We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Land Registry Prediction

13468914

Comments

  • geneer wrote: »
    Provided you knew interest rates would not rise, house prices would not fall, and that your interest payments are less than your rent would be.

    Depends if you decide to get a fixed rate mortgage or if your rent is significantly higher than a mortgage would be. In either of these cases you could be pretty secure from rate rises
    geneer wrote: »
    Either way, you still need the deposit.

    If you didn't have a deposit then this discussion is moot.
  • wotsthat
    wotsthat Posts: 11,325 Forumite
    geneer wrote: »
    Provided you knew interest rates would not rise, house prices would not fall, and that your interest payments are less than your rent would be.

    Either way, you still need the deposit.

    When someone buys a house they don't know if interest rates will rise, house prices fall and therefore wouldn't know if interest payments will always be less than the rent. However knowing they don't know this stuff doesn't seem to stop them buying houses. Most normal people just seem to get on with it.

    Others follow the advice of a forecasting messiah and, despite all evidence to the contrary, believe every word of the gospel.

    Fortunately, the messiah, having lost money by following his own advice can still make a decent living by selling rubbish advice to numbskulls and making rent-a-fool appearances on TV.

    I pity his poor disciples as they don't have the same opportunities as the god-like one and must wonder what they did wrong. I can imagine it could make some quite bitter although strangely this bitterness is never directed towards the messiah.
  • robmatic
    robmatic Posts: 1,217 Forumite
    geneer wrote: »
    Provided you knew interest rates would not rise, house prices would not fall, and that your interest payments are less than your rent would be.

    Either way, you still need the deposit.

    Your interest payments will not rise for a set period if you elect a fixed rate mortgage, short term house price falls aren't hugely relevant when you're in the market long term and if you have a deposit in place it's pretty unlikely that the equivalent rental yield will be lower (even in Edinburgh rental yields at 4% are higher than the mortgage fixes that are available).

    So why be tentative?
  • geneer
    geneer Posts: 4,220 Forumite
    MFW_10YRS wrote: »
    Depends if you decide to get a fixed rate mortgage or if your rent is significantly higher than a mortgage would be. In either of these cases you could be pretty secure from rate rises


    If.

    MFW_10YRS wrote: »



    If you didn't have a deposit then this discussion is moot.

    You mean this discussion?
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=45642320&postcount=24

    Where I point out that it takes time to save a neccesary deposit.
    A factor the bulls tend to ignore in their restrospective !!!!ing contests?
  • geneer
    geneer Posts: 4,220 Forumite
    robmatic wrote: »
    Your interest payments will not rise for a set period if you elect a fixed rate mortgage, short term house price falls aren't hugely relevant when you're in the market long term and if you have a deposit in place it's pretty unlikely that the equivalent rental yield will be lower (even in Edinburgh rental yields at 4% are higher than the mortgage fixes that are available).

    So why be tentative?


    The ability to pay a mortgage does not mean the payments are irrelevant.

    Short term house price falls will save you money.
    Particularly in the long run you're so fond off.

    The worthwhile "long term fixes" require more than a nominal deposit to qualify.
  • ess0two
    ess0two Posts: 3,606 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ukcarper wrote: »
    That all sounds very sensible to me I know that this is a money saving site but there is more to life than trying buy your house at the optimum price.


    Live your life while your young,you'll never get the years back,a house will still be standing when your dead.
    Official MR B fan club,dont go............................
  • robmatic
    robmatic Posts: 1,217 Forumite
    geneer wrote: »
    The ability to pay a mortgage does not mean the payments are irrelevant.

    Short term house price falls will save you money.
    Particularly in the long run you're so fond off.

    The worthwhile "long term fixes" require more than a nominal deposit to qualify.

    Did I suggest that the payments are irrelevant? A mortgage interest payment that is less than the equivalent rent is a significant factor in the minds of many when purchasing.

    I wouldn't fixate about short term falls when time in the market is probably more important than timing the market. For example, if you'd bought 6 years ago, your debt would now have reduced in real terms by about 15% and you would be a quarter of the way through the mortgage term. That's not a terrible position to be in.

    To be honest, it comes across as if you're arguing from the position of not being able to buy rather choosing not to.
  • MFW_10YRS_4
    MFW_10YRS_4 Posts: 82 Forumite
    edited 30 July 2011 at 9:24AM
    geneer wrote: »
    If.




    You mean this discussion?
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=45642320&postcount=24

    Where I point out that it takes time to save a neccesary deposit.
    A factor the bulls tend to ignore in their restrospective !!!!ing contests?

    No I don't, I mean that if someone doesn't have a deposit then our discussion about whether to buy a house or not is moot. Without a deposit people don't have the option of whether to buy a house or not, the banks won't give them a mortgage.
  • geneer
    geneer Posts: 4,220 Forumite
    edited 30 July 2011 at 11:00AM
    MFW_10YRS wrote: »
    No I don't, I mean that if someone doesn't have a deposit then our discussion about whether to buy a house or not is moot. Without a deposit people don't have the option of whether to buy a house or not, the banks won't give them a mortgage.


    :rotfl:I missed the bit where you to decide what I'm actually discussing Repoman.


    But thanks for that indepth detailed explanation of how you can't buy a house without a mortgage.

    Shame it was a key part of the (rather obvious) point I was originally making.
    Saving up a deposit is a sensible and indeed neccesary practice.

    A real work concern that doesn't neccesarily feature in the retrospective so called "analyses" of a certain embittered sub-section.
  • geneer
    geneer Posts: 4,220 Forumite
    robmatic wrote: »
    Did I suggest that the payments are irrelevant? A mortgage interest payment that is less than the equivalent rent is a significant factor in the minds of many when purchasing.

    Actually what you said was...
    robmatic wrote: »
    short term house price falls aren't hugely relevant when you're in the market long term

    The clear inference being, that so long as the house ultimately comes back to its previous value eventually everything else is peachy. No mention of the fact that in the interim you are paying much bigger mortgage payments on a much bigger mortgage.

    I was pointing out that those "short term" house price falls can
    produce significant long term savings, and are very much worth factoring into the buying equation.

    BTW, as far as the "short term" goes, were still a long way away from the highs of the mid to late noughties. So theres that.

    And the "renting is higher than buying", well lets say that even now its open to debate. It certainly wasn't the case pre-crash.
    robmatic wrote: »

    I wouldn't fixate about short term falls when time in the market is probably more important than timing the market. For example, if you'd bought 6 years ago, your debt would now have reduced in real terms by about 15% and you would be a quarter of the way through the mortgage term. That's not a terrible position to be in.

    Certainly a better position than you might be in if you had bought 4 years ago.

    If course if you'd decided to continue renting and saving up a healthy deposit and buying after the crash, you'd would also be in a pretty good position.

    I don't understand why this is not something you can admit.

    robmatic wrote: »

    To be honest, it comes across as if you're arguing from the position of not being able to buy rather choosing not to.

    To be honest my personal position has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.