Rent money is dead money

tomstickland

Funeral money is dead money.

Jim_B_3

Oh God, there must be a way to kill this thread? Please, everyone, he'll just keep talking if we answer. Just say nothing. Please.

LilacPixie

Are you having some sort of aneurysm??

tod123

tomstickland wrote: »

Funeral money is dead money.

everything is dead in Stroud, you are a lost cause

tod123

People often come to me for advice on a number of financial matters, I always advise that "rent money is dead money".

I never tire of saying that , and its as true today as it always has been

Get out of the rut guys

tod123

Jim_B wrote: »

Oh God, there must be a way to kill this thread? Please, everyone, he'll just keep talking if we answer. Just say nothing. Please.

Glum Jim, you have to take a chance in life, or you will never amount to anything my friend.

Take your opportunities , grasp them with both hands.

Procrastinator333

I don't think there has ever been a question over the fact that in some places rent < interest cost and in others vice versa. The % is debateable. But really, who cares, we will never get and agree a single % of locations. People should do this comparison for themselves and their target property / area if they are debating renting vs buying.

For us renting has worked out great. We started renting a flat, then moved to a semi and when we buy after about 4-5 years of renting, it will be into a detached house. During that time house prices have so far gone down a bit and look like being lower than at the start when we do buy. Throughout the entire period we have paid less in rent than the interest element would ahve been on the same house / flat.

We have not spent money on moving costs during our 2 moves. A few hundred pounds on agency fees, but that is it. We have not spent money on each place we have lived in. There is plenty we could have changed, but it is all ok, so we are saving our spending for the first property that we will spend 10+ years in. We have not spent money on all the associated housing costs. A couple of months back the boiler broke down. That was £400 and the LL was advised it was time for a new boiler. Oh well.

During this time we have moved location with our work, so these moves would have been needed if we had bought or would have been long commutes - time & expense. We did miss out on the low tracker mortgages, but I don't think I would have taken a tracker at that time anyway - I don't think anyone had a clue that interest rates were about to fall of a cliff.

So overall we have saved bags of cash which means once we are in the house we buy we will have significantly more equity than if we had bought on day 1 and moved up in steps. In a stagnant or falling market, it makes even more sense to rent if there is a chance you need to move or trade up in the near future as the cost of moving is significant.

So happy days. Only those with no comprehension of basic maths would use such a sweeping statement.

tod123

procraster , this is what it is

Thrugelmir

Cleaver wrote: »

I doubt this is true, but even if it has been, I think it might just be tested over the next couple of decades.

Requires a compound growth rate of over 7% per annum.

House prices doubled 1999-2004.

Now average prices house prices are around/below 2005 levels.

Past ten years average HPI is just over 98%.

There is a correction unfolding whatever people may like to think.

Sensible advice is pocket the gain you've got and sit on the sidelines.

Procrastinator333

tod123 wrote: »

procraster , this is what it is

Please show the maths behind this statement. Oh wait, you can't. Jog on troll.