Jonathan Davis (Do not read if you do not want to)

chewmylegoff

Blacklight wrote: »

I've yet to see anyone that won on STR. Greed always seems to get the better of them and they always miss the bottom.

i'm doing ok, STR in august 2007, put the money in the bank for 18 months at 6%, and then stuck the proceeds into a FTSE tracker at about 3,500. stuck quite a bit in silver as well, but obviously got out before the correction.

seriously though, i did sell in august 2007, and the house i sold is now worth about £40k less than it was then. i haven't bought anywhere else yet and have been renting ever since, and the interest i have earned (after tax) on the capital sitting in the bank is about £10k less than the amount of rent i have paid. prices where i want to buy are almost exactly the same as they were in august 2007, therefore it appears i am quids in.

if only it had been a deliberate decision to STR, i could claim that i am a genius.

jt2k6

marywooyeah wrote: »

I clicked on this cos I thought it was about the lead singer of Korn!

I thought it was about the welsh rugby legend!

Pimperne1

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i'm doing ok, STR in august 2007, put the money in the bank for 18 months at 6%, and then stuck the proceeds into a FTSE tracker at about 3,500. stuck quite a bit in silver as well, but obviously got out before the correction.

seriously though, i did sell in august 2007, and the house i sold is now worth about £40k less than it was then. i haven't bought anywhere else yet and have been renting ever since, and the interest i have earned (after tax) on the capital sitting in the bank is about £10k less than the amount of rent i have paid. prices where i want to buy are almost exactly the same as they were in august 2007, therefore it appears i am quids in.

if only it had been a deliberate decision to STR, i could claim that i am a genius.

Now if you came on here and said the bit in bold then I would take my hat off to you. What people like Jonathan want us to believe is that all those that STR'd in 2002 are quids in. Unless they were all VERY savvy in the markets then that would be hard to believe. Those who made decisions based on what he said were a bit gullible but I would have to say if I didn't know the housing market pretty well I would have found him quite persuasive.

(Edit to say - although maybe you would have been better just buying the house in the place you want to live when you sold your old one in 2007? Maybe you would have ported your mortgage, you would be four more years into paying off your mortgage, the current mortgage deals (and those in 2007) would probably mean you paying much less in mortgage than in rent, you wouldn't have had to be beholden to a landlord for 4 years. That's about it).

geneer

High rating on the mental-o-meter today then.

For those who might have missed the other half dozen or so threads on the subject, I do believe JD has stated that he's not that bothered about selling his house in 2002 as he did make a 100% profit. JD is also a financial adviser, who has featured within the pages of the Financial times. One can only assume that he put that profit to good use.

In any event, the status of one individuals personal finances........gotta wonder why it matters.

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

At the early stages of my involvement in the HPC site it was immensely frustrating to see five or so people debating house prices on Sky or BBC and for JD to be portrayed as just some bloke who had an amazing insight into the market and that, you know, he might just be right.

He doesn't have to be 100% right. He just had to be more right than most other commentators. In 2005 he predicted house prices would crash....in 2007.

In september 2007, most commentators were saying house prices wouldn't crash. :rotfl:

Kinda clear cut to rational individuals.


I don't suppose rational evaluation will assist the amazing obsession some fruit-loops have for the chap. But it seems to me that the Media values JD's opinion precisely because he did do significantly better than most other commentators.

Naturally, as the media's go to guy for the flipside of the equation, JD has done quite well out of the crash since 2007.

The tin-foil hat wearing bulls don't like to admit it, but JD is in fact one of the individuals who does bring balance to the debate.

He may seem overly bearish, but that is against a deafening trumpeting of VI ramping. So fair play.

nearlynew

I like a good argument/discussion but I really cannot see the point of this thread.


What a pile of bollox.

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Would you care less if Ray Boulger came onto the news and said "House prices are going to fall by 40% to 50% in the next three years" then you discovered that Ray would greatly benefit if this were to come to fruition? That is in effect what JD did - he appeared on television as though he were an impartial observer when in fact he stood to lose rather a large amount if house prices did not "correct".

This is a rather old and tired bull meme, discussed to death years ago.

They don't appear to understand the difference between having a vested interest, and being a Vested Interest.

We all have a position on the debate, so we all have a vested interest in the outcome. Big whoops.

The argument that a single individual, who in fact proved to be more accurate in his predictions than many, is in any way the same as the amassed groups of Bankers, Mortgage Lenders, Building Surveyors, Estate Agents, Solicitors, Newspapers, Property !!!!!! Produces etc....well, Its tin foil hat time.

Clearly.

Lets put it another way. JD clearly said what he beleived.
It was a contrary position to the mainstream, until 2007 he was subjected to much scorn from various parties. Yet he stood by his guns. Rather than being a VI, he clearly had the courage if his convictions and should be respected for the same.

Balance that against the real VIs. Those who quite clearly saw what was on the cards yet were compelled to paint the opposite picture.
The rampers and the billy boolsh+tters. The shills and the Hucksters.
Those who not only watered down their opinions, but who actively set out to deceive. And theres little doubt that they did.

I'm kinda clad Pimp posted this thread.

Because when you compare and contrast the above, its quite clear that these clowns have little credible real world perspective.

geneer

nearlynew wrote: »

I like a good argument/discussion but I really cannot see the point of this thread.


What a pile of bollox.

I agree. But it has proven to be a useful tool for making a greater more worthwhile observation.

nearlynew

geneer wrote: »

I agree. But it has proven to be a useful tool for making a greater more worthwhile observation.

Waht greater, more worthwhile observation?

chewmylegoff

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Now if you came on here and said the bit in bold then I would take my hat off to you. What people like Jonathan want us to believe is that all those that STR'd in 2002 are quids in. Unless they were all VERY savvy in the markets then that would be hard to believe. Those who made decisions based on what he said were a bit gullible but I would have to say if I didn't know the housing market pretty well I would have found him quite persuasive.

(Edit to say - although maybe you would have been better just buying the house in the place you want to live when you sold your old one in 2007? Maybe you would have ported your mortgage, you would be four more years into paying off your mortgage, the current mortgage deals (and those in 2007) would probably mean you paying much less in mortgage than in rent, you wouldn't have had to be beholden to a landlord for 4 years. That's about it).

You forget that because this is the Internet I didn't actually have a mortgage as I'd already paid it off. Well actually that's true as well although it was because I inherited it so again through no genius of my own.

I would definitely be much worse off if I had bought straight away in 2007 as I would have had to get a mortgage to do so. I've got a rubbish spreadsheet model to prove it.