It can make a lot of sense to buy now.

Really2

Housebear51 wrote: »

Its when people like you start buying PMs thats when us early adopters start selling.

Enjoy keeping it to your grave then.
The chance of me buying an asset that I can not live in or pays a dividend are 0%.

silvercar

Now it makes no difference if you bought somewhere in 1963 for £4,000 or £4,200 or whether you waited til 1964 and paid £4,300. What does matter is if you put off buying, to wait for the cheapest moment and then failed to buy for £4,500 in 1965 and had to rent until the next house price crash in 1970 or whenever. The point is that at some point you need to stop prevaricating and just do it - in 20 years time, after a bit of inflation the only difference will be between those that did and those that didn't.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

silvercar wrote: »

Now it makes no difference if you bought somewhere in 1963 for £4,000 or £4,200 or whether you waited til 1964 and paid £4,300. What does matter is if you put off buying, to wait for the cheapest moment and then failed to buy for £4,500 in 1965 and had to rent until the next house price crash in 1970 or whenever. The point is that at some point you need to stop prevaricating and just do it - in 20 years time, after a bit of inflation the only difference will be between those that did and those that didn't.

This post should be required reading for all crashaholics.

chucky

silvercar wrote: »

Now it makes no difference if you bought somewhere in 1963 for £4,000 or £4,200 or whether you waited til 1964 and paid £4,300. What does matter is if you put off buying, to wait for the cheapest moment and then failed to buy for £4,500 in 1965 and had to rent until the next house price crash in 1970 or whenever. The point is that at some point you need to stop prevaricating and just do it - in 20 years time, after a bit of inflation the only difference will be between those that did and those that didn't.

what a great post :T

A._Badger

silvercar wrote: »

Now it makes no difference if you bought somewhere in 1963 for £4,000 or £4,200 or whether you waited til 1964 and paid £4,300. What does matter is if you put off buying, to wait for the cheapest moment and then failed to buy for £4,500 in 1965 and had to rent until the next house price crash in 1970 or whenever. The point is that at some point you need to stop prevaricating and just do it - in 20 years time, after a bit of inflation the only difference will be between those that did and those that didn't.

This was almost exactly the advice given to me back in the early 1970s. The immortal line 'If you stop to consider it too hard, you can never afford it' stuck with me down the years.

Let's just say I've never regretted heeding that advice and have often thought kindly of the old chap who proffered it. He did me a great favour.

MissMoneypenny

Conrad wrote: »

And what was is it like in 1973 and 1978? Opec crisis, 3 day weeks, strikes, rubbish on streets (1979), Japan and Taiwan stealing our manufacturing en mass, unionised Britain, basket case Britain, the sick man of Europe, high unemployment and power cuts.

You would have taken a chance and bought in 1973 or 78 with that backdrop?

It really wasn't as black as you paint it in those years. The 70s were one of the happiest times of my life. The money I made on my expenses was almost the same as my salary and I was on a good wage anyway. And no, I didn't want to buy a house in the '73 or '78. I enjoyed my life too much to be bogged down with a large mortgage.

I waited until I was 26 before I bought, as that was the age when the bank I worked for, gave cheap rate mortgages. It was 2 1/2% for women and 5% for men. Then when the sex discimination act came in, the mortgage rate for women doubled.

Most people now think that 5% is a high interest rate. I think they have a shock coming if they have over extended themselves because they bought when house prices were at a peak.

the_flying_pig

silvercar wrote: »

Now it makes no difference if you bought somewhere in 1963 for £4,000 or £4,200 or whether you waited til 1964 and paid £4,300. What does matter is if you put off buying, to wait for the cheapest moment and then failed to buy for £4,500 in 1965 and had to rent until the next house price crash in 1970 or whenever. The point is that at some point you need to stop prevaricating and just do it - in 20 years time, after a bit of inflation the only difference will be between those that did and those that didn't.

the economic outlook is such that talk of a rapid 10%, 20%, or even greater price fall have become entirely mainstream.

anyone who thinks [assuming an average house price of £170k] that taking steps to try and avoid very quickly losing £17k, £34k, or even more to capital depreciation somehow doesn't matter or isn't worth discussing [on a website that's mostly about saving a few tens of pounds by switching utility companies and so on] is dafter than i'd thought was humanly possible.

silvercar

the_flying_pig wrote: »

anyone who thinks [assuming an average house price of £170k] that taking steps to try and avoid very quickly losing £17k, £34k, or even more to capital depreciation somehow doesn't matter or isn't worth discussing [on a website that's mostly about saving a few tens of pounds by switching utility companies and so on] is dafter than i'd thought was humanly possible.

Your missing my point.

The risk of waiting is that house prices don't drop and you can't actually afford to buy; you are then priced out of the market and will need to remain renting until the next crash.

The risk of jumping in soon is that prices fall afterwards and you would have bought cheaper had you waited. But, give a few years of general inflation and that saving made by the price drop will become insignificant in the scheme of things.

Looking back after say 10 years of inflation at 5% and the 200k house is 325k just from general inflation. So whether you bought it last year, this year or next, you will have paid 180-220k. The difference will be whether you bought or didn't, not what exactly you paid.

phil_b_2

the_flying_pig wrote: »

the economic outlook is such that talk of a rapid 10%, 20%, or even greater price fall have become entirely mainstream.

Seriously... in whos world? I have to know. Define mainstream.

the_flying_pig

silvercar wrote: »

Your missing my point.

The risk of waiting is that house prices don't drop and you can't actually afford to buy; you are then priced out of the market and will need to remain renting until the next crash.

The risk of jumping in soon is that prices fall afterwards and you would have bought cheaper had you waited. But, give a few years of general inflation and that saving made by the price drop will become insignificant in the scheme of things.

Looking back after say 10 years of inflation at 5% and the 200k house is 325k just from general inflation. So whether you bought it last year, this year or next, you will have paid 180-220k. The difference will be whether you bought or didn't, not what exactly you paid.

thanks but i do understand exactly what inflation is [and also, for what it's worth, its causes & effects, the different types of it, and its relationship with interest rates].

judging by your post i am not sure that you understand what £40k is given that you dismiss it as a meaningless speck when set alongside the vast gains to be made from pwoperdee.