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
Comments
-
Hamish. Fair play. That has really put Geneer straight.
The crashers have lost. It's as simple as that. The battle is over. The war is won for the bulls.
What is the point even listening to mental bear rejects harping on about the next leg down?
This arguement will go on for as long a the bulls respond to nutcases.
Sooner or later we will have to say it's finished and let them go back to HPC with their tails between their legs and hoping for 0.00001% fall in Nationwide date or something.We love Sarah O Grady0 -
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".
Taking that logic forward, why buy a house at all? If you can save more money when renting than if you buy, then surely it's a waste of money to buy at all. At the very least you should rent and save until the deposit is 100% of the house price.0 -
That's why I put 'You're smarter than I gave you credit for' to your sockie. You couldn't have posted the message above on the MFW board and done your 'woah is me' speech because you never go on there and so it would be obvious. So you posted my comment from the MFW board onto this board, so your DervProf sockie could 'find' it and be scandalised.
I posted the whole thing on the MFW thread deliberately to trap you. Worked a treat. You're not so smart as I gave you credit for.
What comment did I post from the MFW board ?
Are you still saying that I have more than one username ?
I haven't yet had an answer, so I'll take it that you do think I have multiple identities. Add this to the list.........
You are wrong.
Your "clever" reasoning is totally wrong. I suggest you cease trying to discredit me and worrying about being stalked. I am not stalking you, but you do draw attention to yourself by making these pathetic allegations. Stop making things up in your head, it's not doing you any favours.30 Year Challenge : To be 30 years older. Equity : Don't know, don't care much. Savings : That's asking for ridicule.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »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.
zzzzzzzz lets get things up to date then spitter. :rotfl:
Then how about we stick to this thread, cos I really can't be arsed having the same "discussion" across two threads.
How does that sound to you spitter?Wow....Just wow. Speaking of grounded in reality, Hamish seems to be making the classic bull mistake of assuming that emergency base rates existed before the crash, and will exist forever more. Somewhat silly of him.
He also seems to think that a cherrypicked current spike in rental prices (due to nosediving FTB numbers) can retrospectively be pushed back through all of time.
And even then theres still savings in the tens of thousands of points.
Come on Hamish. You should have learned by now.
Bulls....its harder to rewrite history than you think.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Mortgage rates of 5% are hardly at "emergency" levels.
In fact, given the likely trajectory for growth in the UK, and the yields on long term gilts, you'd have to be pretty idiotic to assume that the average mortgage rate for the next 25 years would be more than 5%.
What, rents that as you pointed out the other day are just 3% higher than they were in 2007......:rotfl:
For the buyer, sure..... But not for someone that delayed purchase and gambled on a crash. They're already in the hole to the tune of tens of thousands, and it's getting worse every month that passes.
Indeed it is.
"geneer's folly" can't be excused away through using made up numbers......
As we can clearly see from the real world example, using real world numbers, it's a pretty spectacular error in judgement.0 -
And then....
:rotfl: And so the spin begins. And by spin I mean wriggling.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Mortgage rates of 5% are hardly at "emergency" levels.
They are based on base rates of 0.5% Spamish. Have you forgotten.
Base rates have been a good bit higher than or just under 5% for the majority of the last 15 years.
In otherwords your talking bollox.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »
In fact, given the likely trajectory for growth in the UK, and the yields on long term gilts, you'd have to be pretty idiotic to assume that the average mortgage rate for the next 25 years would be more than 5%.
:rotfl:Oh dear. Best of luck with that Spamish.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »
What, rents that as you pointed out the other day are just 3% higher than they were in 2007......:rotfl:
In edinburgh.
Thought we were talking UK averages.
Whats the matter Hamish, can help slipping into your embittered fallback position when the going gets tough?HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »
For the buyer, sure..... But not for someone that delayed purchase and gambled on a crash. They're already in the hole to the tune of tens of thousands, and it's getting worse every month that passes.
Indeed it is.
Yet both your example and my own show that its the wannabe FTB who saves money. You crazy aberdoomian!
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »
"geneer's folly" can't be excused away through using made up numbers......
Embittered fallback position it is then. :rotfl:
Yet even your derisible made up numbers can't win the day for you.
Ho hum.HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »
As we can clearly see from the real world example, using real world numbers, it's a pretty spectacular error in judgement.
I think we're all aware that you and the real world very rarely meet champ..0 -
Interest payments are of course based on the sum of the mortgage debt...something which is very much related to house prices.
Sigh.
