Patience is a virtue

Conrad

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you buy a house, and find yoruself selling and buying another 5 years later, just the costs of buying and selling over that 5 year period is enough to pay a years rent or more. That's my point. A point that people are desperately trying to ignore.

This sort of account just isn't how it works out in the real world in the main. People aren't stupid. Most do perfectly well out of ownership and furthermore, ownership confers utility advantages they value, for example putting down roots in one location with a high probability they will sustain the home and thus keep thier kids in one school long term.

Your argument about renting is like arguing we should all walk everywhere because it benefits our health and wallets. It largely ignores all the benefits of car ownership.

Conrad

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Absolutely.

Honestly, when buying, we never took into account any possible future negative equity nor rate increases.

Devons scenario is laced with downside, and it's exactly akin to suggesting we shouldn't have a holiday in the tropics in case;

1) We get Malaria / Dengue fever / Yellow fever etc etc - you never know

2) Bitten by a spider / snake / stand on a stone fish

3) There's an unforseen airport strike

4) There's a volcanic ashcloud

5) You get kidnapped

6) You step on glass on a beach and get septascemia with no hospital close by

7) The airline goes bust

8) The tour operator goes bust

9) There's a\ Tsunami

10) You get mugged


We can all find reasons not to do things, but thank Heavens the Human condition generally means most of us dont sit about in caves for fear of going outside and being eaten by a Bear.

Graham_Devon

Conrad wrote: »

Devons scenario is laced with downside, and it's exactly akin to suggesting we shouldn't have a holiday in the tropics in case;

1) We get Malaria / Dengue fever / Yellow fever etc etc - you never know

2) Bitten by a spider / snake / stand on a stone fish

3) There's an unforseen airport strike

4) There's a volcanic ashcloud

5) You get kidnapped

6) You step on glass on a beach and get septascemia with no hospital close by

7) The airline goes bust

8) The tour operator goes bust

9) There's a\ Tsunami

10) You get mugged


We can all find reasons not to do things, but thank Heavens the Human condition generally means most of us dont sit about in caves for fear of going outside and being eaten by a Bear.

What a load of old rot.

I mean seriously, just look at the lengths some are now going to to mock something. If you could mock it easily I'd be worried, but going to the lengths above shows you are trying, and I'm fine with that.

You have invented a scenario where the choice is go on holiday, or do nothing.

What we are talking about is renting or buying. Were not talking about the choice between buying or living on the streets.

The point is extremely simple, which I guess it's why it's led to such examples as the above. Everyone is different and the economy is always heading to a new juncture. You cannot suggest renting is always better than buying because of a huge number of variabilities.

The lengths gone to now are all attacking a personality, rather than my argument, which actually says quite a lot. I have "attacked" your theory and mathmatical comfort zone...therefore you shall attack the personality.

nicko33

Conrad wrote: »

People aren't stupid.

And yet forum posters are called dumb, muddled, stupid, idiotic, !!!!!!, morons thread after thread.

Graham_Devon

DpchMd wrote: »

However, the example you gave is an extreme example of stupidity.

Why is it stupidity?

She did exactly what is suggested here, bought a house, instead of renting. The improvements were needed to the house they bought.

I'm confused how it can be classed as stupidity when the whole argument revolves around doing just what she did? Or is it only stupidity because in this case, it didn't work out? Would it have been sensible if it did work out?

Conrad

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You have invented a scenario where the choice is go on holiday, or do nothing.

Of course renting is a viable option sometimes, goes without saying, but none the less if we home in on all the what if's, few of us would ever buy.

When we bought our family home we could have talked ourselves out of it - this was just after the dotcom crash and 9/11, with a baby on the way - all manner of risks that according to your logic should have had us consider renting.

BUT DESPITE ALL THE RISKS, things turned out fine and on this our second purchase we doubled our money. Had we sat about worrying we would have rented and never have had that captial growth nor the settled roots put down.

