A bull victory

Really2

I should add also that it was a newbuild and a not fallen down, moved, cracked etc etc.


Perhaps I brought a dud.:D

Thrugelmir

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

to move every 7 years at a cost of £15,000 in removal vans and EA fees each time,

During the boom average move was every 4 years. :eek:

In 2007 the Treasury benefited from £6.5 billion in tax receipts.

Pimperne1

Thrugelmir wrote: »

During the boom average move was every 4 years. :eek:

In 2007 the Treasury benefited from £6.5 billion in tax receipts.

Bloody home owners bailing out the country again.

Percy1983

Really2 wrote: »

Wanting them to fall just for such a simple thing as being able to buy is personal gain, as it relies on someone else losing money/equity.

Now I won't deny I will gain from house prices dropping, but I will say I do argue the point more for a whole generation than just myself.

With that the above quote, yes it does involve people losing equity, but I do ask what did they do to earn that equity? if they did nothing to earn such HPI they don't really lose anything if such equity is lost.

Batchy

I sit on the fence, values are not moving materially to worry anyone, however, mortgage rates have fallen since the boom, and margins of the banks are also falling.

For a FTB with a 15% deposit, on a 3.5% deal ... IMO its a no brainer... its a better time than it was last year, and that was pretty good.

House buying is not about sentiment, its about security.

I lived in housing association for many years, lived through a recession, we struggled with money and food, but never worried about losing the home.
This unforunately is not something I will ever benefit from as there is also risk involved with owning, but it also comes with its risk reward factor and that is ... you can own something outright at the end... happy days!

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

During the boom average move was every 4 years. :eek:

In 2007 the Treasury benefited from £6.5 billion in tax receipts.

The "Boom" also coincided with an increase in home ownership.
Could it be that first properties was included in the move statistics?

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Could it be that first properties was included in the move statistics?

That's not counted as a move. As Hamish stated, historically the average used to be 7 years.

Really2

Percy1983 wrote: »

Now I won't deny I will gain from house prices dropping, but I will say I do argue the point more for a whole generation than just myself.

With that the above quote, yes it does involve people losing equity, but I do ask what did they do to earn that equity? if they did nothing to earn such HPI they don't really lose anything if such equity is lost.

You presume all that will lose will have got lots of HPI and are not in negative equity.
It is easy to reverse the question what have you done to earn a cheaper house? It's a bit of a nonsense question IMHO.
It is the markets that dictates the price, nothing is down to "earning it", unless obviously it is down to repayment of debt.
You won't earn a cheaper house, you will get a cheaper house if market forces dictate and you can afford it.

IveSeenTheLight

Percy1983 wrote: »

Now I won't deny I will gain from house prices dropping, but I will say I do argue the point more for a whole generation than just myself.

With that the above quote, yes it does involve people losing equity, but I do ask what did they do to earn that equity? if they did nothing to earn such HPI they don't really lose anything if such equity is lost.

Your certainly do come accross well as someone who openly and understandably want's prices to drop but is willing to also openly discuss the factors.

It's true that any previous HPI could counter any falls, however consideration needs to be taken for those that would be in negative equity.

Probably the best solution is if house kept pace with inflation, thus not ramping away, not risking negative equity and not losing "real term" value.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's not counted as a move. As Hamish stated, historically the average used to be 7 years.

Is there a link for this stat?
4 years seems very low as an average.

I upsized after 4 years,I also moved because of work promotion 3 years later and have been in my current home for the last 4 years.
Had I not had the promotion opportunity, I would have still been in the same property for 7 years.

When you consider the amount of home owners that have resided in the same property for decades, 4 years seems extremely low as an average.

P.S. I can understand increased movement in early years as people upsize / settle.

P.P.S I wonder if the government flipping property was included