Land Registry Prediction

robmatic

geneer wrote: »

Actually what you said was...


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.

You're conflating mortgage interest payments with house prices. These are different things.

geneer wrote: »

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.

House price falls don't produce significant long term savings: it's spending less on a property which produces the saving. Think about it. What is your 'waiting/hoping' strategy meant to achieve? If your aim is to achieve a lower lifetime housing cost, buy a cheaper house in a different area. Instant success. If you instead want to buy the best house that you can afford, you will make no financial saving on your lifetime housing cost and you have been using the wrong terms in this discussion.

geneer wrote: »

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.

Of course, this is dependent on area and property type. DYOR.

geneer wrote: »

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.

I will readily admit that having bought 2 years ago would put you in a pretty good position. But it's pretty easy to judge market timing in hindsight, isn't it? My point on this is (if you're viewing things in investment terms):

Timing the market well = a good thing
Timing the market badly = a bad thing
Spending time in the market = a good thing

geneer wrote: »

To be honest my personal position has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments.

It may have something to do with your objectivity.

jimjames

robmatic wrote: »

Timing the market well = a good thing
Timing the market badly = a bad thing
Spending time in the market = a good thing

It may have something to do with your objectivity.

Reading this post reminds me of stock market investing. As with that time in the market is what matters.

If you are seeing your house as an investment then trying to buy at the lowest possible price might be an advantage. If you see it as a roof over your head then getting the right house matters more.

davilown

-0.4%. From me

DervProf

MFW_10YRS wrote: »

Wow, you're smarter than I gave you credit for. :rotfl:

Now I see you think I'm posting under another username. I thought we got to the point where you finally realised I wasn't geneer, but now you think I'm mcc100.

Wow, you are just as paranoid as I thought you were. No, I'm not stalking you, just pointing out another one of your mistakes.

geneer

robmatic wrote: »

You're conflating mortgage interest payments with house prices. These are different things.

Interest payments are of course based on the sum of the mortgage debt...something which is very much related to house prices.
Sigh.

robmatic wrote: »

House price falls don't produce significant long term savings: it's spending less on a property which produces the saving. Think about it.

Sorry, you appear to be suggesting that house price falls won't result in spending less on a property. Bonkers! :rotfl:

robmatic wrote: »

What is your 'waiting/hoping' strategy meant to achieve? If your aim is to achieve a lower lifetime housing cost, buy a cheaper house in a different area. Instant success. If you instead want to buy the best house that you can afford, you will make no financial saving on your lifetime housing cost and you have been using the wrong terms in this discussion.

Nope.

robmatic wrote: »

I will readily admit that having bought 2 years ago would put you in a pretty good position.

Funny you should say that.
But you infer that house prices are significantly better than then?
Erm, no. As you say, depends on the market and area.
It also depends on what you make of the blunt high level averages based on low sales volumes. Theres been enough discussion to put the same in significant doubt.

robmatic wrote: »

My point on this is (if you're viewing things in investment terms):

Timing the market well = a good thing
Timing the market badly = a bad thing

Funny, given how you just confirmed how diffucult this is to do.
Thankfully, its not neccesary to time the market to split second precision. Its enough to buy on the right side of a housing crash.

robmatic wrote: »

It may have something to do with your objectivity.

As it has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments, which can be assessed on their own merits, then I don't see how my objectivity comes into question.

Funnily enough your the one who appears to be asserting that people would have been better of buying in autumn 2007 if they had the deposit for it. I suspect theres a lot of knowledgable market commentators who would set you straight in this.
Maybe even Ray boulger too. :A

geneer

jimjames wrote: »

Reading this post reminds me of stock market investing. As with that time in the market is what matters.

If you are seeing your house as an investment then trying to buy at the lowest possible price might be an advantage. If you see it as a roof over your head then getting the right house matters more.

I get the feeling that many bearish posters simply didn't want to buy into an obvious bubble, as opposed to maximising "profits" by buying at the absolute trough. Which is why many have bought since 2009

geneer

Simple comparison for robmatic et al:

£150000 mortgage at 7.5% interest rates you will pay a total of £332546 over 25 years.


Wait a few years for a 20% fall in house prices. Okaydokay.
For a 120000 mortgage you will pay 266037. Combine that with saving in capital sum, and youve saved £86509. Nice!

A saving which will cover 12 years of rent (assuming rents of around 600PCM.

So there you have it. Waiting a few years for reduced prices does in fact result in significant savings.
Most of which will be in the initial years of the mortgage term.

DervProf

geneer wrote: »

Wait a few years for a 20% fall in house prices. Okaydokay.
For a 120000 mortgage you will pay 266037. Combine that with saving in capital sum, and youve saved £86509. Nice!

Not forgetting that while waiting for prices to fall, you may have saved a larger deposit, so you won't have to borrow so much.

Of course, prices may not fall, and/or you may not be able to save any more for the deposit. However, in principal, the smaller the mortgage the better (that's what I`ve always thought). Strange how many people seem to want to borrow as much as possible. I suppose that's a symptom of HPI "brainwashing".

geneer

DervProf wrote: »

Not forgetting that while waiting for prices to fall, you may have saved a larger deposit, so you won't have to borrow so much.

Already factored in.
Though of course I didn't bother with the preferential rates you would get with a higher LTV.
Point was made without it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

geneer wrote: »

Simple comparison for robmatic et al:

£150000 mortgage at 7.5% interest rates you will pay a total of £332546 over 25 years.


Wait a few years for a 20% fall in house prices. Okaydokay.
For a 120000 mortgage you will pay 266037. Combine that with saving in capital sum, and youve saved £86509. Nice!

A saving which will cover 12 years of rent (assuming rents of around 600PCM.

So there you have it. Waiting a few years for reduced prices does in fact result in significant savings.
Most of which will be in the initial years of the mortgage term.

I see you're determined to post that flawed comparison across multiple threads.....

Let's start from the top, but this time with some numbers a bit more grounded in reality....

A £150,000 repayment mortgage over 25 years at 5% would cost £113,067 interest, plus the capital of £150,000.

A £120,000 repayment mortgage over 25 years at 5% would cost £90,453 plus the capital of £120,000.

The difference between the two is £52,614, including capital.

Based on the current national average rent of £700 a month, that gets you slightly over 6 years of rent, with a 20% crash.

But of course, if like geneer you failed to take advantage of those 20% falls, and instead waited for prices to return to the current average of just 10% below peak, that's only 3 years rent.

So you're into losing territory already, now that we're 4 years in. And if you'd been waiting for a crash since, say, 2005..... You'd be absolutely stuffed. As you'd then need the price falls to be 20% off 2007 prices, not 20% off peak 2007 prices.

And that's before we get into the fact buyers have been able to take advantage of the last few years of record low rates, better mortgage deals pre-2008, etc etc etc. Good for another 2% to 3% a year versus rent for the last few years.