OH MY GOODNESS - the house price crash hits home!

IveSeenTheLight

julieq wrote: »

But you don't want to move until 2011, or that's what you said.

And it's doubtful you'd have trashed it anyway. You'd certainly be 3 years closer to having no costs at all.

Anyway there's no shame in taking a decision for reasons of mobility. But it's certainly not clear you're financially better off.

carolt has stated her hatred towards maths teachers before.
It's becoming clear that possibly it's because maths or an ability to understand figures is not her strong suit

Harry_Powell

PaulW1965 wrote: »

Disagree. If you live in the SE and are prepared to become a frequent flier you can have both - you can own your own home and make lots of money.

Depends on what industry you work in. If you work in the Oil & Gas industry, for example, then you have to be prepared to move a little further than just one side of London to the other. It's the same case with most global industries.

It also depends on whether you want your family to come with you or whether you're just going to be a weekend spouse/parent; some secondments can last between two to five years.

Spartacus_Mills

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Depends on what industry you work in. If you work in the Oil & Gas industry, for example, then you have to be prepared to move a little further than just one side of London to the other. It's the same case with most global industries.

It also depends on whether you want your family to come with you or whether you're just going to be a weekend spouse/parent; some secondments can last between two to five years.

Indeed. The world does not revolve around the South East. People like to live elsewhere as well. It is all down to personal circumstance and in some cases people are, as you have rightly shown, better off renting than buying.

being a "frequent flyer" would come at a cost as would travelling large distances.

Renting can work out better, especially if they can get their rental paid by their company as they move around the country

[Deleted User]

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Carolt posts one thread a month (full moon?) that seems intended to cause an argument, you create one thread a day that seems intended to cause an argument.No double standards here, I'm just reacting in a proportionate way.

Everyone knows that carolt is a fantasist, you don't need to crush her or humilate her all the time to point this out. Give her a break.

It is absolutely not true that everyone knows that carolt is a fantasist. Nor does everyone think it. A clear case of double standards from you - accusing someone else of trying to crush or humiliate someone when that is clearly what you are trying to achieve yourself. May I say that your approach is particularly nasty because you try to imply that everyone thinks badly of her - which is NOT the case.

I can quite understand carolt's point of view when starting this thread. It's always nice to know/think that things have worked out for the best for us. In her position I'd have been inclined to start this thread too. It is interesting that some are (politely and adulty) arguing that despite a large drop in house prices someone that would have bought is still better off than someone that rented. I would like to see the figures all worked out in details.

But carol has told us that for her renting has worked out best simply because of the need to be ready to move for a suitable school. Obviously it's going to be nice for her to know that she hasn't lost out big time because of this. Seeing the house she 'could' have bought drop in price is nice for her - regardless of whether rent has cost her more or less. She hasn't tried to deceive - she said from the outset that the house had been gutted.

PaulW1965

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Depends on what industry you work in. If you work in the Oil & Gas industry, for example, then you have to be prepared to move a little further than just one side of London to the other. It's the same case with most global industries.

It also depends on whether you want your family to come with you or whether you're just going to be a weekend spouse/parent; some secondments can last between two to five years.

All my friends and colleagues who work overseas for long periods own homes in the UK. They rent them out and come back to them. Can't think of a single one who doesn't.

IveSeenTheLight

Deleted_User wrote: »

She hasn't tried to deceive - she said from the outset that the house had been gutted.

Is it deception to think or indeed try to show that one property which has lost in value and can be seen why it lost it's value is reflective of the whole market?

PaulW1965

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Indeed. The world does not revolve around the South East. People like to live elsewhere as well. It is all down to personal circumstance and in some cases people are, as you have rightly shown, better off renting than buying.

being a "frequent flyer" would come at a cost as would travelling large distances.

Renting can work out better, especially if they can get their rental paid by their company as they move around the country

He hasn't shown that at all. As I said I don't know any Brits who works overseas and don't own a home in the UK. They just rent them out and come back to them.

In your example - when the company stops paying your rent - where you gonna live?

Presumably the money you were saving on your rent you have invested - but the simple fact is that in the UK bricks and mortar outperform shares. So your invested saved rent wouldn't have kept pace with bricks and mortar so you would be worse off ie you would be living in a smaller house.

PaulW1965

Deleted_User wrote: »

But carol has told us that for her renting has worked out best simply because of the need to be ready to move for a suitable school.

This is a money saving site. Hence its name;). Posters are not really gonna cheer a money losing strategy are they? No matter how you dress it up:cool:

Harry_Powell

Deleted_User wrote: »

It is absolutely not true that everyone knows that carolt is a fantasist. Nor does everyone think it. A clear case of double standards from you - accusing someone else of trying to crush or humiliate someone when that is clearly what you are trying to achieve yourself. May I say that your approach is particularly nasty because you try to imply that everyone thinks badly of her - which is NOT the case.

I can quite understand carolt's point of view when starting this thread. It's always nice to know/think that things have worked out for the best for us. In her position I'd have been inclined to start this thread too. It is interesting that some are (politely and adulty) arguing that despite a large drop in house prices someone that would have bought is still better off than someone that rented. I would like to see the figures all worked out in details.

But carol has told us that for her renting has worked out best simply because of the need to be ready to move for a suitable school. Obviously it's going to be nice for her to know that she hasn't lost out big time because of this. Seeing the house she 'could' have bought drop in price is nice for her - regardless of whether rent has cost her more or less. She hasn't tried to deceive - she said from the outset that the house had been gutted.

Sorry, I was being ironic and forgot that irony doesn't often translate well on the internet.

As to the rest of your post, I haven't argued against anything that carolt has said (other than to suggest that her analysis was as flawed as everyone else's), so I'm not sure why your rant is directed at me?

I feel that all of my posts on this thread could be classes as "politely and adulty".

boomerangs

carolt wrote: »

As some of you who've been on here a while may know, back in the long distant mists of time, I first discovered the House Buying and Renting Board as it was then (this forum didn't exist) back at the end of 2006, when I was having hassles with a house we were trying to buy. Got lots of good advice, esp from Doozergirl.

To cut a long story short, we ended up not buying the house; it went to another buyer that the EA claimed was the 'original' buyer who'd pulled out and then changed his mind. Bought at peak of local market, in early 2007.

Well, today spotted the same house for sale, marked 'for cash buyers only'. I showed it to my OH, who pointed out it was actually the same one - I hadn't even noticed, as it was unrecognisable - completely bare and stripped of carpets, etc etc etc.

Clearly either a redevelopment gone wrong or a repo.

Either way, it's now ASKING - not getting, mind - been on a good few weeks now - about 35K less than they paid and we would have paid. Given recent local selling prices, on properties in good nick, I doubt they'll get more than 70% of what they paid, for a wreck requiring a cash buyer.

Ouch.

Sorry - can't help feeling smug.

Have spent the last 2 years feeling we had a lucky escape from that one - now confirmed.

Ah well... :rolleyes:

So to those who point out it's local prices that really matter - can't get much more close to home than the house you nearly bought...

My crash has happened - and is still happening.

Great post Carol. Judging by your mammoth thanks count it must be the most important thing posted on here in a very long time. Hopefully people will heed what you say.