the answer to the pension crisis...

Graham_Devon

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

yes but its not really about that - measuring sentiment isn't about measuring logic (tho they are not opposites either and may just as well coincide as not). this survey isn't about 'what will happen' its about 'what people think will happen'

This is the problem with sentiment. I don't know if this is peoples sentiment, or rather what they want / need to fund their retirement.

As on forums, you have BTL and those with investments with huge optimistic sentiments. Those who cannot afford with a sentiment towards lowering prices.

What I'm trying to say is, sentiment is fine for what it is, however, it's not true sentiment, it's more what people want. Ask those people the same question, but ask all those who don't need their home to fund their retirement, and the results would be extremely different.

the_ash_and_the_oak

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What I'm trying to say is, sentiment is fine for what it is, however, it's not true sentiment, it's more what people want. Ask those people the same question, but ask all those who don't need their home to fund their retirement, and the results would be extremely different.

A reasonable proportion of sentiment *is* 'what people want' imo.

I think if you asked people who didn't need their home to fund their retirement the answers would be a bit different - but not that much different.

The bulk of people who aren't in the position of "my home is my pension" perceive those that are as lucky imo - and therefore the sentiment isn't really that different - whether they are right or not doesn't matter.

question: do you think sentiment re:future-price-direction among non-buyers under 30 is low?

Graham_Devon

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

question: do you think sentiment re:future-price-direction among non-buyers under 30 is low?

I am under 30, and I would think those under 30 who are not buyers wouldn't really care either way, and would probably just answer "up" as that, in all honesty, is all we know.

ukcarper

Thrugelmir wrote: »

People over 50 are more likely to have benefited from being home owners for 15-20 years and have benefited enormously from the rise in house prices between 1999 and 2004. Taking the opportunity to trade up and extend their homes.

The question is who are they going to sell to? Where's the trade up market.

If anything they will be competing with FTB's for smaller and cheaper property when downsizing as well.

Would also be interesting to now how many of those polled live in the South East, and intend to take advantage of regional variances in prices.

As moving in itself doesn't generate a huge amount of capital to live on , over say a 25 year retirement period.

Wouldn’t somebody owning for 20 years suffered from the early nineties crash

nearlyrich

We bought this place in 1992 for about a fifth of it's current value, we don't need to sell it to fund our retirement but it's good to know if we run out of cash we have it to fall back on, we could buy a much smaller place locally for a lot less than this place is worth or likely to be worth even if houses fall in value massively.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ukcarper wrote: »

Wouldn’t somebody owning for 20 years suffered from the early nineties crash

And therefore have realised that crashes are of little consequence over a 25 year period.

Buying before the 90's crash at peak, and after it at trough, results in very little difference in the returns.

A house valued at 100K in 1990, would on average have been worth 87K in 1996. And depending on area somewhere around 300K by 2007.

Are you really going to be that bothered if your 100K investment only returns 200K instead of 213K in 17 years? I wouldn't be.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Are you really going to be that bothered if your 100K investment only returns 200K instead of 213K in 17 years? I wouldn't be.

A house thats cost you nothing over 20 years. No mortgage interest, no insurances, no taxes, nadda.

Only in the world of Hamish!

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A house thats cost you nothing over 20 years. No mortgage interest, no insurances, no taxes, nadda.

Only in the world of Hamish!

If marketed properly, a BTL investment should cost you nothing over the term of the mortgage.
You should be getting a tenant to pay for it.

So it's not only in the world of Hamish, but in many investors out there

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

If marketed properly, a BTL investment should cost you nothing over the term of the mortgage.

If only there was a investment that guaranteed a high return. :cool:

thriftybabe

PasturesNew wrote: »

My plan was always: buy a house, downsize to a retirement place when I'm about 70.... they tend to be cheaper, so there's a bit of a cash pot then. But most people still try to hang onto a house that's too big and hard to maintain rather than downsizing for some odd reason.

It has always been our plan to downsize when we retire. We want half to go to the kids and the other half to help fund our pension along with our savings.(although they are getting used at the moment) I could not be bothered spending my days cleaning my b****y house. No I nice we 2 bed bungalow is hopefully where we will spend our old age!!