Tragic case... "This website has failed"

geneer

doire wrote: »

Its a fantastic site. I got married last year and was nearly sucked in by my in laws and wife-to-be telling me to buy before we got married.

Having read HPC daily i put across my views on why we shouldn't buy. We have kept adding monthly to our deposit and watched house prices fall. OK we have spent nearly £6,000 in rent since then but i have been watching two houses since around August or September

One has come down £38,000 since then and the other £60,000.

Im going to view the first one on saturday

Thats fine doire.
But don't you know that the debate about the house price crash started and stopped in 2004.

Thats a fact, and not just a pathetically obvious and faintly comedic fall back position adopted in the wake of the crash by those who utterly failed to see it coming.

Its called the timing trump card.



The fact that this image is 3 years old should tell you how old hat
this particular bulltroll meme is.

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And my point, about the nitpicking (not you renno), categorically proven.

Not really nit picking, just pointing out hypocrisy where I see it

geneer

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Not really nit picking, just pointing out hypocrisy where I see it

No mate. Its very clear you only point out hypocrisy where its convenient.

Theres a name for people like that.
What is it again?

System

geneer wrote: »

No mate. Its very clear you only point out hypocrisy where its convenient.

Theres a name for people like that.
What is it again?

Hey, I was only trying to protect you from one of these.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You do know different, because the poster tells you. Unless you wish to ignore that part, and simply suggest the poster is lying.

Sibley

It's so funny this week.
The bears are throwing the toys out of the pram.

The HPC dream is over and they know it.

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You know what...I really can't be bothered.

You seem to be taking offence at literally anything lately. I'm not going to keep apologising to you when you take offence it seems to literally me answering a question and I get back "well I didn't ask you".

Can't be bothered tediously arguing with you to be honest. Most stuff is plain obvious on this forum. It doesn't need to be anything else, and arguing out the tiniest of details, even down to who answered what question, and whether it completely answered it, or there was something else in the post, is just mindnumbingly pathetic.

To answer your question fully, we'd have to start dissecting parts of individual posts, to show where this could all come from, and that's not something I wish to statrt doing just to answer your question.

I'd rather not argue with you at all, but it seems increasingly impossible with the nit picking.



And my point, about the nitpicking (not you renno), categorically proven.

I didnt think you would be able to highlight. Graham, you know that I'm not one of the many people who seem to jump on every point you make and spend hours arguing the toss with you. However if you decide to jump on one of my posts, then please do me the courtesy of responding to what I have put rather than quoting my text and then berating someone else for creating a nasty thread. I actually happen to agree with you and what you posted - that this thread was created for the purpose of mocking some poor person who took a gamble and feels he has lost out. However, by quoting my post and then ranting about the injustice just makes it look like I'm somehow involved or in agreement with the tone of the thread. That's why I am touchy about your post. You did a similar thing the last time I pulled you up about it.

LittleMissAspie

Why doesn't the guy buy now? Presumably he's been saving since 2004 and has a hefty deposit. Prices are much lower than in 2007 and while I believe personally that they will fall further, there is a balance to be made between moneysaving and convenience. I just bought an expensive salad from the canteen instead of being bothered to walk into town for something cheaper.

AD9898_2

Sibley wrote: »

It's so funny this week.
The bulls are throwing the toys out of the pram.

The HPI dream is over and they know it.

Aye Sibley, never thought I'd say it, but I agree with ya

StevieJ

geneer wrote: »

Or like many of the bulltrolls on this forum you might claim to have an interest rate of 1.5%, but probably don't. :cool:

1.45% actually, Alliance and Leicester, 2 years at BR + 0.35% then the life of the mortgage at BR + 0.95%, anything else? what is a Bulltroll BTW?

RenovationMan

AD9898 wrote: »

Thought it'd be easy, over indebtedness means the same for anyone I guess. If you are struggling to pay what you owe and a small change in your circumstances or policy change by the government/BoE means you would be unable to pay or your lifestyle takes a severe dip so you can pay those debts then I'd say you've taken on too much debt.

Not rocket science. The mortgage multiples of old seemed to do a pretty good job of keeping this in check. 3.5x one or 2.5x joint would have covered anyone wanting to take on a mortgage from almost all eventualities, it also had the benefit of not letting property prices get too far out of hand.

Look at the double digit IR's of the 90's, even at their highest only 70k homeowners got repossessed. If that kind of thing happened today I reckon half of all mortgage holders (5 million) would be in some kind of trouble.

So to summarise, over indebted means someone who has so much debt that a small change in circumstances would leave them in trouble, hope that's cleared it up for you.

Not really, you seem to have included a few different definitions in the same post, but I'll have a go...

Are there really any people who will be so severaly impacted by a small percentage change in the BoE rate? You said on another thread that the finances of ""hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions" would be destroyed if there is a rise of 1% to 1.5%. My assertion is that this group of indebted people exist in your mind only.

Do you really believe that someone who has a 3x salary mortgage is always going to be better off than someone with a 4x salary mortgage? regardless of any other financial information such as job, savings, insurances, other debts, lifestyle? I'm not sure of the point of this section of your post, are you saying that people who have a mortgage over 3.5x salary are indebted and those under 3.5xsalary are not?

Double digit inflation in the 80's was as much an aberation as 0.5 rates are now. The reason they had to raise interest rates to such high levels was so that they were sufficient to hurt people enough to make them change their spending habits. Now that mortgages are larger, interest rates dont have to be raised as high in order to have the same impact. With your logic, you could say that if BoE rates were 50%, then 90% of mortgage holders would be in trouble, but, like many of your examples, this will just never happen.

Yes, it has helped. By your own definition, there can only be a few thousand people who's finances are in such a precarious position that even a small change in their circumstances will leave them in trouble. I therefore dont understand why you go on about it so much, when so few fall into your 'indebtedness category'.