Prices Stable or Rising in 94% of the UK....

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Bit confused about you being able to make money on buying and selling houses but then go on about them being expensive for young people.

You had a chance to make a home affordable for someone but were still happy to take top wack.

I don't blame you but you can see it is a bit like saying we should all be vegetarians while eating a 16oz streak.

Is there a difference between selling at the current value, and actually wanting HPI though?

I certainly think there is.

No one is going to put themselves in a worse position because they believe house prices shouldn't be as high as they are. That would just be silly, as selling that house at a lower value will have absolutely no effect on the bigger picture and would just put you out of pocket.

Selling your home at market value, and actually promoting HPI, or trying to capitalise on HPI through investments are two seperate things in my book.

[Deleted User]

No one is going to put themselves in a worse position because they believe house prices shouldn't be as high as they are. That would just be silly, as selling that house at a lower value will have absolutely no effect on the bigger picture and would just put you out of pocket.

Agreed!!!

Selling your home at market value, and actually promoting HPI, or trying to capitalise on HPI through investments are two seperate things in my book.

If prices are going to go up anyway (as you correctly point out), then I see nothing wrong with people like charterhouse investing wisely with a goal to make money. Nor do I see anything wrong with people buying multiple properties in order to make money. In that situation investing in property is EXACTLY the same as investing in anything else. You do it to make money. It's risky, but the rewards can be high. I'm not a risk taker and I wouldn't invest in anything other than my own home. But the world would be in a sorry state if everyone thought like this. What would happen to the droves of people on these boards that say they'd rather rent than buy if there were no property tycoons to rent from ?

The bottom line is, house prices are high. They're getting higher. You can choose to take advantage of that or not - certainly it's one of the few investments you can make in life where it's hard to loose over a lifetime. As you say, your actions won't change anything for anyone else so really it's up to the individual to decide what they want to do.

Graham_Devon

Deleted_User wrote: »

Agreed!!!



If prices are going to go up anyway (as you correctly point out), then I see nothing wrong with people like charterhouse investing wisely with a goal to make money. Nor do I see anything wrong with people buying multiple properties in order to make money. In that situation investing in property is EXACTLY the same as investing in anything else.

I can't agree, sorry.

It's not like investing in anything else. The normal investments are not part of lifes essentials. The normal investments do not put others in a worse position, forcing them to pay more for something that is seen as a life essential.

Neither do we, as a nation, pay tax to support these investments, in terms of housing benefits.

If you can name me another investment which we all have a need for, so much so, that the government will pay for it, then please do.

You also cannot just "choose" to take advantage of house prices getting higher. No more than you can just "choose" to buy a house. I would love to put you in many 20-30 year olds shoes and then you be told you can simply make a choice as to whether you want to be involved or not.

Most of your posts are pretty personal, which is fine, but obviously, you are a well off individual / couple. I think its very easy for you to forget not everyone is in your shoes.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Is there a difference between selling at the current value, and actually wanting HPI though?

I certainly think there is.

No one is going to put themselves in a worse position because they believe house prices shouldn't be as high as they are. That would just be silly, as selling that house at a lower value will have absolutely no effect on the bigger picture and would just put you out of pocket.

Selling your home at market value, and actually promoting HPI, or trying to capitalise on HPI through investments are two seperate things in my book.

Like I said I did not blame the person for what they did.

But does this sound like a person not wanting gain on HPI.

Charterhouse wrote: »

Smart investors will always do okay. I bought a long time ago (2001),

the post came across to me that HPI is OK as long as you have cashed in. Or why talk about being a smart investor.
So when a person then mentions wanting it cheaper for the younger it just does not ring true.

Like it or not Graham if you wanted cheaper for the young people you have to not want top market value.
If they took a lower price it would help someone else and lower a benchmark on a road.

Something has to change and if you sell at market value you are not doing your bit for those you want to help IMHO.

If ou want cheaper housing for the young people need to do their bit and not just leave it to the market.

Graham_Devon

Well I have to say really, the full stop in the sentence you have quoted kind of stated to me that the investors part was not related to the buying part.

The smart investors part being in relation to what you have said.

I think you have read it somewhat differently.

We've been over the rest about selling your house on the cheap if you really believe houses are overpriced prices. It makes absolutely no sense, and didn't in that last thread either. Though seems to be something thrown at those who would like to see cheaper prices.

You cannot just sell your house on the cheap as you have a belief prices are too high...as the next place you buy you will have to pay the going rate for. It's so impractical and stupid I don't know why people bring it up to be honest.

I'd be very happy to sell my house on the "cheap" if that was market value and the other house was also "cheap" compared to the last decade. That's somewhat different to just shooting myself in the foot because I have a belief prices are too high.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well I have to say really, the full stop in the sentence you have quoted kind of stated to me that the investors part was not related to the buying part.

The smart investors part being in relation to what you have said.

I think you have read it somewhat differently.

Buying and selling for profit is investment in my eyes Graham. Saying you have made £210K buying and selling since 2001 is hardly anti HPI.

But perhaps the side from where the person is posting is helping you.

Be honest anyone bullish posting the same would be slaughtered so why look at it so differently?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Buying and selling for profit is investment in my eyes Graham. Saying you have made £210K buying and selling since 2001 is hardly anti HPI.

But perhaps the side from where the person is posting is helping you.

Be honest anyone bullish posting the same would be slaughtered so why look at it so differently?

Because it wasn't an investment. It was a home.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Because it wasn't an investment. It was a home.

Read the post he/she does not mind "investing" as long as it is one property.

You could hardly say three moves in 9 year upsizing and downsizing would be done for any other reason.

It clearly states he/she sold at peak and "made" £210K.

If say Hamish did the same and posted it would you be so happy to accept it? I think not.

Buying and selling to make money is investing no matter how you dress it graham.

Full quote

Charterhouse wrote: »

Smart investors will always do okay. I bought a long time ago (2001), upsized in 2006 with a modest profit, downsized in summer 2007 at the absolute peak, clearing 210k in profit, and I always buy on a price per square foot basis. Price rises aren't inevitable, there might well be money to be made in the housing market but not by buying indescriminately as you seem to promote.

How can you really read it any other way?

[Deleted User]

I wonder what would happen if house prices were slashed to 1% of their current value. Everyone could afford a nice house then - right? But I wonder how many houses there are that people are willing to live in? Is there enough to go around? And if not, then how do we decide who gets the better houses? First come first served - but that would penalise the young even more than the current situation. A lottery? Or perhaps we should get to live in the nice houses on a rota basis?

The only solution I see to the problem is to demolish all the undesirable houses and build enough desirable ones to go around. But until that happens I think people would be wise to position themselves to take advantage of house price increases if at all possible. If it makes you feel better then announce to the world that you think it's awful whilst secretly reveling in the security and potential wealth (or, if you're a smart investor like Charterhouse - the cash in hand) it gives you.

Graham_Devon

Deleted_User wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if house prices were slashed to 1% of their current value. Everyone could afford a nice house then - right?

Wrong. It would be anarchy and people would owe tens of thousands on something worth as much as a used car