House ownership - Selling yourself into a lifetime of servitude

debtistheft

ukcarper wrote: »

Originally Posted by debtistheft
You dont have to be savvy at all to beat 6%. A crappy, bog standard tracker (http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=MU...F_SCOT_1YJQE04) returned 19.28% over the last 12 months in the same time houses have dropped, what, 5%?



how good would a standard FTSE tracker be long term

FTSE-100 1985 1413 now 5858 4.15x
House price 1985 £34.5 now £165.5 4.78x

as you say you can't take any 12 months in isolation.

You are doing the same as thrugelmir, taking my comments out of context. Its an easy way to score points I guess. However, I was answering a direct question abou the stockmarket over the last few years, not providing forecasts for the future.

The person I was replying to said "You would have to be savvy to get more than 6% over the last few years". They didn't say "You would have to be savvy to get more than 29% next year".

We weren't talking about the future, we were talking about the past couple or so years. I quoted from last year, but the last two or three years the tracker would have given an even higher return.

ukcarper

debtistheft wrote: »

You are doing the same as thrugelmir, taking my comments out of context. Its an easy way to score points I guess. However, I was answering a direct question abou the stockmarket over the last couple of years, not providing forecasts for the future.

The person I was replying to said "You would have to be savvy to get more than 6% over the last few years". They didn't say "You would have to be savvy to get more than 29% next year".

We weren't talking about the future, we were talking about the past 2 years. I quoted from last year, but the last two years the tracker would have given an even higher return.

Yes but is easy in hindsight and I think the original poster wanted some security which shares will not give you.

debtistheft

ukcarper wrote: »

Yes but is easy in hindsight and I think the original poster wanted some security which shares will not give you.

What is easy in hindsight? To answer a question about past performance of anything? Yes, indeed it it. I also can tell you which horse won the Grand National over the last 10 years. Your point?

Shares are not the only investment. Indeed putting all your eggs into a single basket (like property) is far more risky than having balanced portfolio of shares, funds, bonds etc.

ukcarper

debtistheft wrote: »

What is easy in hindsight? To answer a question about past performance of anything? Yes, indeed it it. I also can tell you which horse won the Grand National over the last 10 years. Your point?

Shares are not the only investment. Indeed putting all your eggs into a single basket (like property) is far more risky than having balanced portfolio of shares, funds, bonds etc.

I agree but could you be 100% sure 12 months ago that a FTSE tracker would not have gone down.

The problem with a balanced portfolio compared to a house is you can't live in a balanced portfolio.

PasturesNew

My dad bought his first house when he was 40. He sold that when he retired and bought another. So that's 2 houses.
My older sibling bought a starter home soon after being married, then bought a bigger house within a few years and is still there. So that's 2 houses.
My younger sibling bought a SO at age 26, then bought a full house; then moved across the country and bought another house due to a job change; then discovered the village was empty (everybody elses were just holiday homes) so moved again; then got bored there and moved. So that's 5 houses and already looking to move again.
I bought a SO at age 30, then sold it back to them (NE paid off) and moved across country. Bought a house aged 40, sold it. Now kind of looking for a "forever" house, after which it'll be an OAP bungalow. So I'll be up to 4 when I'm put into a home.

Thrugelmir

debtistheft wrote: »

Shares are not the only investment. Indeed putting all your eggs into a single basket (like property) is far more risky than having balanced portfolio of shares, funds, bonds etc.

Property is most often bought with debt. Repaying debt for the majority with limited income is a safe return. Once there is a degree of safety then the risk of a loss can be absorbed.

diable

debtistheft wrote: »

Shares are not the only investment. Indeed putting all your eggs into a single basket (like property) is far more risky than having balanced portfolio of shares, funds, bonds etc.

Thats why I invest in property, drugs, fencing stolen goods, internet fraud and IT contracting.

SandC

But again debtistheft, I didn't put all my eggs in one basket as in my home is an investment. I am buying my house because it was cheaper than renting even back in 1995 when I bought it and it's obviously even more so now.

We all need somewhere to live - this, for me, was the most sensible way to do it.

But no, I couldn't buy it under the same circumstances now, no.

In actual fact back then there wasn't so much of a rush to buy - there were loads of houses and if you earned £10k a year you could buy one. Many just didn't bother because it was a commitment.

At this moment in time there are a lot of considerations to be made before deciding whether to rent or buy but where I am in the north west a couple on min wage each could buy a 2 bed terrace, whereas that's not possible in a lot of areas of the country - not least because 2 bed bog standard terraces are in abundance in the north due to the historical way in which people lived - manufacturing = thousands of 2 up, 2 down properties built in relatively small cities and towns. When I bought, for example, a 2 bed terrace would cost less to buy than a 1 bed flat - purely based on availability and that a 1 bed flat would be new or nearly new and a bit of a novelty as it happens and therefore 'desirable' and attracted a premium. But they are not very popular now, people want a house even if it's a teeny box.

debtistheft

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Property is most often bought with debt. Repaying debt for the majority with limited income is a safe return. Once there is a degree of safety then the risk of a loss can be absorbed.

Until they lose their jobs, get divorced or become ill.

debtistheft

SandC wrote: »

But again debtistheft, I didn't put all my eggs in one basket as in my home is an investment. I am buying my house because it was cheaper than renting even back in 1995 when I bought it and it's obviously even more so now.

Thats very nice for you and so because you bought pre-boom, infact at the bottom of a crash, your case is valid for everyone. End of story. I have repeatedly asked you guys to look at house prices TODAY and see if your sums work out. None of you have bothered. Unless you think FTBers can go back in time, get cheaper houses, get MIRAS, get free university education then you really have no idea what its like to try and buy a house now.

Young people today are already saddled with debt before they even try to get onto the housing ladder, something your generation didn't have to deal with. House prices are three times what you paid, yet salaries are barely kept pace with inflation. Its a joke that you guys come onto a house price forum and extoll the virtues of home buying. You have no idea what it is like for people just starting out in life.

In fact I would go further and say that the reason you come on here is to lord it over people who haven't had the advantages you had back in your day.