeling a bit sheepish about it all)? It's a little difficult to actually find anyone without a vested interest in property.

How do you actually profit from 'huge gains'? The ordinary home-owner isn't going to look to buy a property, time the peak about 5 years later, sell-up and sit-out for a few years. That's for speculators who are prepared to take big risks with borrowed money.

I think most people would agree that the 'huge gains' have now been exposed as based on an illusion rather than real value. Debt levels have been pumped up massively over the past few years and even 5 years ago were dangerously high. Banks we're keen to lend out even more by inventing more creative products (I was waiting for stories of how to buy a share of a 1-bed flat with 4 strangers on a 125% mortage with shared equity) to people desperate to get a piece of the 'ladder'. Prices were going up because they were going up - classic bubble.

On top of that people were MEWing out their 'huge gains' to pump back into the property market - either BTL or deposits for children. More bubble action.

Commercial property funds are already seeing their valuations back to where they were 5 years ago - and they're still dropping. I don't think many who decided to sit out this madness will be worse off for it. It was only a matter of time before this house of cards came crashing down.

Aegis

Well, it's not so much profiting from the huge gains as losing to them if they didn't purchase. At the housepricecrash forum, they were going on about an impending crash for a very long time, and I believe they were hoping for a much larger one than we've had recently. Those who bought property (whether as a home or as an investment) want the price to rise, either to make a profit or to improve their chances of getting a decent remortgage. Many of those currently off the ladder want a drop so that they can buy for the first time.

All I was really trying to say was that there aren't going to be many people without a vested interest.

jon3001

Aegis wrote: »

Well, it's not so much profiting from the huge gains as losing to them if they didn't purchase.

I think you could say that about any investment.

Property is cyclic so they're not really losing out if they choose to delay until a more favourable point in the cycle. If someone decides wait until, say, 2012 to purchase in a depressed market how have they lost out compared to buying in 2002? I'm assuming that money that would have been spent paying off the mortgage capital/house maintenance/etc would have been sensibly saved/invested instead and that rental rates are comparable to mortgage interest.

Aegis wrote: »

At the housepricecrash forum, they were going on about an impending crash for a very long time, and I believe they were hoping for a much larger one than we've had recently.

According to wiki that site was set up in 2003. Maybe it's founders had opinions long before that - I don't know. But I remember prices more than doubling in my area in a very short space of time around then. That was never sustainable. Certainly more official bodies such as the IMF have been issuing warnings for some years.

Personally I think the crash is only just underway. We're only just officially in recession, unemployment is steadily rising and lending is still drying up. Most of these problems can be traced back to massive speculation in the housing market off the back of risky lending. High prices mean higher mortgages which means either less money in the real economy or encourages further borrowing off paper housing gains to pay for stuff.

Aegis wrote: »

Those who bought property (whether as a home or as an investment) want the price to rise, either to make a profit or to improve their chances of getting a decent remortgage. Many of those currently off the ladder want a drop so that they can buy for the first time.

Sounds investments in property are based primarily on strong cash-flow over capital appreciation. Many forgot that the same applied to stocks during the dot-com boom. They also forgot when they dabbled in property speculation. I've heard of cases of new-build flats being left empty so that owners could sell in 12-months time in pristine condition with the expectation of a capital gain.

Many people won't be in their last home and expect to trade-up later. High house prices are doing no favours to these home-owners. They're only much use if you plan to trade down or exit the market. Even if you only trade sideways then low prices mean you'll pay less taxes, estate agent commision and other fees.

Aegis wrote: »

All I was really trying to say was that there aren't going to be many people without a vested interest.

I concur.