Save 16k in a year by doing nothing*

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So chucky.

Buy a house today. Let's say your house costs £176,000. Your moving costs are £10,000.

Or you wait, the house stays on the market, but falls to £160,000. You decide to buy. Your moving costs are £10,000.

What spin and fluff you going to come up with to evade the fact that you have to pay moving costs if you buy today, or if you wait a year? Makes no difference. The saving on the house is 16k. Moving costs are the same whenever you buy (basically anyway, before you get pedantic about moving costs are dependant on circumstances).

It's not as if all these costs don't exist if you buy now rather than waiting is it. It's not as if stamp duty doesn't exist if you decide to buy today rather than waiting is it.

Alternatively, you could throw some lame lines my way

a mortgage rate isn't a lame line - mortgage rates vary. your mortgage is going to be more expensive when house prices fall by large amounts. it happens each and every time.

your whole lala dream world assumption is that house prices fall, mortgage rates go down, the housing market is a liquid, you can get finance and you can go and buy the same house again.

when you do sell your house how much rent are you paying or are you going to dream that away and not include it.

go and try and convince someone else but please don't lose the plot like you did last time. please it was embarrassing.

Graham_Devon

lisyloo wrote: »

The estate agents fees are part of selling.
So if you are comparing selling now and buying later compared with buying from scratch now, then you need to take account of the estate agents fees.

You can't get out and back into housing again for free.
There is no way that can happen.
[/SIZE]

I see what you are saying.

However, I never mentioned selling and STR'ing.

There are loads out there waiting to buy, or wanting to buy, or looking to buy without having to sell a house first

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

a mortgage rate isn't a lame line - mortgage rates vary. your mortgage is going to be more expensive when house prices fall by large amounts. it happens each and every time.

Apart from the time that just passed, right?

Did mortgages get more expensive as prices fell? No. The FTB is still paying 5-7%, just as they were in 2006.

It's not my lala assumption. Infact, I never even mentioned mortgage rates. But as you have, I feel it's only fair to join in.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Apart from the time that just passed, right?

Did mortgages get more expensive as prices fell? No. The FTB is still paying 5-7%, just as they were in 2006.

It's not my lala assumption. Infact, I never even mentioned mortgage rates. But as you have, I feel it's only fair to join in.

add on the increased fees to get mortgages, add on the higher deposits required - it all equals to more expensive mortgages unless your Graham Devon obviously...

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

add on the increased fees to get mortgages, add on the higher deposits required - it all equals to more expensive mortgages unless your Graham Devon obviously...

If you are Graham you realise that everyone is different.

Who said everyone out there looking to buy even requires a mortgage?

Who said everyone required a 90% mortgage, or a 75% mortgage. Maybe some will only need a 20% mortgage.

Don't cling on to mortgages too much, especially after your most recent faux pas "it happens every time". You have a point for those who would need the worst mortgage deal to buy the house. But that's about it.

I would bring the fact that while waiting a further year, people would have the chance to build up a further deposit, therefore reducing the total mortgage required on the lower priced house. But I feel that may be going a little to far at this point

Anything else you wish to throw in to the arena?

chucky

10 out of 10 for effort

2 out of 10 for reality

i should know better to even try and have a discussion with you - it's my fault for trying really.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

10 out of 10 for effort

2 out of 10 for reality

i should know better to even try and have a discussion with you - it's my fault for trying really.

And out come the good old insults.

You are having a discussion chucky. Theres no malice from my end. I'm simply replying to your points, which you obviously don't take too kindly too.

Guess thats the discussion over then.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And out come the good old insults.

You are having a discussion chucky. Theres no malice from my end. I'm simply replying to your points, which you obviously don't take too kindly too.

Guess thats the discussion over then.

insults? are you looking for attention or playing the victim card this time?

but anyway you're trying to convince yourself and then you come up with this corker

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Who said everyone required a 90% mortgage, or a 75% mortgage. Maybe some will only need a 20% mortgage.

as i said, it's dreamland stuff. you're moving the discussion points each and every time, that's why i said it's lala land stuff.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

insults? are you looking for attention or playing the victim card this time?

but anyway you're trying to convince yourself and then you come up with this corker

as i said, it's dreamland stuff. you're moving the discussion points each and every time, that's why i said it's lala land stuff.

If it's ok for you to assume everyone needs a mortgage, howcome it's not ok for me to assume that some people will require less of a mortgage than others?

I'm not moving any goalposts. I'm simply responding to all the points being raised. We've had stamp duty which doesnt apply anyway to my OP. We've had selling costs which doesn't really apply. We've had mortgages being more expensive when prices fall, which doesn't apply.

Now, we have you telling me everyone will need a mortgage with a high LTV and I'm dreaming if I think differently.

How can I move the goalposts when I'm just responding to your own points which keep changing. All I'm doing is challening said points.

silvercar

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Apart from the time that just passed, right?

Did mortgages get more expensive as prices fell? No. The FTB is still paying 5-7%, just as they were in 2006.

It's not my lala assumption. Infact, I never even mentioned mortgage rates. But as you have, I feel it's only fair to join in.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If it's ok for you to assume everyone needs a mortgage, howcome it's not ok for me to assume that some people will require less of a mortgage than others?

A FTB with 20% deposit in 2006 could have got a lifetime BOE base rate tracker at about base + 0.5-1%. No way could they get anything like that now.