Mortgage interest payments are of course based on the principal amount lent... and something called an interest rate. Dunno how your maths is, but would an interest payment be bigger on £150,000 at 4% p.a. or on £120,000 at 5% p.a.?
And as I was saying, once you've bought, why is a short term fall in house prices relevant? What impact will this have on the size of your mortgage debt? None.
Sorry, you appear to be suggesting that house price falls won't result in spending less on a property. Bonkers! :rotfl:
I thought that might be a bit leftfield for you but try and put yourself in the position of someone who is both willing and able to buy a property. You're probably going to want to buy the best place that you can within your budget. Whether house prices rise or fall, the amount that you spend will be determined by your budget; the end result may be a bigger or smaller property, or differently located, but the outlay will be the same.
Alternatively, you may just want to spend the minimum amount that you possibly can. You can achieve this right now, without waiting 2, 5 or 10 years, by buying the smallest property in the cheapest area that's commutable to your place of work.
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.
I don't think it really matters for someone who bought 2 years ago whether house prices are 'better' (whatever you mean by that). They've had the benefit of living in their property and if they bought with a mortgage they will be almost 10% of the way through the typical 25 year mortgage term, and they will have seen that initial mortgage amount shrink in real terms by 5%.
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.
Exactly, timing the market is difficult and it is a gamble, but this seems to be what you are suggesting is the right thing to do. I think it's better to enter the market and let time do its work.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
Someone who bought in autumn 2007 has had the benefit of living in their property - their home - for 4 years, they will be almost 20% of the way through the typical 25 year mortgage term, and they will have seen the size of their initial mortgage amount shrink in real terms by more than 14%. Even buying at the dreaded peak of the market is not working out too badly so far.0 -
Mortgage interest payments are of course based on the principal amount lent... and something called an interest rate. Dunno how your maths is, but would an interest payment be bigger on £150,000 at 4% p.a. or on £120,000 at 5% p.a.?
Maths is fine.
Would it surprise you to know that interest rates have not always been 4%, and will not be forever more.
Mo
And as I was saying, once you've bought, why is a short term fall in house prices relevant? What impact will this have on the size of your mortgage debt? None.
Of course it won't. You're stuck with it.
Which is pretty much why I was highlighting the benefits of, y'know, waiting until after the crash to buy. There is clearly a benefit in doing so, even though you are loathe to admit it.
Mo
I thought that might be a bit leftfield for you but try and put yourself in the position of someone who is both willing and able to buy a property. You're probably going to want to buy the best place that you can within your budget. Whether house prices rise or fall, the amount that you spend will be determined by your budget; the end result may be a bigger or smaller property, or differently located, but the outlay will be the same.
And?Alternatively, you may just want to spend the minimum amount that you possibly can. You can achieve this right now, without waiting 2, 5 or 10 years, by buying the smallest property in the cheapest area that's commutable to your place of work.
Of course the smallest property will be much cheaper now than it was.
Mo
I don't think it really matters for someone who bought 2 years ago whether house prices are 'better' (whatever you mean by that). They've had the benefit of living in their property and if they bought with a mortgage they will be almost 10% of the way through the typical 25 year mortgage term, and they will have seen that initial mortgage amount shrink in real terms by 5%.
We've done the sums on this rob. The benefits are obvious.
Mo
Exactly, timing the market is difficult and it is a gamble, but this seems to be what you are suggesting is the right thing to do. I think it's better to enter the market and let time do its work.
So you essentially would have recommended someone to buy in august 2007.
The significant flaws in this advice is rather obvious.
Mo
Someone who bought in autumn 2007 has had the benefit of living in their property - their home - for 4 years, they will be almost 20% of the way through the typical 25 year mortgage term, and they will have seen the size of their initial mortgage amount shrink in real terms by more than 14%. Even buying at the dreaded peak of the market is not working out too badly so far.[ /QUOTE]
We've done the sums on this rob. The benefits are obvious.
I guess we don't have to guess when you bought eh.0 -
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'd suggest you stick to that 7.5% as a benchmark when you try and post-justify your non-buying decision. Best not to use the interest rates that apply to your own time out of the market.
If you post your own figures I'm sure someone will help you with the maths.0 -
I'd suggest you stick to that 7.5% as a benchmark when you try and post-justify your non-buying decision. Best not to use the interest rates that apply to your own time out of the market.
If you post your own figures I'm sure someone will help you with the maths.
Whoever mentioned me Wotsits.
Not getting personal are we?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
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