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!
MW: IS buying cheaper than renting?
Comments
-
IveSeenTheLight wrote: ȣ150k 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.
Well, upmysptreet.co.uk said paddington flats rose by 175k over this period, so I was allowing for a bit of wiggle room.
It used to be Geneers favourite website until it showed Edinburgh house prices rising.
There seems to be little doubt she lost a packet.0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Given Edinburgh increased (roughly say £20k going by the ROSEA averages), then that would mean she missed out on £130k + almost 4 years rent.
Wow.
Hard to imagine that there are actually people out there who have demonstrably lost more than geneer. :rotfl:If I don't reply to your post,
you're probably on my ignore list.0 -
-
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »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.
You appear to want to avoid those threads like the plague Lite.
Far better to rely on assertion than facts. The way of the bull.
Whats quite comical is that in the context of global and local economic events you've decided that because the short term statistical spikes widely aknowledged to be so don't count, then the falls (which are not disputed) don't count either. :rotfl:
Bonkers.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
Again I ask you for the third time to show us the "crash" in Edinburgh?
Well ignore those undeniable short term statistical "new peaks" and the pictures quite clear. Obviously.
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
If you can, then it might be worth discussing further from your perspective.
:rotfl: Yet you're the one who keeps bringing it up.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
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.
:rotfl:Sorry Lite, you appear to be unaware of the price differential between london and edinburgh. Even had prices changed very little
there would still have been no loss.
Of course you are talking nonsense, the short term statistical "new peaks" are clearly meaningless, and theres no way a loss was made.
So instead the way of the bull dictates that its neccesary to infer failure to maximise theoritical gains as a loss.
Until of course we ask, just how much to you guys cash in during the last couple of years of the bubble. :rotfl:
PS I very much suspect that for the 3 years merynn rented, her family financies weren't stuck in a 0.1% PA current account, if you catch my drift.0 -
Oh. tee hee. too sweet.
Do bear in mind I wrote this...So instead the way of the bull dictates that its neccesary to infer failure to maximise theoritical gains as a loss.
before I read this.heathcote123 wrote: »Well, upmysptreet.co.uk said paddington flats rose by 175k over this period, so I was allowing for a bit of wiggle room.
It used to be Geneers favourite website until it showed Edinburgh house prices rising.
There seems to be little doubt she lost a packet.
And of before I wrote this. Which is of course now well worth reitterating.Until of course we ask, just how much to you guys cash in during the last couple of years of the bubble.
Lets see now. Applying the bull rules of profit and loss, Heathcote/Fubra never bought until summer 2007. Which clearly means that he list a massive packet by not buying earlier.
And Rinoa/Columno, champion flipper, hadn't bought since 2005, utterly failing to cash in on the white hot final years of a massive GLOBAL bubble. So, woof, Rinoa lots a phenomenal amount of "potential" profit with that massive error.
:rotfl:Ha ha. Hoisted by your own "pea"-tards guys.
Thats the problem with spurious intellectually bankrupt arguments.
They're all too easy to turn around on you.0 -
So if MSW was so spot on in her call to buy after the Edinburgh crash, why didn't you follow her lead?0
-
Of course you are talking nonsense, the short term statistical "new peaks" are clearly meaningless, and theres no way a loss was made.
Erm right, so had she not sold to rent she'd be about 200k better off.
I think I'd class that as a loss, especially if one were to STR with the intention of making a profit, having gobbed on about it for years in moneyweek (and having to intended to STR a couple of years earlier - lucky escape there).
According to her latest in MW, her new gaff is the old labour party HQ in Edinburgh - anyone have a postcode for it so we can do some maths...?0 -
heathcote123 wrote: »So if MSW was so spot on in her call to buy after the Edinburgh crash, why didn't you follow her lead?
Sorry, I thought we were discussing Merynn.
You now appear to want to focus on me.
I've no absolutely no idea why you would now wish to divert the discussion.Lets see now. Applying the bull rules of profit and loss, Heathcote/Fubra never bought until summer 2007. Which clearly means that he list a massive packet by not buying earlier. 0 -
heathcote123 wrote: »Erm right, so had she not sold to rent she'd be about 200k better off.
I think I'd class that as a loss
Of course (ignoring the difficulties in what are no doubt quite spurious assumptions and maths) you mean loss of theoretical gains as opposed to an actual loss. Don't you?
But hey, its up to you what philosophical belief systems you adhere to. Just as long as you're not just a fair weather worshiper.
Can't stand hypocrites, as you know.Lets see now. Applying the bull rules of profit and loss, Heathcote/Fubra never bought until summer 2007. Which clearly means that he list a massive packet by not buying earlier.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:0 -
Wow.
Hard to imagine that there are actually people out there who have demonstrably lost more than geneer. :rotfl:
Not sure about that Columbo.
How many places did you flip between 2005 to 2007 again?
None you say. Gosh, thats quite an astonishing loss of theoretical earnings there. Practically the shirt off your back. :rotfl:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards