greed and stupidity personified.................

ess0two

leveller2911 wrote: »

Brought a "Run down" bungalow for £365,000-00.......says it all for me.

People say "its worth whatever someone will pay for it" Codswallop,people were stupid enough to borrow stupid money to pay a stupid price.

Pure greed I'm afraid,especially having the crazy amount on a mortgage.

She Didn't buy the house as a home for her family, she brought it as an investment,pure and simple........

Sale due to divorce,rather than investment?

chucknorris

leveller2911 wrote: »

She Didn't buy the house as a home for her family, she brought it as an investment,pure and simple........

She's lived in it 5 years, I certainly think that counts as buying a home and is selling it due to divorce, where do you get the idea she was an investor?

leveller2911

chucknorris wrote: »

She's lived in it 5 years, I certainly think that counts as buying a home and is selling it due to divorce, where do you get the idea she was an investor?

I don't believe anyone would take on a "substantial" Boomtime mortgage with a view to it being longterm..

I agree neither I nor anyone else on here know her exact circumstances.

I actually blame the government for pillaging the pension funds that encouraged people to concentrate more on using the housing market as an investment product rather than buying a "Home" to live in..

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

nearlynew wrote: »

Interesting sentiment in the replies to the article.

That's what happens when the article is linked to from HPC's front page.... :rolleyes:

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That's what happens when the article is linked to from HPC's front page.... :rolleyes:

Yup, tis true. Cus no one else reads the times articles.

ess0two

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yup, tis true. Cus no one else reads the times articles.

Seems some here failed to read the article.

chucky

Mr.Brown wrote: »

My apologies, I was a bit short with my post. What I was trying to convey was that the enthusiasm over the last few years to have designer features - taps that poke your eye out, flat screen fishtanks, 'flooring' rather than carpet, etc. - might prove to be a short lived and expensive fad in a more austere economic climate.

no Mewbie - these people would have had carpets. you're getting confused again... :rolleyes:

all the others things would be extras

chucky

carolt wrote: »

No, it's greedy to demand your buyers give you a 65K profit, and overpay by a multiple of 3 times, to make up for the fact that you spent vastly too much money on extensions and redecoration costs.

the buyers don't have to buy it - if they do they do if they don't. who says their overpaying!?

the market sets the price of a property not what people think it's worth on an internet forum here.

carolt

Couldn't agree more. That's why it's not selling. Greed doesn't = rich, though.

She wants that much. That's greed. Doesn't mean she's going to get it, though.

leveller2911

chucky wrote: »

the buyers don't have to buy it - if they do they do if they don't. who says their overpaying!?

the market sets the price of a property not what people think it's worth on an internet forum here.

Yep and thats why were all in the sh1te.......as the vast majority of it is done with borrowed money.To most of the population its all just numbers on paper.The banks will lend ,therefore I can afford it.......

It would be very interesting to see what house prices would be if all credit was withdrawn.....Then that would be a true perspective rather than the perverse one we have now.People would pay what they have......