BBC: Homes 'May rise in value in 2009'

julieq

Well that's down to your attitude to risk regarding external factors. There's nothing wrong with being cautious, but you can overestimate the risks.

Ultimately though if the argument is that it costs less to buy a house than rent it then it's spurious. You're generally free of mortgage payments for a house in 25 years, if renting you may have maybe 50 years+ at equivalent amounts to find, for a good deal of that period you definitely won't be employed because you'll be retired. So you have to figure out a way of funding the rent or else you'll live somewhere you probably wouldnt have chosen to live.

Chris2685

I won't be renting forever... I'm only 23... and I don't earn enough to buy anywhere that I will want to live in for more than a few years right now...

Once I have more income, better choice of property and a bit more security then I will take that plunge

julieq

Perfectly sensible on all counts.

Thrugelmir

julieq wrote: »

Well that's down to your attitude to risk regarding external factors. There's nothing wrong with being cautious, but you can overestimate the risks.

Ultimately though if the argument is that it costs less to buy a house than rent it then it's spurious. You're generally free of mortgage payments for a house in 25 years, if renting you may have maybe 50 years+ at equivalent amounts to find, for a good deal of that period you definitely won't be employed because you'll be retired. So you have to figure out a way of funding the rent or else you'll live somewhere you probably wouldnt have chosen to live.

Few people clear their mortgages in 25 years. As move up the ladder.

As long as renting is cheaper than paying a mortgage. Then saving for a larger deposit is more cost effective in the longer term.

Hair_Bear

Harry_Powell wrote: »

I remember when I first joined here that Dithering Dad was encouraging people to buy because the market was bottoming out and the mortgage market was offering bargains (I believe that at the time of his writing, A&L were offering a 5 year fixed rate at 3.99, zero fee). I think he was basically saying that people would save more from low mortgage rates then they would with the continued (much slower) price drops. Looking back, it seems that he was absolutely right and I for one wish I had listened to him.

He was ridiculed by many people on here (some of the attacks were very aggressive and abusive), but he was completely right. 6 months later and prices and mortgages are rising and it'll cost people a lot more to buy and pay for their houses. I listened to the fools who were ridiculing him, and decided to wait to buy. I'm truly kicking myself.

Come back DD, you were the best poster on here, and all your advice was 100% correct!!!

Welcome back D-Dad. We've missed you. :T :T :T

Really2

Hair_Bear wrote: »

Welcome back D-Dad. We've missed you. :T :T :T

Spot the irony.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Spot the irony.

Who is it?!

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Who is it?!

Who thanked you:D

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Well that's down to your attitude to risk regarding external factors. There's nothing wrong with being cautious, but you can overestimate the risks.

Ultimately though if the argument is that it costs less to buy a house than rent it then it's spurious. You're generally free of mortgage payments for a house in 25 years, if renting you may have maybe 50 years+ at equivalent amounts to find, for a good deal of that period you definitely won't be employed because you'll be retired. So you have to figure out a way of funding the rent or else you'll live somewhere you probably wouldnt have chosen to live.

I'm not sure it's down to risks and attitudes. Your analogy would work in absolutely perfect environments, where absolutely nothing went wrong for the term of the mortgagte, be that house price drops, interest rate increases, family commitments and the patter of tiny feet & never moving again.

So the first house would have to be THE house. The one which fits every requirement now and in the furture (which you can never know).

I don't think any of us can name a period in history where this perfect world has taken place. And it's most certainly not going to take place either now, or over the next ten years.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Who thanked you:D

Dunno, but I'm rather partial to him / her, so please leave them alone