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

ess0two

RenovationMan wrote: »

and he will blame everyone but himself for it.

Yep,also add Brit as well,perhaps geneer could enrol onto Brits buyers strike program.

geneer

RenovationMan wrote: »

I believe Pimperne1 answered your question as well as I could have. However, I'll repeat as you seem unable to re-read both mine original query and pimp's post.

Actually pimp explained that you asked a question and why.
Both of which were self evident.

I was simply wondering the relevance of the same,
other than the obvious which was to indulge in some snarky yet meaningless "wit".

RenovationMan wrote: »

I However, I'll repeat as you seem unable to re-read both mine original query and pimp's post.

See above.

RenovationMan wrote: »

You stated that it's distance from peak that is important to you, not trying to guess the bottom of the market. I asked what sort of distance from peak you were looking at and supplied a chart that showed peak occurred in 2007.

No, you're the one who stated "distance". Whatever that means.
I'm guessing you had to generate a bit of confusion in order to indulge in your momentary snarky "wit".

Naturally I was obviously referring to house prices, which was after all the discussion in hand.

RenovationMan wrote: »

So to ask again, how long will you wait from peak prices before you feel it's right to buy a house?

Well Thats for me to know.
But I would say that its not a factor of time, its a factor of cost.
No one in 2007 said "i'm going to buy in X no of years no matter what". That would be as meaningless as your snarky example of "wit".

But giving you the benefit of the doubt, and working on the assumption that you had something meaningfull to say
I will enquire again about the relevance of your question to the discussion in hand.
Whats your point.

I mean, there must be one right.
Only I've asked three times and you've still been unable to provide an answer.

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

Actually pimp explained that you asked a question and why.
Both of which were self evident.

I was simply wondering the relevance of the same,
other than the obvious which was to indulge in some snarky yet meaningless "wit".



See above.



No, you stated "distance". Whatever that means.

Naturally I was referring to cost (the y axis) rather than time (the x axis). As you of course know.





Well Thats for me to know.
Again, whats the relevance of the question the discussion that was in hand?

Whats your point?

There must be one. Only I've asked three times and you've been unable to provide an answer.

Well you said - "I'd suggest that not buying near peak has been much more relevant ambition than buying at absolute bottom". Not well worded I'll agree but it seems to indicate that there is a distance from peak where the relevance of buying is more important than buying at absolute bottom. So what he seems to be getting at is "what distance from peak are you aiming at"? Although I expect you will get an answer from OP too.

Do try and word your responses more sensibly though.

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Well you said - "I'd suggest that not buying near peak has been much more relevant ambition than buying at absolute bottom". Not well worded I'll agree but it seems to indicate that there is a distance from peak where the relevance of buying is more important than buying at absolute bottom. So what he seems to be getting at is "what distance from peak are you aiming at"? Although I expect you will get an answer from OP too.

Do try and word your responses more sensibly though.

Thanks again pimp for reconfirming what Repoman asked and why.

If we simply must observe everything through the pentantascope, can you clarify what you mean by "the relevance of buying is more important than buying at absolute bottom" is it is a statement which appears to make no sense whatsoever. :rotfl:

More importantly I wonder if you can assist with the point of repomans query.

Repoman appears to be unable to answer this one.;)

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

Thanks again pimp for reconfirming what Repoman asked and why.

If we simply must observe everything through the pentantascope, can you clarify what you mean by "the relevance of buying is more important than buying at absolute bottom" is it is a statement which appears to make no sense whatsoever. :rotfl:

More importantly I wonder if you can assist with the point of repomans query.

Repoman appears to be unable to answer this one.;)

I was trying to explain what I thought you meant by this:

"I'd suggest that not buying near peak has been much more relevant ambition than buying at absolute bottom".

But I wouldn't be in total disagreement if you were to assert that your initial statement was a complete clusterfnck.

RenovationMan

Now, should I believe this eel like slithering and wriggling to avoid the question, option A:

geneer wrote: »

Actually pimp explained that you asked a question and why.
Both of which were self evident.

I was simply wondering the relevance of the same,
other than the obvious which was to indulge in some snarky yet meaningless "wit".



See above.



No, you're the one who stated "distance". Whatever that means.
I'm guessing you had to generate a bit of confusion in order to indulge in your momentary snarky "wit".

Naturally I was obviously referring to house prices, which was after all the discussion in hand.





Well Thats for me to know.
But I would say that its not a factor of time, its a factor of cost.
No one in 2007 said "i'm going to buy in X no of years no matter what". That would be as meaningless as your snarky example of "wit".

But giving you the benefit of the doubt, and working on the assumption that you had something meaningfull to say
I will enquire again about the relevance of your question to the discussion in hand.
Whats your point.

I mean, there must be one right.
Only I've asked three times and you've still been unable to provide an answer.

Or should I go with the more succinct and to the point, option B:

robmatic wrote: »

He's never buying a house.

After due consideration I am going to have to go with option B. :rotfl:

wotsthat

Hey, Geneer do yourself (and every poor bleeder that has to come into contact with you) a favour - buy a house.

Here's a start https://www.rightmove.co.uk - they have links to houses for sale.

In some places you can also find estate agents. They look like normal shops but have photos of houses in the windows.

You spend your time here knocking anyone that's done OK, whether by luck or judgement, but when asked a direct question about your own house buying plans you get a little coy ("that's for me to know"). Funny that isn't it?

ess0two

wotsthat wrote: »

Hey, Geneer do yourself (and every poor bleeder that has to come into contact with you) a favour - buy a house.

Here's a start www.rightmove.co.uk - they have links to houses for sale.

In some places you can also find estate agents. They look like normal shops but have photos of houses in the windows.

You spend your time here knocking anyone that's done OK, whether by luck or judgement, but when asked a direct question about your own house buying plans you get a little coy ("that's for me to know"). Funny that isn't it?

He's too risk averse,the right time will pass many by without them even knowing.
Theres a few in here been sitting on the fence since early 2000,i'll openly admit i was crapping myself when i first bought.

RenovationMan

I sometimes wonder if geneer is a sockie created by a property bull to undermine the argument and debate of the property bears. Geneer certainly spouts a lot of nonsense and gets very slippery when you try and pin him down to any detail. All he does is come across like a spoilt child who wants the world handed to him on a plate and is extremely jealous of those who have actually gone out and worked for what they have.

Nearly every one of his posts is dripping with resentment, envy and jealousy. It's really sad if geneer is a real person because he will never be happy in life and to be honest I find that a little depressing.

wotsthat

RenovationMan wrote: »

Nearly every one of his posts is dripping with resentment, envy and jealousy. It's really sad if geneer is a real person because he will never be happy in life and to be honest I find that a little depressing.

Whatever people might think of BTL owners or landlords I think we can all agree that Geneers landlord earns every single penny. Can you imagine what it must be like to have a tenant like that?