ONS- June: +2.3%

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I did take account of Legal fees saving on rent £3k.

You are talking about buying and selling a 200k house.

The fee's will be FAR more than 3k. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

You can just pluck a 3k figure from out of the air if you like, but that's just the same as plucky a 3.5% mortgage rate out of the air too. Makes your figures work, but doesn't match the real world.

DervProf

ukcarper wrote: »

If you are living rent free or with very low rent and are happy where you are you might as well stay where you are and save a bigger deposit although I wouldn't advise speculating that deposit on one asset.

FWIW, I'd agree with your advice.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are talking about buying and selling a 200k house.

The fee's will be FAR more than 3k. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

You can just pluck a 3k figure from out of the air if you like, but that's just the same as plucky a 3.5% mortgage rate out of the air too. Makes your figures work, but doesn't match the real world.

No I am talking about buying one £200k house and if you intend to buy you will have to pay when you do.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

No I am talking about buying one £200k house and if you intend to buy you will have to pay when you do.

The WHOLE point of this mathmatical argument is that you profit from the transactions.

How are you going to profit if you don't sell?

Merely on paper? Is that what were talking about now? Paper wealth which you can't even access? After all the arguing?!

If thats the case, redefines my sillyness point to absurdity.

wotsthat

Is there a special medal we can award ukcarper for services against pedants?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Is there a special medal we can award ukcarper for services against pedants?

Muddlers, you mean?

So we WERE talking about paper profit.

Fantastic. And you guys call this investing? LOL!

Paper profit, with legal costs excluded, on a product which never existed comparing leveraged vs non leveraged on an investment you can't seel as it appears to be your home. Bravo for that one.

I fully expect to be called a pedant / muddler / whatever else, as clearly this argument is rubbish.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Muddlers, you mean?

So we WERE talking about paper profit.

Fantastic. And you guys call this investing? LOL!

Everything is a paper profit until it's converted to cash.

In these sort of calculations I tend not to get too hung up on the dictionary meaning of profit and work on net worth instead. Obviously sensible people don't need to be told that some assets are more liquid than others and have different costs of liquidation but net worth works as a decent proxy when trying to get a snapshot.

The other thing I don't get hung up on is getting too anal about ensuring all calculations are like for like. If I've got £20,000 in the bank, need somewhere to live but also want to invest in gold I would generally compare the leveraged mortgage against the unleveraged gold. That's the real world - for me at least. If I was an investment manager then it would be different.

It's a bit like the renting vs. buying calculations where we assume that the renter has a large deposit. It's like for like but not very real world apart from here where renters are all sat on £70k or so waiting for the crash.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

The other thing I don't get hung up on is getting too anal about ensuring all calculations are like for like.

Maybe not now and going forward.

But may I remind you about the pension / saving thread, where it was being worked out down to the penny by reno and yourself?

If that sort of stuff is over and done with going forward, great.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The WHOLE point of this mathmatical argument is that you profit from the transactions.

How are you going to profit if you don't sell?

Merely on paper? Is that what were talking about now? Paper wealth which you can't even access? After all the arguing?!

If thats the case, redefines my sillyness point to absurdity.

I though the argument was would you be better of buying or investing in gold and then buying.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But may I remind you about the pension / saving thread, where it was being worked out down to the penny by reno and yourself?

My basic point in that thread was that just about everyone in the UK can afford to save something.

But yes that thread was a good reminder of how basic ideas can be muddled by detail i.e.

"you're so wrong! You said Colgate was £0.90 but that's only on special offer; if you take a weighted average price over a full year it would work out at £0.95 per tube. Therefore no-one can afford to save a penny"

"OMG! I was talking about McCleans. I don't spend a penny on toothpaste anyway - I use soot"

"You're getting desperate now. Everyone knows that it's impossible to get a NHS dentist"

"what were we arguing about?"

"I don't know but you're a moron"

"You are you mean and you're crap at maths"

"You're morally bankrupt!"

"posts picture of pots & kettles"

Thread ends and a new one starts.....