Low interest rates will support house prices until 2014

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I didnt say they would buy at 20 either. I said "start out". That means start out on the path towards getting a home. I did say "at that point" so I guess that's been picked up on instead of what was said later and the sentiment of the post.

As harry said, the master of deception.
I didn't say that etc etc etc

Here's a reminder you did say that

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Put yourself in a 20 year olds shoes with no deposit help. You just left education.

Could YOU afford to buy a house at that point? Bear in mind, you will be paying rent to provide yourself with a roof, therefore, your living costs woould not be nothing.

So just put yourself in that 20 year olds shoes for two seconds. You have been taught everything you have said you will teach your kids.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sentiment is gone now anyway, so will leave this. Lots of bluff, no real answers.

I agree your trying to bluff your way out.
I think it's because you have had answers, just not what you wanted to hear.

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucknorris wrote: »

Do I have to say it again? It's a long term investment, you make the money in the later years not the early years.

You said this:

My parents have been the BTL game since 96 and do pretty well

which identifies it is a good long term investment

imo it identifies it has been a good long term investment - it doesn't in itself imply that is going to be a good long term investment from this point on (though it may be)

chucknorris

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

imo it identifies it has been a good long term investment - it doesn't in itself imply that is going to be a good long term investment from this point on (though it may be)

Agreed, but the point is that BTL was/is never good in the early years, it's the later years when the real benefit comes. When I bought my first investement property in the early 90's I didn't make or expect to make any profit in the first few years

Thrugelmir

HammerSmashedFace wrote: »

Indeed, that forecast was made before the introduction of £200 billion funny money (which has scared people out of cash and into assets) and the reduction of the base rate to 0.5%, which allows all those were struggling or losing an income to to get a cushy landing onto an SVR or huge reductions from their tracker.

Still 48k is pretty bad when considering what has been done to help them, if it hadn't of been done most would agree that repo's would have easily breached 100k if not a lot more with prices continuing to fall off a cliff.

However, we all know you get nothing for nothing in this world and the policies implemented are temporary and unsustainable. The chickens will come home to roost eventually, it's all just a matter of time.

This recession will be unlike any other, watch and see.

In the vast majority of repossessions the mortgagee also has a 2nd secured loan charged against the home, and more than likely unsecured debt.

What repossession statistics fail to how many people are not forced to sell their homes. As they do have sufficent equity in their homes to discharge the secured debt.

Lenders in this instance will be far more relaxed and give the homeowner the opportunity to sell their property. Knowing that any debt and accrued costs and interest will be cleared.

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucknorris wrote: »

Agreed, but the point is that BTL was/is never good in the early years, it's the later years when the real benefit comes. When I bought my first investement property in the early 90's I didn't make or expect to make any profit in the first few years

Which to me means that whether it will be a good investment for someone starting in 2004 won't really be visible for another 5 years or so perhaps?

The thing that is confusing about this for me is - I thought to qualify for BTL the income had to be 125% of the interest-payments? which implies (for London at least) that a good amount of capital would have to be put in, to qualify?

Emy1501

chucknorris wrote: »

Do I have to say it again? It's a long term investment, you make the money in the later years not the early years.

You said this:

My parents have been the BTL game since 96 and do pretty well

which identifies it is a good long term investment

My parents first BTL cost 30K after spending 5K on and sticking down their 7.5K deposit they got £600 a month for it. Mortgage back then was 7-8% I think so mortgage £130 a month Rent £600 even after fees and lets £50 a month for maintence you were still looking at about 40% yields!

Ok they bought right at the bottom and even then got a massive bargin but still.

chucknorris

Emy1501 wrote: »

Where I am in Zone 5 they have gone up no more than 20% in the last 13-14 years. In the last 5 years they have not gone up at all.

Looks like that isn't a good place to buy investment property then, it very importantant to buy in the right place. For example where I live in Dorking I wouldn't dream of buying an investment property as the rental market here is pathetic

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Theres a saying in that "to stand still is to go backwards".
I firmly believe you need to keep moving forwards to stay in touch or ahead of the game

The material gain in average house prices was made between 1999 and early 2005. Since 2005 average house prices have in fact stood still.

So investors (as opposed) to home owners would have been best to leave the market then.

I stress average as of course there are always hotspots which perform better than the average. Though of course to balance this out somebody else has suffered a greater loss.

The art of investment is to know when to bank a profit and seek pastures new.

StevieJ

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As harry said, the master of deception.
I didn't say that etc etc etc

Here's a reminder you did say that

I agree your trying to bluff your way out.
I think it's because you have had answers, just not what you wanted to hear.

Not exactly Harry Houdini

chucknorris

Emy1501 wrote: »

My parents first BTL cost 30K after spending 5K on and sticking down their 7.5K deposit they got £600 a month for it. Mortgage back then was 7-8% I think so mortgage £130 a month Rent £600 even after fees and lets £50 a month for maintence you were still looking at about 40% yields!

Ok they bought right at the bottom and even then got a massive bargin but still.

Those figures give an intial yield of over 20% which is astonishingly high and doesn't look right as 20% yields or anything near that is not normally achievable

Edit: ahh you mean the net yield which would be 42%. like I said though I am having a great problem accepting those figures, I have not seen a property providing a 20% plus initial headline yield, it does not look right