Conrad

nicko33 wrote: »

And yet forum posters are called dumb, muddled, stupid, idiotic, !!!!!!, morons thread after thread.

The bearish camp are uncomfortable, even bitter that 'the sheeple' out there with no understanding of economics, politics or investing, just muddle along and all to often end up sitting on a pile of equity.

All those thikos out there having the temerity to just get on with life and in the main do ok, it drives the fearful bears nuts and hence the insults abound.

DpchMd

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why is it stupidity?

She did exactly what is suggested here, bought a house, instead of renting. The improvements were needed to the house they bought.

I'm confused how it can be classed as stupidity when the whole argument revolves around doing just what she did? Or is it only stupidity because in this case, it didn't work out? Would it have been sensible if it did work out?

Here's why it's an extreme example:

1) You said new partner. It's not normally a good idea to make serious financial commitments, including buying a house, with a new partner.

2) They took out an incredibly excessive loan. 25k is a lot of money to be borrowing with a new partner.

3) A divorce was involved.

4) A sale was required after a period of house price decrease.

The above scenario is not typical and it's a result of you having to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find an extreme example of why renting, in some circumstances, might be better than buying. Nobody refutes the fact that sometimes renting is better than buying.

My point is that you don't need to create these extreme fantasy scenarios to justify why buying is better than renting. What does that tell you?

Don't worry Graham, it'll be alright.

Graham_Devon

DpchMd wrote: »

Here's why it's an extreme example:

1) You said new partner. It's not normally a good idea to make serious financial commitments, including buying a house, with a new partner.

Seems you agree with me that personal circumstances can mean its better to rent for a while then.

2) They took out an incredibly excessive loan. 25k is a lot of money to be borrowing with a new partner.

It is. But this is exactly what conrad etc are suggesting you should do....ignore the risk, it may turn out fine. I'm not exactly making things up here, his last 3 posts have been about exactly that. Ignore the risks.

3) A divorce was involved.

As happens up and down the country daily?

4) A sale was required after a period of house price decrease.

Yes and? Again, it's exactly what I stated about looking at potential negative equity, which you quickly jumped on and made a mockery of.

The above scenario is not typical and it's a result of you having to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find an extreme example of why renting, in some circumstances, might be better than buying. Nobody refutes the fact that sometimes renting is better than buying.

My point is that you don't need to create these extreme fantasy scenarios to justify why buying is better than renting. What does that tell you?

Don't worry Graham, it'll be alright.

The scenario is PERFECTLY typical. I suggest you have a nosey on the buying and selling board to see just how typical it is.

If you honestly think recent couples divorcing is not typical and extreme fantasy, then I suggest we are at the point we finish discussing this, as theres no where that this can go.

You have, though, just proved everything I said about personal circumstances completely correct, just you have chosen to believe a perfectly normal and reasonable scenario is fantasy.

DpchMd

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seems you agree with me that personal circumstances can mean its better to rent for a while then.



It is. But this is exactly what conrad etc are suggesting you should do....ignore the risk, it may turn out fine. I'm not exactly making things up here, his last 3 posts have been about exactly that. Ignore the risks.



As happens up and down the country daily?



Yes and? Again, it's exactly what I stated about looking at potential negative equity, which you quickly jumped on and made a mockery of.



The scenario is PERFECTLY typical. I suggest you have a nosey on the buying and selling board to see just how typical it is.

If you honestly think recent couples divorcing is not typical and extreme fantasy, then I suggest we are at the point we finish discussing this, as theres no where that this can go.

You have, though, just proved everything I said about personal circumstances completely correct, just you have chosen to believe a perfectly normal and reasonable scenario is fantasy.

A problem that appears to be anecdotally abundant, isn't necessarily typical or statistically common.

I absolutely agree with you that there are personal circumstances which dictate that renting is more appropriate than buying.

My point is that buying is likely to me more profitable and deliver a better standard-of-living for the vast majority of people. I don't believe that you truly disagree with this, you just find it hard to put pro-buying sentiments into words.

Don't worry Graham, it'll be alright.