Low interest rates will support house prices until 2014

IveSeenTheLight

chucky wrote: »

btw you didn't come back to ISTL's post regarding you trying to bluff your way out before :rolleyes:

It's expected chucky for Graham not to come back when called on something.
He has a reputation for taking threads off topic, repeatedly asking questions and stating he doesn't get answers even when he does and chooses to ignore answering questions himself if he does not like the answer he would be giving.

I asked him on another thread, even though he tried to take it off topic and I re-iterested the question again.
I'm still waiting for his reply
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=26953175&postcount=36

HammerSmashedFace

chucknorris wrote: »

Would you never consider downsizing? We live in Dorking which is a commuter town, when my wife retires in a few years we will probably move to somewhere near a beach which although would be a similar sized house, it would be cheaper. Some people also downsize in the size of their property too (although I don't think we would)

I take it by this you mean I would be better off if prices rose. TBH money means little to me in the respect that I would sooner society and younger people in general have the opportunity to access houses at a lower price.

To sum up the kind of person I am, if I won the lotto I would give most of my winnings away to friends and family rather than spend it on materialistic items that have little value once the novelty wears off.

If you help someone the memory of the look on their face lasts much longer than the 2 weeks worth of novelty that 'buying stuff' does. I like going to sleep at night knowing I'm a pretty good person.

Cleaver

doire wrote: »

No point in taking the post seriously then?

Can someone else paint a picture of a joint income of £35,000 who bought a house for £190,000, with no deposit, during the days when banks would throw money at anyone?

Did you decide to simply ignore this line from my post:

I fully realise that people who have stretched themselves stupid, fall on to bad luck and don't look around for sensible mortgage deals will go under.

People with a joint income of £35k who bought a house for £190k with no deposit come under that line of my post, specifically the 'stretched themselves stupid' bit.

Edit: Actually Doire, I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier on this thread. What percentage of mortgage holders out there (11 million I think Hamish said in another thread) do you think fit your scenario? A scenario where they borrowed 5.5x their income on a 100% mortgage? Bearing in mind these 11 million mortgages were taken out between 1984 and now?

Emy1501

chucknorris wrote: »

They did very well, in 96 prices were starting to creep up so they must have just got it just in time.

25% or anywhere near it is not generally available, I think you are under the impression that this was the norm, let me assure you that it was not. Was it ex council? There's nothing wrong with good quality ex council, but can explain getting an exceptionally good buy and a correspondingly good yield.

No it wasnt a council property it was flat in a large victorian house. I think back then property Ladder and alike did not exist and few people were interested in buying flats that needed work. They bought a couple more over the next couple of years and yields were still around the 15-20% mark.

I think they benefited from getting friendly with agents etc and therefore often getting the best bargins.

As i say its different now in the area and I'm not sure about BTl now especially in view of my comments previously regarding the amount of people in BTL. When my parents started no one was into it. Now 50-75% of the properties in the houses/blocks they own in are BTL. This has meant extreme competition for rents and probably the reason there has not been that much rent inflation. Even though you are talking about 20-30 mins links straight into London Bridge/Victoria extra.

If your right and we do see rent inflation over the next few years then maybe BTL could be popular again but most of the people I know with the one or 2 BTL's are really looking for CG's especially those who bought after 2004 etc. Many before the interest rate cuts were happy to just see the rent cover the mortgage etc. I've seen what happens when someone does not pay and it takes 6 months to get rid of them. Has put me off for life really!

chucknorris

Emy1501 wrote: »

I've seen what happens when someone does not pay and it takes 6 months to get rid of them. Has put me off for life really!

Yes it's no fun, I had to evict a tenant a couple of years ago, although she was completely in the wrong it's a stressful process. It certainly focused my mind when vetting tenants, I had not realised how lucky I had been until then to get decent tenants. I certainly make more of an effort now.

My tenant just stopped paying and avoided contact until I threatened her with eviction, I then made the mistake of trying to be helpful and flexible, it was a huge error and just dragged out things. Some of her excuses for missing the rent were classics:

"I'm buying my own flat and had to make an advance payement to my solicitor, so didn't have enough for the rent"

"I'm not paying the rent until you get the carpet in the toilet cleaned, it's digusting" (it was fine when she moved in about 4 years earlier)

ess0two

HammerSmashedFace wrote: »

If I was to divulge how and why I bought (which I'm not, as I'm sure you would understand) you would see easily that given my personal circumstances it was a complete no brainer.

The value of that house is completely irrelevant to me as I live in it, will never owe anything and am lucky to never have to go on the mortgage merry go round again and that is where the story ends. People like me are the government's nightmare as I don't have a single penny of debt and never will have.

I'm sure Gordon is having a restless sleep on that basis.

HammerSmashedFace

ess0two wrote: »

I'm sure Gordon is having a restless sleep on that basis.

Brown has restless sleep over no one, if the bloke had a conscience, the guilt of sending the country in the direction he has would have had hime hanging himself by now. From one of his first speeches from the dispatch box in '97 he said..

"I will never allow house prices to get out of hand and destabilize the economy",

The rest of course is history, he lied and he's been lying ever since.

the_ash_and_the_oak

HammerSmashedFace wrote: »

Brown has restless sleep over no one, if the bloke had a conscience, the guilt of sending the country in the direction he has would have had hime hanging himself by now. From one of his first speeches from the dispatch box in '97 he said..

"I will never allow house prices to get out of hand and destabilize the economy",

The rest of course is history, he lied and he's been lying ever since.

He could(and I guess has) argue(d) that they didn't get out of hand and that without the credit issues in the US nothing would have happened here

I think it would have done (though perhaps not in 2007) but its an viewpoint he could put forwards that could be debated

tbh imo the govt (and opposition) have more to answer over foreign military activity than the price of a house fwiw

HammerSmashedFace

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

He could(and I guess has) argue(d) that they didn't get out of hand and that without the credit issues in the US nothing would have happened here

I think it would have done (though perhaps not in 2007) but its an viewpoint he could put forwards that could be debated

tbh imo the govt (and opposition) have more to answer over foreign military activity than the price of a house fwiw

He could also argue black is white I suppose as well, one look at that Nationwide house price graph would suggest the proof is irrefutable. Many, many areas saw prices climb over 100% in between 2001 and 2004 (including mine), which is completely without logic and was only going to end one way, and still will IMHO.

As for your last quote about military action, I completely agree.

the_ash_and_the_oak

HammerSmashedFace wrote: »

He could also argue black is white I suppose as well, one look at that Nationwide house price graph would suggest the proof is irrefutable. Many, many areas saw prices climb over 100% in between 2001 and 2004 (including mine), which is completely without logic and was only going to end one way, and still will IMHO.

Well its certainly interesting - there are many that think without the US situation there would have been no crash (and they will say "prices are back to similar levels now so there can't have been much wrong with the UK"). If there had been no US problems when do you think the UK market would have turned down?