Land Registry -0.3% MoM, -2.6% YoY

crash123

Pimperne1 wrote: »

I think you might have that "rents stay the same" thing wrong (if that's what you meant). I know of an area where rents have dropped by 18% in the past couple of months.

But I read on hear that rents are going up. Is that not true and I went out and bought a BTL on this advice.

Graham_Devon

Rinoa wrote: »

Sometimes I'm convinced you deliberately misinterpret posts just to make a cheap jibe.

How can I deliberately misinterpret a post which states that people will lose out to lower house prices because they may be in line for a house when their parents die?

ALl it's saying is they may get less when their parents die than they might have got if house prices were higher.

I honestly don't think anyone thinks that way and hopes that house prices increase and they are locked out, or struggling longer, just so they can have more cash when the rents pop it.

Infact, I don't know anyone personally who actually factors into finances how much they may gain when their parents croak. I know there ARE people out there who do. Just don't think there are many. It's not a cheap jibe, just think it's a weird thing to say to sugest house prices being higher is a good thing.

My mother has a decent gold ring. I'm not watching the gold charts in fear of them declining just incase I get less once shes passed.

Pimperne1

joguest wrote: »

Quite - lower house prices reward workers and punish people that want money for doing nothing. That's why price falls are good for the economy and our country's future prospects.

Isn't your being "more than happy with house price falls of 90% so that you can buy a house worth five times as much with cash" wanting a bigger and better house "for doing nothing".

Graham_Devon

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Isn't your being "more than happy with house price falls of 90% so that you can buy a house worth five times as much with cash" wanting a bigger and better house "for doing nothing".

Think about it. If he did nothing, he wouldn't be able to afford the second house.

The poster is talking in terms of working, earning the money and then buying a house. That's doing something. It's not getting something for nothing. You have to have the money in the first place....to get that, normally you have to work.

Pimperne1

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Think about it. If he did nothing, he wouldn't be able to afford the second house.

The poster is talking in terms of working, earning the money and then buying a house. That's doing something. It's not getting something for nothing. You have to have the money in the first place....to get that, normally you have to work.

Thought about it. If house prices fell by 90%, and nothing else changed, he could sell his first house and buy one worth five times as much with cash.

If that's not something for nothing then what is?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Think about it. If he did nothing, he wouldn't be able to afford the second house.

The poster is talking in terms of working, earning the money and then buying a house. That's doing something. It's not getting something for nothing. You have to have the money in the first place....to get that, normally you have to work.

So what are the people who are bought in 2007 doing they needed money to buy but he is quite happy to see their lives ruined so he can buy a house cash.

Graham_Devon

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Thought about it. If house prices fell by 90%, and nothing else changed, he could sell his first house and buy one worth five times as much with cash.

If that's not something for nothing then what is?

No one said anything about selling. Infact he implicitly said the opposite!!

You need to get out of debt junky mode.

joguest

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Isn't your being "more than happy with house price falls of 90% so that you can buy a house worth five times as much with cash" wanting a bigger and better house "for doing nothing".

Nope, because the money comes from previous earnings (savings) and any future savings I might make in the time it takes prices to fall 90% (probably around Christmas time).

ukcarper

joguest wrote: »

We've got two mortgages (with 99% and 60% equity at today's prices). I'd be more than happy if prices fell 90% - we could sell our first house and buy one worth five times as much with cash. It's only the desperately indebted and those close to downsizing in old age that want prices to rise.

Graham just to say this what he said.

joguest

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No one said anything about selling. Infact he implicitly said the opposite!!

You need to get out of debt junky mode.

I think I did say I'd sell one, i.e. sell the one with 99% equity, but it wouldn't make much difference - I'd still be able to buy a larger house with cash.

Strange how the discussion about this keeps rolling on, despite the fact that the point I made was very straightforward - that some mortgage holders (such as myself) are quite happy for prices to fall because we can trade up for less money, given the level of the mortgage relative to house price (even with a very large fall) - and a nice bit of earned cash.