House Prices Surge 68%

Conrad

IronWolf wrote: »

5.3% a year is hardly a mindblowing investment, even if we add on possible rental yield.

But to millions of ordinary folk, about as good as they can hope for and certainly a good deal more familiar and comfortable than investing in the markets, and yes there will remain sufficient lending to facilitate this - lenders one way or another need to keep lending if they are to survive..

This is the point far too many academics are missing. Ordinary folk just stick to what they know, and millions going forward will invest in property come what may.

This confidence is futher underpiined by thier / thier mates experience of very profitable rents in the last 3 years.

Thrugelmir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So not 11% then. :cool:

Slight matter of tax to be factored in.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Slight matter of tax to be factored in.

Not with imputed rent on a primary residence.;)

Pimperne1

Please sponsor my comment at bottom of page (and, no you naughty bears no sponsoring the other guys comment)!

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/36216/daily_express_tuesday_27th_september_2011.html

geneer

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That, and poucing on any thread that stems from a moneyweek article and rolling around laughing at the source suggesting no article from them is worth any discussion.

Boringly predictable behaviour from embittered failed pundits in other words.

"Lets ridicule moneyweek constantly, and hope that no one notices they did infinitely better in their predictions than me or any of my favourite sources".

IronWolf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

5.3% average CG plus 5.5% yield (even on current values, never mind values of a decade or two ago) is a pretty tasty return. Especially given the leverage and relative safety.

You can't use the word leverage and safety in the same sentence. BTL (via mortgage) is inherrently risky due to the leverage, but for some reason is perceived as low risk. I have never owned the stock of a company that has needed to raise money from shareholders to repay debt, but if you have rental voids or repairs, then you have to put more of your own money into it, effectively the same thing.

Still, 10% is hardly mindblowing. A few well chosen shares can beat that with far more safety, liquidity and a lot less effort than the housing market.

wotsthat

geneer wrote: »

Lets ridicule moneyweek constantly, and hope that no one notices they did infinitely better in their predictions than me or any of my favourite sources

Don't be so hard on yourself mate. You'll get it right one day.

Pimperne1

wotsthat wrote: »

Don't be so hard on yourself mate. You'll get it right one day.

Brilliant! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

wotsthat

IronWolf wrote: »

Still, 10% is hardly mindblowing. A few well chosen shares can beat that with far more safety, liquidity and a lot less effort than the housing market.

That's easy to say but it's rather more difficult to achieve in reality.

geneer

wotsthat wrote: »

Don't be so hard on yourself mate. You'll get it right one day.

I was talking about chaps like you and pimp.
That you are capable of deleting a couple of quote marks demonstrates nothing.

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Brilliant!

Oh dear.