Harder to rewrite history than you think Bulls.

Cleaver

geneer wrote: »

I know that "houses are just for living in" was the favoured bull mantra circa 2008 (and what happened to that I wonder), but its not true that "most" people would have been better of.

I don't think I have ever seen someone on this site so preoccupied with 'bulls' as you. And that's quite an achievement on here.

peakoil_2

Rinoa wrote: »

Well, lest we forget in Dec 2005, the month you joined house price crash, ESPC's Edinburgh index stood at £175k ~ today it's £214k.

If only you could rewrite your HPC history.

just because someone joins a forum in 2005 doesnt mean he is in a position to buy in 2005. it might be the case that like many of us geneer has been saving for many years and is only now reaching the point where he can afforrd the house he likes without killing himself financially.

it does seem odd to spend 6 years on property forums if you are not actually in the position to buy. even odder if geneer has monitored the market since 2005 and still didnt buy at the bottom of the crash in 2008/2009. makes you wonder if he will ever be bold enough. indecision is a terrible thing.

peakoil_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Negative equity is a red herring. Providing you can meet the monthly repayments on your mortgage. Then after 25 years or so. The property is yours and you have no debt.

I wonder what the average time people spend in negative equity? given a combination of mortgage repayment, HPI and mortgage overpayments I would have thought a dedicated saver could get out of neg equity relatively quickly.

geneer

Cleaver wrote: »

I don't think I have ever seen someone on this site so preoccupied with 'bulls' as you. And that's quite an achievement on here.

I forgot. They're all "neithers" now innit.



Yeah yeah cleaver. I'm the only poster who subscribes to the bull/bear debate. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Not going to answer the question yourself then.


Its amazing the logical contortions people will do rather than admit something they rather wouldn't.

Cleaver

geneer wrote: »

I forgot. They're all "neithers" now innit.



Yeah yeah cleaver. I'm the only poster who subscribes to the bull/bear debate. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I just don't see what all this 'bull' and 'bear' stuff has to do with the property market in real life. If we're going to debate property in a helpful way, wouldn't it be better to remember that 99.9% of people out there in real life who don't post on here but have an interest in property (buyer, seller, family, individual etc. etc.) have no concept of this bull and bear stuff? It just doesn't exist. Yet we seem to think on here that there's some sort of battle going on. It's really, really odd.

And obviously you're not the only person who subscribes to constantly going on and on and on about 'bulls vs bears', but I struggle to think of any poster who does it as much as you. Maybe Hamish? That's about it though.

geneer wrote: »

Its amazing the logical contortions people will do rather than admit something they rather wouldn't.

I don't understand what this means. What do I need to admit that I rather wouldn't want to?

geneer

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Negative equity is a red herring. Providing you can meet the monthly repayments on your mortgage. Then after 25 years or so. The property is yours and you have no debt.

I wouldn't say it was a red herring. Thats a spurious notion.

I'd say that people can work through it, don't have to move etc, and thats fair enough.

But it doesn't mean they couldn't have picked a similar place up for substantially cheaper had they waited. 25 years is an awfully long time to pay for a mortgage.

For a £150000 mortgage at a more typical 6% total cost = 289936.

Know of just 15% and for a £127500 mortgage total cost = 246445.

Thats a £43K saving. And most of that will be in the first 1/2 of the term.

Also, doesn't mean they aren't stuck in a house they might want to get out off.

All very interesting, but no one appears to be inclinded to answer the simple question.

StevieJ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Negative equity is a red herring. Providing you can meet the monthly repayments on your mortgage. Then after 25 years or so. The property is yours and you have no debt.

Not really as it affects the rates you have to pay the mortgage back at, especially the ability to negotiate a decent fix, although I agree, after 25 years looking back it can seem 'small beer' when you are sitting there mortgage free.

peakoil_2

Cleaver wrote: »

I don't understand what this means. What do I need to admit that I rather wouldn't want to?

I never understand what geneer means, and I dont think he does either!

I reckon he uses the following random sentance generator

ie: A track resents the lifetime in the increasing sample.
The microwave purchases the anecdote under our integral originator
The trusty blanket misrepresents the diverting postage.
Within a recipient triumphs the authentic praise.

and lets not forget the sticking mouse button that geneer has when he clicks on the self congratulatory
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:smilie.

geneer

Cleaver wrote: »

I just don't see what all this 'bull' and 'bear' stuff has to do with the property market in real life. If we're going to debate property in a helpful way, wouldn't it be better to remember that 99.9% of people out there in real life who don't post on here but have an interest in property (buyer, seller, family, individual etc. etc.) have no concept of this bull and bear stuff? It just doesn't exist. Yet we seem to think on here that there's some sort of battle going on. It's really, really odd.

I'd have more respect for your position if you took the time to berate all who subscribe to this particular divide.
You do not.

You have to face it Cleaver. This is the mentalist back door forum that only full members get to see. Theres other threads for those who have an interest in property.

Cleaver wrote: »

And obviously you're not the only person who subscribes to constantly going on and on and on about 'bulls vs bears', but I struggle to think of any poster who does it as much as you. Maybe Hamish? That's about it though.

Nonsense. Obviously.

Cleaver wrote: »

I don't understand what this means. What do I need to admit that I rather wouldn't want to?

Not neccessarily talking about you specifically. But I am noting that most responders to this thread are gabbling all kinds of toss, simply because they can't bring themselves to admit the rather obvious answer, namely that in the article posted, JD did in fact give the best advice and make the most accurate prediction.
Which was kind of my original point.

geneer

Look Cleaver. Peakoil doesn't like the rather decisive outcome of the little "negative equity" chat, and is now spitting the dummy.

Again, an example of the extremes people will do rather than admit a truth they don't like.

He's right though. Smileys are good fun, if only because the posters they're directed too find them most annoying.
Peakoil being a case in point.

peakoil wrote: »

I never understand what geneer means, and I dont think he does either!

I reckon he uses the following random sentance generator

ie: A track resents the lifetime in the increasing sample.
The microwave purchases the anecdote under our integral originator
The trusty blanket misrepresents the diverting postage.
Within a recipient triumphs the authentic praise.

and lets not forget the sticking mouse button that geneer has when he clicks on the self congratulatory
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:smilie.