BBC: Homes 'May rise in value in 2009'

chucky

nearlynew wrote: »

Envy is a very unattractive trait chucky.

Can't you go back to delusion.

but you don't know how many i own!!!

i was thinking that Nearly enjoyed the banter...

delusion is not a trait of mine - but timing and having an excellent memory are

Conrad

nearlynew wrote: »

Hope for the best.

But plan for the worst.

But some uber-pessimists take the planning a little too far shall we say. On here they say dumb @ss things about not relying on a joint inciome in case 1 partner is redundant. On that basis we end up with Mr Mean of Mr Men fame - counting gold in his spartan room, distrustful of the world beyond.

julieq

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'm not a renter yet am puzzled.

I can earn more than 3.99% on my savings and realistically expect house prices to not move signficantly upwards. So why buy. Yes you have a low rate now but what does the future hold ?

When base rates hit a more normal 4% - 5%. SVR's around 7.5% to 8.5% won't be uncommon. So your house purchase is going to cost more in the future.
[\QUOTE]

Because you're ignoring the cost of renting which is comparable to the cost of servicing a repayment loan at 5% (for the sake of argument, could be more, could be less).

And you have to pay that cost for 50 years, including in retirement, so you have to provide enough savings for retirement to cover that. Good luck to you if you can manage it.

Or you buy a house at some point, in which case the only question is when you time the purchase. And that is a gamble with a 25 year window for interest rates to go up down and all points in between.

If interest rates going up in the next few years bothers you (and it shouldn't because you're working over a 25 year term so you can't really second guess anything), then it makes more sense to move that 25 year window forward to maximise the low interest at the start.

geoffky

Dan: wrote: »

I hit the thanks button for this - please disregard.

Firstly, I don't think anyone is 'hoping' for price rises, what we need is a period of stagnation - this will be best for everyone in the long run.

Your another one that said 2009 would be far worse then 2008 and if you honesty think the tories will come to your rescue then your more daft then I thought.

You have had your HPC - don't get greedy!

dan i would like to say you were a crash denier but you came to the party just as the music was being turned off and the light were being put out..why would i want the Tories to come to my rescue..i don't work and they will do nothing for me but if i was working i would be very worried about what they are planning to do..as they will have no problem with millions unemployed and everyone taking the painful but nessersary medicine..

Cannon_Fodder

Conrad wrote: »

On here they say dumb @ss things about not relying on a joint inciome in case 1 partner is redundant.

Gobsmacked. Utterly gobsmacked.

If it is "dumb @ss" to not rely on joint incomes, and that is the standard message being peddled by mortgage brokers when advising their clients on affordability, no wonder we have gone to hell in a handcart.

Mortgagee says "I want to borrow £80k"
Broker replies "But you can afford £160k, here it is"
"Oh, erm, ok thanks."
Puts nose harder to grindwheel.

Wonderful for the individual, society and the future generations, not.

I had considered Conrad to be a "moderate" broker, without the hard-sell, quite sensible in his thoughtful reasoning.

If that was an accurate assessment, what on earth spiel and spin are the heavy-handed salesmen up to, and what bad decisions are they leading their clients towards?

julieq

I thought mass unemployment was (a) the banks' fault and (b) an inevitable consequence of the necesssary post election belt tightening as the public sector is reduced in size to pay down the debt Gordon Brown has taken on to try to save his own skin, then (c) a spiral based on (a) and (b).

I know some people don't like the Conservatives, but it's a bit rich to blame them for something that they can't possibly have caused.

If you have any suggestions for policies that don't involve some level of (b) then I'm sure we'd all be delighted to hear them. May well involve replacing (b) with (d) which is vastly increased taxes, which in turn will exacerbate (a) and (c).

mramra

What about Option (e)?

nearlynew

chucky wrote: »

but you don't know how many i own!!!

i was thinking that Nearly enjoyed the banter...

delusion is not a trait of mine - but timing and having an excellent memory are

Calm down mate.

My reply was "banter"

Cannon_Fodder

Option (F) close your eyes, count to 10 and hope its disappeared...




8, 9, 9 and a quarter, 9 and a half, 9 and six tenths...

mramra

Option (z)?