What is is with old ladies and their houses?

mewbie_2

Davesnave wrote: »

Roger Daltrey.

"Hope I die before I get old". Funny how life takes a different perspective as you indeed.. get old.

Davesnave

mewbie wrote: »

"Hope I die before I get old". Funny how life takes a different perspective as you indeed.. get old.

Well 2/4 isn't a bad score, but they claim it was metaphorical!

harrup

mean_momma wrote: »

It is of no consequence, and indeed not really anyone's business how much an owner might have paid for a property in the past. What counts is how much someone may be willing to pay today.
.

I disagree. Partly ( which means the other half agrees or something!). And here is why: the past purchase price puts a current asking price at least in some kind of context when a buyers seemingly demands an unusually high, given the curren HPM, price for their house. Which is what that particuar post was referring to.

Example: lets assume someone bought their house for 450 K last year and now they want to sell it for 500 K. They put in new fixtures and carpets, they made some improvements, they spent money and effort on it and now they want to at least recoup their investment. I might think that 500K is too high owing to the falling market, but, given that information, I do understand WHY their price is disproportionally high and the seller unprepared or unable to negotiate.

Now lets assume that the seller bought this house eons ago for a very attractive, modest price but now also wants 500 K, regardless that this price is totally unrealistic owing to the current market and perhaps even for that property. This then does seem unreasonale and yes,...greedy. To - ME. I didn't say it WAS or SHOULD be unreasonable to the word's population at large. Perceptions vary.


Oh dear, beware elderly ladies....Edit: if the above comments were made about a race, they would have been deleted as being offensive!


Oh dear, indeed. And that from someone whose forum name is "mean momma". Doesn't bode well, perhaps I should change mine to "supermean momma"?

I'm joking. Don't rip my head off, please. I really have nothing against eldery ladies. The way time flies I'll be one by tomorrow.

lostinrates

Davesnave wrote: »

My new rental is in a cul de sac where I almost qualify as the youngest at 60. At the far end is a lady who was 'old' when I first met her 35 years ago. Despite being about 90, she handles her Jazz like Schmacher, whizzing up and down every day, always waving and smiling as she passes.

Another male friend drives the larger Honda; a sort of people-carrier. I don't like to ask how old he is, but he was a fighter pilot in WW2.

I'd like to grow 'old' like those two.....or Roger Daltrey.

I notice when I drive my mother's car on our lanes even the aggressive milk lorries reverse to let me past, even tractors with trailers. . :rolleyes: she's well known on our roads :rotfl:

dopester

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

However, if people of whatever age want a realistic price for their houses, I don't see why they shouldn't stick out to get it.

Let them stick out for whatever price they believe it is worth. They can't stop their next-door-neighbour, or guy up the street, from reducing their price. Give it a year, two-years, three-years... and if you've "stuck it out" on some peak valuation, then it will get you nowhere.

Say in 3 years if similar houses to yours are selling on your street for £200,000 ... then you stick-it-out peak-2007 valuation of £500,000 is just going to be stupid.

You might as well "stick it out" to get £5 million, or £50 million - as your valuation will be ludicrous to what is happening in the real world. Ever more ludicrous as those who have to get real, have to sell at market value, keep reducing their prices.

You can't magically keep peak price for your property as rest of the market falls.

"Stick it out" for peak price if you must, but market-forces win out against fantasy-world self-valuations.

dopester

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

However, if people of whatever age want a realistic price for their houses, I don't see why they shouldn't stick out to get it.

We paid £3k for our UK mid-terrace in 1976 (next door to the one mentioned in my post 52 above). If we were to sell it now I suppose we'd get £120k. We've probably spent about £30k on it over the years. So anything we got above that would be profit.

Although we would be prepared to drop the price a little, there is no way we would let it go for £50k (which would reflect what it had cost us).

So yes, we would benefit from a rise in equity.

If your house crashes back in value, providing you've got a fair amount of equity, extra savings and were so inclined... a nicer house would have crashed even more in value... meaning it would cost you less to trade up. Maybe not so good if you wanted to trade down of course.

You've got a blinkered attitude to this issue in my opinion - too focussed on your own "gains" for your own good.

dopester

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Although we would be prepared to drop the price a little, there is no way we would let it go for £50k (which would reflect what it had cost us).

So yes, we would benefit from a rise in equity.

Also, please explain how you have benefited from a rise in equity. Unless you planned to sell-up and rent as house prices crash, a house is a home.

Except for rising to the extent of the improvements you've made, and in line with wages over the years, I don't see how you've really benefited.

Geenie

BettiePage wrote: »

Not all of us spend and borrow, but I do take your point.

Thanks Bettie Page. I am not saying that others don't have a valid point, but you have to consider what a retired person see's before them in terms of generating income when a wage is not available.

Their pensions are sh*te.

Their savings are sh*te

All they have to live on apart from state hand outs are their savings and what they can earn from assets!

We are living longer, well into our 90's or a 100, so consider living for 40 years after retiring and how you will pay for that life only on savinngs and what you own to finance a normal standard of living! It is scary! :eek:

dopester

Geenie wrote: »

All they have to live on apart from state hand outs are their savings and what they can earn from assets!

How are you suggesting pensioners earn from their assets? By assets you mean their homes yes?

Do you mean pensioners borrowing against your own vastly inflated priced home, to help with your living costs?

Great plan. I'm glad I'll be buying my first house for cash without a mortgage - to use as a home - not some cash-machine pension pot.

lostinrates

Geenie wrote: »

Thanks Bettie Page. I am not saying that others don't have a valid point, but you have to consider what a retired person see's before them in terms of generating income when a wage is not available.

Their pensions are sh*te.

Their savings are sh*te

All they have to live on apart from state hand outs are their savings and what they can earn from assets!

We are living longer, well into our 90's or a 100, so consider living for 40 years after retiring and how you will pay for that life only on savinngs and what you own to finance a normal standard of living! It is scary! :eek:

I don't think is universal actually, and in my social group I'd say that our parents and grandparents, on average, started pension planning before us, were able to save along side mortgage repayments, less numerically, but more proportionately. e.g. my father put aside the maximum allowance of his income his entire working life whilst servicing a mortgage for a large west london family home on an averagish wage (public sector)...DH puts away the minimum (3%) on a better than average wage in order to save for a house. The equivalent property we would buy in the same area is actually a flat in the house my parents had all of, with a very roughly proportion of income to mortage payment, but we have a far huger deposit in proportion to price than my parents did! (I'm sorry, this gets a bit confusing)

The wage to house price ratio I've worked out -back of the envelope- for my grandparents, parents and parents in law, and possibilties that DH and I might buy, and the ratio of earning to property (for less of a property and higher than previous generations rage in relation to average wage) is always in the previous generations favour. Absolutely we have, as a generation, not me personally, more debt, but then lots of us started adult life with huge student loans too. We have to spend hugely on commuting, especially in SE, and as prices rise in city centres we are forced further and further out, making the commuting costs higher,....not to mention childcare costs etc. ( my mother would point out she was provided with no support for childcare , so thats a bit swings and roundabouts I'll accept.)

I think there is a very valid issue with 'I want it now ism' in my generation, I'll not argue with that at all, and there is lots more tat available at lower proportion of income, and there is no question in my mind that 'easy' lending of 95% plus of houses has contributed to that.