MW: IS buying cheaper than renting?

JimmyTheWig

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

True, interest rates can and will no doubt rise at some point.

That said, there have already been a number of years where mortgage rates have been low and you can get a 10 year 3.99% fixed mortgage now, so security for 40% of the standard mortgage going forward.

It's much better than this. while it's 40% of the mortgage term it's 60% of the mortgage interest. I.e. on a 25 year repayment mortgage at 4% you'll pay 60% of the total interest in the first 10 years.
Which means that if after this 10 year fix the rate has doubled to 8% then you'll still only be paying the same amount of interest per year averaged out in the first 10 years and the last 15 years.

IveSeenTheLight

ruggedtoast wrote: »

a) Pay far too much for a house and have the life squeezed out of you for 25 / 30 years servicing the mortgage.

b) Pay far too much rent for a house and have the life slightly less squeezed out of you by a landlord, but for a longer period.

Good old Britain.

I don't quite understand your reference to life being squeezed out of you and the weighting you apply between renting and buying.

If anything, I've found buying cheaper and as such the life is squeezed less being an owner

IveSeenTheLight

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

It's much better than this. while it's 40% of the mortgage term it's 60% of the mortgage interest. I.e. on a 25 year repayment mortgage at 4% you'll pay 60% of the total interest in the first 10 years.
Which means that if after this 10 year fix the rate has doubled to 8% then you'll still only be paying the same amount of interest per year averaged out in the first 10 years and the last 15 years.

Very interesting point.

Additionally of course, with the debt secured over the 10 years and likely income increases over that time, there will be the opportunity to overpay and reduce the interest to be paid even further

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Will you get it straight for once geneer.
Please show statistically, with links where house prices in Edinburgh had "crashed" in 2010 when compared to 2007?

The Registers Of Scotland Executive Agency appears to show that prices were relatively similar

Apologies Lite. You appear to have forgotten the extended debate when the realities of those blunt average figures was discussed in great detail.

Strange that you would forget, as it was just after that smackdown that you stormed off in an ignorin' huff.

Do feel free to pick up the discussion in that thread of course.
That way you can bring yourself back up to speed and "enhance your understanding" of the figures.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Apologies Lite. You appear to have forgotten the extended debate when the realities of those blunt average figures was discussed in great detail.

Strange that you would forget, as it was just after that smackdown that you stormed off in an ignorin' huff.

Do feel free to pick up the discussion in that thread of course.
That way you can bring yourself back up to speed and "enhance your understanding" of the figures.

Instead of smoke, mirrors and bluff, why not try and answer the question as a means of counter argument?

Please show statistically, with links where house prices in Edinburgh had "crashed" in 2010 when compared to 2007?

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Instead of smoke, mirrors and bluff, why not try and answer the question as a means of counter argument?

Please see previous detailed discussion of the same, as occured between both you and me at length.

As I recall you were given a rather "enhanced understanding" of how the so called new peaks were transitory statistical skews caused by the mix of properties combined with low volumes on blunt averages.
Or perhaps you believe that all properties across edinburgh fluctuated by £30000 over a handull of months. :rotfl:

In any event, going back to the actual point, I still don't see how someone who sold in london near peak then bought in edinburgh post crash could have made a loss.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on this, instead of your smoke and mirrors dance of posting graphs that have already been demonstrated to be meaningless in the context in which you wish to use them.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Please see previous detailed discussion of the same, as occured between both you and me at length.

As I recall you were given a rather "enhanced understanding" of how the so called new peaks were transitory statistical skews caused by the mix of properties combined with low volumes on blunt averages.
Or perhaps you believe that all properties across edinburgh fluctuated by £30000 over a handull of months. :rotfl:

Plllleeeeaaassssseeee.
Give it a rest.
Your harping back to a thread where you couldn't grasp simple points.

Of course I understand that the data the ROSEA compiles is non mix adjusted and that individual monthly stats can be very noisy.

I clearly states that.

Your claims that the "new peaks" were statistical skews whilst the same data methodolgy for falls were very factual were extremely comical.

geneer wrote: »

In any event, going back to the actual point, I still don't see how someone who sold in london near peak then bought in edinburgh post crash could have made a loss.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on this, instead of your smoke and mirrors dance of posting graphs that have already been demonstrated to be meaningless in the context in which you wish to use them.

Again I ask you for the third time to show us the "crash" in Edinburgh?
If you can, then it might be worth discussing further from your perspective.
Until then, the facts remain that she may have sold at peak, but then rented for three years with little difference in properties over that same period.

It would appear that she indeed made a loss from her STR strategy what with three years renting a family home.

heathcote123

geneer wrote: »

In any event, going back to the actual point, I still don't see how someone who sold in london near peak then bought in edinburgh post crash could have made a loss.

She sold to rent (Paddington flat) June 2006 and bought (Edinburgh family home) Spring 2010.

London prices in her area were up 150k+ in that time period.

Edinburgh prices were also up over that period (in particular the nice family homes you keep telling us about, not just the statistical averages). But you're the expert on that one - how much was it?

Poor Merryn went a bit quiet on the wisdom of STR after that for a bit.

heathcote123

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Will you get it straight for once geneer.
Please show statistically, with links where house prices in Edinburgh had "crashed" in 2010 when compared to 2007?

The Registers Of Scotland Executive Agency appears to show that prices were relatively similar

A picture paints a thousand words (or several million in Geneers case)

IveSeenTheLight

heathcote123 wrote: »

She sold to rent (Paddington flat) June 2006 and bought (Edinburgh family home) Spring 2010.

London prices in her area were up 150k+ in that time period.

Edinburgh prices were also up over that period (in particular the nice family homes you keep telling us about, not just the statistical averages). But you're the expert on that one - how much was it?

Poor Merryn went a bit quiet on the wisdom of STR after that for a bit.

£150k between 2006 and 2010 sounds a lot, but if it is true.......

Given Edinburgh increased (roughly say £20k going by the ROSEA averages), then that would mean she missed out on £130k + almost 4 years rent.

No wonder she decided to relocate to a cheaper part of the UK.
Finances might have been extremely tight getting back into the London Market.