Is it me? Or has anyone noticed that we are in the largest bubble of all time?

Neil_in_Bristol

quantic wrote: »

Bad credit, no deposit, no aspirations...?

That would apply to a small number of them, yes. Renters aren't some kind of second-class citizens.

MrsAmanda_2

quantic wrote: »

Bad credit, no deposit, no aspirations...?

How rude!
I rented (a flatshare was all I could afford) for years, and although it made me gnash my teeth that I was lining a landlord's pockets rather than putting the money towards a mortgage, my meagre salary meant I couldn't save much towards a deposit.
I would still be renting now had I not been lucky enough to get a windfall which paid a deposit. I was still only able to afford an interest-only mortgage.

My husband (before I met him) bought a flat in Berks in 2004. We have tried to sell and have reduced the price by 80k (40k less than paid for it) and still no-one wants it. Our bubble has well and truly burst!!

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You can either spend 25 years paying a mortgage, (or less if you can take advantage of the current record low rates), and then have 35 years rent/mortgage free.

I find it bizzare that you state FTB's should buy flats and work upwards and then go and state that people can spend 25 years paying a mortgage and then simply be mortgage free.

Your scenario is fine, if someone buys one house, and lives in it for the rest of their lives, and the house encompasses every lifestyle choice they make, including growing a family.

Trouble is, your scenario is extremely rare, as you yourself know, considering you yourself state FTB's should buy "starter flats" and work up from there.

franklee

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It's not my claim, it's based on research by Zoopla.

And they used an interest rate of 5%, which is higher than the current average of 3.6%.



Ah yes, the indisputable accuracy of the "round my way" statistic.

It's possible you live in the 20% of the UK where that is not the case...

However it's worth pointing out that buying would still be cheaper than renting in your case.

Neat map of gross rental yields here:
http://www.findaproperty.com/content/images-nocache/houseprices/rental_map_lg.jpg

Only shows above 5% in London and Scotland but not elsewhere.

Buying isn't cheaper for me when interest income on my deposit and lack of maintenance costs are taken into account. But the clincher is I think prices are going down. Next door but one moved here shortly after I did and are up for sale again at 25K less than they paid, plus they paid stamp duty etc.

quantic

MrsAmanda wrote: »

How rude!
I rented (a flatshare was all I could afford) for years, and although it made me gnash my teeth that I was lining a landlord's pockets rather than putting the money towards a mortgage, my meagre salary meant I couldn't save much towards a deposit.
I would still be renting now had I not been lucky enough to get a windfall which paid a deposit. I was still only able to afford an interest-only mortgage.

My husband (before I met him) bought a flat in Berks in 2004. We have tried to sell and have reduced the price by 80k (40k less than paid for it) and still no-one wants it. Our bubble has well and truly burst!!

He asked for reasons why someone would not bother buying, not a definition of a renter... don't be so fast to bite. I have rented also, I was not having a go at anyone who rents. Just suggesting reasons why some might not buy when they could.

mizzbiz

This topic has been done to death for at least three years on the 'other' board.

All the arguments, for and against, that you can possibly hope to imagine are already on there. What's the point in doing it to death on here too? It's also the same posters contributing the same old arguments.

80schild

Not read all replies but Oh yess I have noticed! Our property is a typical FTB/starter home, 2 up 2 down in a slightly rough but by no means the worst part of town.

We bought for 84k in 2006-have spent about 10k on the house and it looks pretty presentable. Problem is there are 16 pages worth of similar houses in the 80-90k bracket on rightmove in our area. There are lots of new build flats/shared equity schemes in the area so this type of house just isn't selling the FTB'ers.

Therefore the only people attracted are rental investors and of course they will not pay the asking price. We were meant to be selling for 60k but this fell through and are now selling for 51k. We are lucky in that family have given us money to cover the negative equity on the house and deposit on the new house. On the plus side the house we are buying is a bargain.5 years ago, we would not have had a chance to buy a decent 3 bed semi in this area but now with the fall in prices it is possible!

Looking back I wish in 2006 I had thought things through and realised house prices would not keep on rising and that renting would have been the better option.

olias

I realise that the topic may well have been done to death, but as the instigator who seems to have pretty much started this thread by responding to the OP, I feel bound to fire a parting shot.

Whilst I feel for those who are in negative equity and those who have sold at a loss etc etc, and understand their anger, disappointment and bitterness, it is important to remember that the majority of these seem to have occurred over only the last 5-7 years or even less. The majority who have made reasonable gains in property like myself, have done so over a long period. In my case nearly 25 years. It's old news, but it needs reminding that property is primarily a home, but also a long term investment.

Olias

horace_2

RabbitMad wrote: »

Of course I have, the cosmos is just one large bubble that's going to burst (or deflate or expand so large that the bits inside are stretched to nothing ness) - however I (and the rest of the human race) won't be around then so don't care.

Or perhaps you are in the eden centre and have mistook the dome for a bubble.

Ah!!

Just the person I have been hoping to meet so that they can explain why E=mc2 (sorry cannot make a little 2 at the top of `c`) but I do hope that you note I have used a capital `E` in the formula. Does that give you a clue?

I do indeed look forward your reply.

h

danothy

horace wrote: »

Ah!!

Just the person I have been hoping to meet so that they can explain why E=mc2 (sorry cannot make a little 2 at the top of `c`) but I do hope that you note I have used a capital `E` in the formula. Does that give you a clue?

I do indeed look forward your reply.

h

E = mc²

Thar you be