Where in belfast area for first time buyer?

christh

Don't worry, talksalot81. You and PropertyGuru are the only ones talking any sense on this thread as far as I can see. You've done the maths - renting and saving is the only sane option in this insane house-of-cards pyramid scheme housing environment we're in. The money you save will come in handy in a couple of years time - you may even be able to buy that '180K' semi for cash.

ginger_nuts

christh wrote:

Don't worry, talksalot81. You and PropertyGuru are the only ones talking any sense on this thread as far as I can see. You've done the maths - renting and saving is the only sane option in this insane house-of-cards pyramid scheme housing environment we're in. The money you save will come in handy in a couple of years time - you may even be able to buy that '180K' semi for cash.

LOL:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

ginger_nuts

my parents bought there first house in 1959 for £600 .and there present house for £8000 .My aunt bought a house in Botanic area in 1969 for £1900 .....WOW where they fools .Think off all the money they could have saved by renting .

leftieM

A_Fool_&_His_Borrowed_Mon wrote:

You're cuckoo, rates are on the way down. My EA told me so, and as you know, Estate agents never lie.

I'd change EA if I were you if he's discussing ECB rates. And buy him a map so he knows where he lives.

talksalot81

ginger_nuts wrote:

my parents bought there first house in 1959 for £600 .and there present house for £8000 .My aunt bought a house in Botanic area in 1969 for £1900 .....WOW where they fools .Think off all the money they could have saved by renting .

I dont recall where it was mentioned that renting was good in the long term - that isnt what my data tells me.

My first problem with your comments is that they are absolutely useless from the perspective of this discussion! We are not talking about 40 years in the future. It is 3 to 5 years. There is often little or no correlation between long and short term trends.

Related - the people you mention would have profited significantly had the properties cost 10 times the purchase price. However, if they needed to move 3 years later to accomodate a child (for instance) they would have lost an astounding amount of money. So there you have it - long term giving profit, short term giving loss. Effectively this is the 'peak' of a bubble. The other hand is buying at the 'base' where short and long term trends match. However a bubble traditionally has two sides. If you work out your correlation co-efficient you are going to find a value approximately zero. i.e. just because the price will almost certainly be higher in 40 years gives absolutely ZERO indication about its value in 40 months.

jetboy

talksalot81 wrote:

Hi guys,

We have been doing a bit of searching on our own, but the combined resources of MSE are something we cannot hope to match!

My Fiancee and I are looking to buy our first house. We both work in the city and currently live in east belfast/N. Down. We have up to £180k to spend. We are not willing to go into an apartment and would rather avoid a terrace if possible. Thus it seems most of the property will be semis of one sort or another. We would like to avoid a major travel for the obvious reason and also because the closer to belfast, the better our investment. Our other important feature is a reasonable area. We have both been brought up in good areas and do not want to find ourselves dealing with estate type area.

So far our best ideas are Dundonald (avoiding Ballybean). Can anyone suggest other areas which might be worth considering?

Thanks!

How exactly did we get from your starter post above to the situation we have now where you think renting is a great idea and we're all fools to buy property now considering that the vast majority of posts in between have placed a valid argument in favour of buying. As I said before, even the pessimists (eg moneyweek) think a slump is a way off yet. By your own admission you do 'high end analysis'. so why were you looking to buy in the first place if you are so confident in your own analysis?

talksalot81

I dont deal with the housing market professionally and had previously not looked into the purchase of a house. At the start of this discussion I had read relatively little and had not advanced to making offers (which is where the problem lies).

In the intervening time I have spent alot of time researching the various markets and factors which influence them. I have spent time looking into the relative affordability of renting and buying and done some homework into where the realistic ceiling lies. As a result of this, I have come to the firm conclusion that we are much nearer the peak of a bubble as opposed to the trough and that there is very little chance I will be able to buy and subsequently sell (a necessity for having a child in a couple of years) while still on the 'up'.

I think your reference to a slump being a long way off is far too incomplete. There are plenty of sources who can see changes occurring within the relatively short term (a year) and there are very very few who are publishing articles to support the strong growth continuing indefinitely.

fredy34

talksalot81 wrote:

I dont deal with the housing market professionally

No kidding!!!

talksalot81 wrote:

I dont get this...

I pay £700 a month for interest only. Immediately I have spent £16800 at the end of my two years.

I pay £400 rent and I have spent £9600.

Im stilll facinated by the two quotes you have made. As a house owner myself and best mates with a guy who now owns 11 houses (renting) He is charging £450 for houses that in this thread you say you wouldnt buy and over £550 for houses that you say you would like.
ps Interest only on £150k is aprox £600.

leftieM

Maybe Talksalot has a friend or relative who will subsidise his rent or maybe him and his partner qualify for some level of housing benefit. We don't know his personal circumstances. With his experience of high end analysis I'm sure he wouldn't post inaccurate data.

Thriftylady

talksalot81 wrote:

Related - the people you mention would have profited significantly had the properties cost 10 times the purchase price. However, if they needed to move 3 years later to accomodate a child (for instance) they would have lost an astounding amount of money. So there you have it - long term giving profit, short term giving loss. Effectively this is the 'peak' of a bubble. The other hand is buying at the 'base' where short and long term trends match. However a bubble traditionally has two sides. If you work out your correlation co-efficient you are going to find a value approximately zero. i.e. just because the price will almost certainly be higher in 40 years gives absolutely ZERO indication about its value in 40 months.

Reading back through the recent posts, I am assuming that this comment is aimed at me? I didn't say that because houses will be worth more in 40 years time that this makes it a good time to buy, what I said was that people have historically always thought that houses can't get any more expensive than they are now. Had I listened to these people 7 years ago when I bought my first house there is no way I would have made it onto the housing ladder. And in actual fact I did have to move after 3 years, and I made enough profit on my first house to allow a good deposit on my second.

What I really don't understand about this discussion is why you really seem to be determined to have a go at everyone who is trying to have a sensible discussion with you, often people who have been there and done it. If you want to buy, then buy. If you don't then don't. But taking your understandable frustration about the prohibitive cost of housing out on posters who are only trying to offer their thoughts isn't going to change the fact that you think houses are too expensive.