80 per cent of homes bought since 2006 worth less than original price

Pimperne1

For those whose house has gone down in value, if they are not first time buyers, the house they sold has also gone down in value (and they no doubt made quite a decent profit on that transaction).

Batchy

maybe the house valuation has gone down, maybe they have lost capital value but, I would have thought that the mortgage would also have gone down by a fair amount too, especially based on the fact most / or some, depending on where your coming from, have been over paying mortgages for the last 2 years due to record low mortgage rates due to low BOE base rates.

So instead of having 25 year mortgage they have probably already knocked a few years off it in total to date.

So, 22 years of paying RENT then you dont have to pay anymore.

We all know since 2006 rents have gone up around 20% (on average) PS, there are always exceptions, please dont highlight them.

Really2

The Good old Zoopla measurement.

There is a total of 5 houses (including mine) where we live which are identical.

One was purchased in 2008 for £340,000
Two were purchased in 2008 fro £295,000
One was purchased in 2008 for £250,000 (mine)
One was purchased in early 2009 for £250,000.

It has them all down around 13%

But the one sold in 2008 as just sold for around £280K - £285K.

The zoopla index just takes in to account averages so works out all are worth less, the reality is not all are.

RenovationMan

Unless you are a first time buyer and sat watching your initial deposit getting whittled away, does it really matter?

I bought my original house in 1995 and I have seen something like a £100k gain in HPI. My current house would have to drop by 22% to wipe those gains out. Easy come, easy go.

Batchy

RenovationMan wrote: »

Unless you are a first time buyer and sat watching your initial deposit getting whittled away, does it really matter?

I bought my original house in 1995 and I have seen something like a £100k gain in HPI. My current house would have to drop by 22% to wipe those gains out. Easy come, easy go.

I think some FTBers who brought prior to 2008 would be seething, as a few would be on interest only and would now be in negative equity. I would give more concern to negative equity than to falling values. Obviously the two are related but thats the problem! Equity... it makes it difficult to sell, and more difficult to move, downsize or upsize... as deposits are non existent!

However, if you stay in the same house for the next 20 years, who cares at the end of the day, you will own it outright regardless of the value. Yes it could have been done cheaper, but its like most things, you buy a car one day only to see 2 weeks later an even better deal.

I said this 1 year ago, the most important thing is to buy a LONG TERM HOUSE... not a short termer!...

The_White_Horse

a friend of mine bought in 2007 and is now in negative equity. he doesn't want to move, but he can't obtain a new mortgage and is stuck on the current SVR which is 4.3%. whilst he can cope with this, the SVR will rise sooner or later and he is paying interest only. Not particularly good.

It's not just about moving.

quantic

Im not saying that this is in any way scientific, but in our estate there have been houses up for sale for about 18 months, none sold or even had offers, then in the last 3 months 6 of them have sold, 2 of which where only on the market for weeks. I know this is a pretty small sample, but in our immediate area the market does seem to be picking up some what. Is nice to see 2 houses that are smaller than ours, and terraced (ours is semi) sell for 8k more than we paid a year ago.

Seems the same kind of story for my parents area too, not saying this means anything for the wider housing market - but since our area saw absolutely dire sales over the past 2 years due to what has been happening, it certainly does give you hope. I'm not hoping for an increase in prices, but its nice to see some confidence in the market.

Percy1983

I do actually have a friend who is suffering due to this, he bought a 2 bed terrace in 2007 with a 100% mortgage and baby number 2 is on the way and he is trapped, by all means he is trying to save the difference so he can buy his 3 bed semi and he has took on more work to do so which no means he hardly sees baby number 1.

I did say at the time when he was buying why not save and buy bigger, he didn't want to know.

All of which has confirmed my plan of going straight to a 3 bed semi as a very good plan, no need to worry what happens afterwards.

geneer

Cleaver wrote: »

You do realise that the majority of people out there who have bought since 2006, like me, aren't really thinking along the same lines as you?

"The majority" you say. Are you a formal spokesperson. Have you taken a vote?

How am I thinking by the way?

Cleaver wrote: »

The thought that I'm 'smoking money through the crash' is a really odd concept to me.

Not "smoking money". Smoked. Burned. Up in flames. Gone. The cash is no more.

I was merely pointing out that not being in NE does not mean selling wouldn't generate a loss.

Cleaver wrote: »

It's not like I'm sitting here depressed because my house is worth £10,000 or £20,000 less than I bought it for a couple of years ago.

And someone buying now would not be all that depressed that they're buying a house worth £10,000 or £20,000 less that they might have paid a couple of years ago.

...and?

geneer

ukcarper wrote: »

If you rented for those five years and paid £500 a month you would have paid £30k in rent so I suppose you should include that in any calculations.

As opposed to say...interest payments.
Jesus, this hasn't half been done to death.