Rightmove December, down as expected.

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well, I lose 120K in asset value, which is slightly different.... The assets themselves remain in my posession, and it would take a 75% drop for me to be in NE overall, so no worries there either.

But overall, yes, it really is that simple.

Like any other holder of assets, I don't want to see them devalued, and luckily, due to where I live, they haven't been very much at all.

It doesn't make much difference in the long run, as I still have a decade or two of HPI to look forward to, but it is annoying.

We'll see.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I was so wanting you to finish off that post with "so I'm considerably richer than yow".

:rotfl:

I'm not rich. I'm not even rich by MSE standards, we have a lot of posters who earn more than me, and have more assets than me.

But if people are going to come on here, make fictitious posts about my motivations, and generally attack me, then I'll make the effort to explain in simple terms the reality of the situation, why they are wrong and why you can have 100K of cash in the bank, a 1.5 times income mortgage, and still be better off with low rates than high ones.

It's not rocket science. But I suppose if they were remotely smart they'd have bought a house already and stopped engaging in the politics of envy.:rolleyes:

DaddyBear

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not at all. I have two houses, one of which is paid for, one of which has a mortgage thats now less than 150K due to low rates and overpayments (thanks Merv!!!). Total valuation of the two properties is around 600K, down a bit from peak but still not bad, for total equity of around 450K.

On top of that we have a decent private pension in low 6 figures, but with 25 years more still to add to it, and around 100K of savings and investments, and no other debt at all.

Simple math will tell you that even for people like us with good savings, modest LTI mortgages of 1.5 times joint income, and no other debt, 1% base rates are better than 5% base rates. And higher house prices will gain us far more than interest on savings.

I freely admit to a vested interest in HPI..... And the numbers are so clear, you really don't need to look any further for motivations that don't exist.

All sounds very nice. One thing I really don't get is that you are clearly in property for the long-term investment. So why do you spend so much of your time studying the short-term changes in the market and trying to ramp it on a daily basis. Do you really have so little in your life?

Harry_Powell

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not at all. I have two houses, one of which is paid for, one of which has a mortgage thats now less than 150K due to low rates and overpayments (thanks Merv!!!). Total valuation of the two properties is around 600K, down a bit from peak but still not bad, for total equity of around 450K.

On top of that we have a decent private pension in low 6 figures, but with 25 years more still to add to it, and around 100K of savings and investments, and no other debt at all.

Simple math will tell you that even for people like us with good savings, modest LTI mortgages of 1.5 times joint income, and no other debt, 1% base rates are better than 5% base rates. And higher house prices will gain us far more than interest on savings.

I freely admit to a vested interest in HPI..... And the numbers are so clear, you really don't need to look any further for motivations that don't exist.

So let's recap...

You about 40 years old and have £600k in property, A pension of at least £100k, and another £100k in savings. In total, at the very least you have assets and investments totalling £800k. Nice round numbers those.

I believe you, but then I'm writing this from my villa overlooking the Mare Tranquillitatis.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And you didn't take this advice and took handouts from your parents....because?

It's a family tradition.;) They also got a deposit from their parents, etc.

Thankfully I don't have children. So I get to blow the lot and not worry about it.

I have no issue with parents helping their children. I have a big issue with parents expecting me, the taxpayer, to help them pay for the kids they can't afford to have, but have anyway.

Benefits are theft. Brats are not wealth. etc....:rolleyes:

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It's a family tradition.;) They also got a deposit from their parents, etc.

Thankfully I don't have children. So I get to blow the lot and not worry about it.

I have no issue with parents helping their children. I have a big issue with parents expecting me, the taxpayer, to help them pay for the kids they can't afford to have, but have anyway.

Benefits are theft. Brats are not wealth. etc....:rolleyes:

You basically are Mr Scrooge arent you. Do you have an articled clerk in your employ over christmas by any chance.

Might be a lesson in that story for you Hamish.

DaddyBear

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I have a big issue with parents expecting me, the taxpayer, to help them pay for the kids they can't afford to have, but have anyway.

Benefits are theft. Brats are not wealth. etc....:rolleyes:

And yet I'm sure you are happy for your tax to pay the mortgages of those who can no longer afford them.

System

Thought this was a thread about rightmove, perhaps we should make a "randomly insult Hamish" thread.

julieq

Erm, a market which has 55K transactions per month even on a reduced basis is not going to be ramped on a forum having about 30 regular members, of which 2/3rds are single issue obsessives anyway with fixed opinions.

And what's the difference between being interested in house prices and expecting them to go up, and being interested in house prices and expecting them to go down? Because that's really the only difference between Hamish and the bears.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Harry_Powell wrote: »

So let's recap...

You about 40 years old and have £600k in property, A pension of at least £100k, and another £100k in savings. In total, at the very least you have assets and investments totalling £800k. Nice round numbers those.
.

Well it's obviously not precise as I can't be bothered checking exact current balances for a post that you probably won't believe anyway. It's close enough to get the point across and not divulge exact details which change monthly anyway, as savings increase, investment returns fluctuate, the mortgage gets paid down, the house prices go up or down, etc.

The point, which you have conveniently missed, is that anyone with property, even a modest mortgage, and considerable savings, can still be better off with low rates than high ones.

Would you care to dispute that? Or do you now withdraw your allegation that anyone cheering on low rates must have big debts and no savings...;)