My Interest rate gamble pays off again!

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

You can't live in an emerging market fund.

I have no desire to live in a luxury house. Perfectly happy with a smaller humble abode. Far cheaper to maintain and run. My 0.35% above base rate life time tracker enable me to become mortgage free just over a year ago.

lisyloo

Rather than repay a huge mortgage on a luxury home. He could have invested in an emerging market fun fund that has returned me 46% in the past 12 months. An earlier early retirement beckons.

Well I don't have a huge mortgage, but I do have a nice home on which I have geared gains with no income, no CGT (no money back, no guarantee :-))


Also planning an early retirement.
It's about balance for me.


You are wrong to assume that people with nice houses can't retire early. In many cases investment in property is helping people retire earlier (although I like balance and diversification) - C'est magnifique.

michaels

lisyloo wrote: »

Well I don't have a huge mortgage, but I do have a nice home on which I have geared gains with no income, no CGT (no money back, no guarantee :-))


Also planning an early retirement.
It's about balance for me.


You are wrong to assume that people with nice houses can't retire early. In many cases investment in property is helping people retire earlier (although I like balance and diversification) - C'est magnifique.

It would be nice to be able to invest more money into our home because of the tax advantages but I think we are already top money for the street so much though I would like to add a garden room, dormer loft and perhaps go double storey over the single storey extension I don't think it would add any more value

Thrugelmir

lisyloo wrote: »

You are wrong to assume that people with nice houses can't retire early. In many cases investment in property is helping people retire earlier (although I like balance and diversification) - C'est magnifique.

Have a friend who lives in a converted Victorian village school. Unusual property to say the least.Has struggled to sell it. Even resorted to auctioning it. Where it didn't even meet the reserve. Property doesn't guarantee a good return.

lisyloo

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Have a friend who lives in a converted Victorian village school. Unusual property to say the least.Has struggled to sell it. Even resorted to auctioning it. Where it didn't even meet the reserve. Property doesn't guarantee a good return.

I agree, I am very pro diversification and balance.
Most of my money is in a diversified portfolio.

A few properties suffered from sink holes but the majority have done very well in recent decades.
I presume your friend knew he was taking a risk buying something unusual?
Our home has a garden currently unsuitable for families/children. We knew that but you have to balance that against what you want for yourself whilst living there especially if you plan to be there decades.

economic

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I have no desire to live in a luxury house. Perfectly happy with a smaller humble abode. Far cheaper to maintain and run. My 0.35% above base rate life time tracker enable me to become mortgage free just over a year ago.

you sound like a simpleton - much like your posts.

chucknorris

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I have no desire to live in a luxury house. Perfectly happy with a smaller humble abode. Far cheaper to maintain and run. My 0.35% above base rate life time tracker enable me to become mortgage free just over a year ago.

That seems a very strange thing to say, if you won the lottery (or similar) would you not upsize? I think that you probably meant, with limited resources you currently have higher priorities than a luxury house. I must admit that we have never lived in a luxury house yet, although I did own a house that some might consider luxurious, when I lived there, I had a couple of lodgers (friends), but then I rented it out and lived in an ex-council flat, as that helped me get to where I am financially today. In fact, when I bought one of the ex-council flats that I previously lived in, Bradford and Bingley refused to give me a mortgage, they said that they didn't believe that I was going to live in that flat, they actually said 'No one would move from the house you currently live in, to that flat!'. But I did live in reasonably good quality ex-council flats for over 11 years.

But we certainly want to live in a very nice house, and after getting into a position of being able to afford one (of course a 'luxury house' is subjective) and everything else that we need/mostly want until we die, we are on the lookout for one now (and have been since last year). We know the location (a few streets), we have the cash in the bank (earning !!!!!! all interest) patiently waiting for right house to come onto the market. The house we want may not be considered 'luxury' by everyone, but it will be for us, and that's what is important.

lisyloo

chucknorris wrote: »

That seems a very strange thing to say, if you won the lottery (or similar) would you not upsize?

People value different things.
Personally I value freedom and security which is why I have a 19 years old car and choose to put the money instead into my pension because that buys me the freedom to retire early.
The advantages of having a cheap car are that it's cheap to maintain and also I don't have to get stressed at every stone chip/mark.

Similarly some people don't value what you get from a "luxury" home.
Obviously there are various aspects such as your compute, neighbours and amenities but not everyone values material possesions highly. My pied-a-terre in London is a very good example. Social housing in a sought after location. It's the location that matters becuase we avoid horrible commute and that's more important that having stuff.

I am saving in my pension fund for my future freedom not material possessions (although as it happens I also quite like my job).

I have a very nice house, but didn't buy it to keep up with the joneses, but becuase it enables us to do the things we want, like have family round or people to stay.

So in answer to your question not everyone would spend on material things if they won the lottery. I would give up my job (freedom) and travel the world and can't think of a single material possession that I desire.

I don't know you that well chuck, but I get the impression that your motivations are freedom and independence.

chucknorris

lisyloo wrote: »

People value different things.
Personally I value freedom and security which is why I have a 19 years old car and choose to put the money instead into my pension because that buys me the freedom to retire early.
The advantages of having a cheap car are that it's cheap to maintain and also I don't have to get stressed at every stone chip/mark.


So in answer to your question not everyone would spend on material things if they won the lottery. I would give up my job (freedom) and travel the world and can't think of a single material possession that I desire.

I don't know you that well chuck, but I get the impression that your motivations are freedom and independence.

I'm the same (but my wreck of a car is a bit younger, a 10 year old zafira), but when you reach the point where you doubt that you can spend what you have, doing everything that you want to do, surely it is the time to buy a luxurious house? By luxurious house, I mean one that suits your every needs (I'm not talking about a £5m house) otherwise my alternative is leave it in other assets and give it to the Dog's Trust. It makes more sense to me to live in a nicer house, and leave that to the Dog's Trust, that way I would have enjoyed living in a better house.

I don't value cars in the same way that others do, so I would never buy a car for more than £30k, so far I have only spent under £10k. We will have to upgrade our car soon, as we plan to buy a caravan sometime in the next year. But I think a house is different, as you spend so much time in it, right now we have a 20 year old kitchen and bathroom, and I'm looking forward to having a very modern house, that also backs onto a common/similar, where i can go hiking (power walking), jogging and cycling with my dog and walking (she isn't into hard exercise) with my wife and dog.

EDIT: My wife was just saying yesterday that she would like to travel the world, but I said that although I would too, it would cost more than I was willing to pay. I didn't mean money, I meant not having a dog, that is the only possession (he is more than that, but legally dogs are possessions) in life that I will value greatly.As much as I would like to have a 3 week holiday in somewhere like Thailand, my dog would think that I had deserted him, and I will not put him through that. We did say that we would have a break between dogs when our last dog died, but I was so devastated that I wouldn't/couldn't have a holiday, and we ended up getting Ozzie only 3 weeks after Mills passed away.

lisyloo

Not necessarily.
Not everyone wants to stay in one place.
My ideal lifestyle would be quite nomadic.
And not everyone wants the hassle of maintaining a luxury place. I have a hot tub and you are meant to test and maintain the chemical balance every single day. Not so much fun when it's pouring with rain or icy outside.

People are different and I never became a landlord because I see the whole maintenance thing as a massive hassle (I did grow up in an age where girls werent taught any practical skills). I have a newish house and so the maintenance is minimal but we haven't decorated for 14 years becuase I'd rather spend the money on a diving holiday.
The same things don't appeal to everyone.