House Sales rise in January, + 4k YoY

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In exactly the same position, though not quite that much x my wage.

Hence why although the 95% loan might be there, I wouldn't be taking it. There's plenty out there in the same boat would be my guess.

95% does not always mean easier.

Yes, but how many FTB are in that position, deciding they want to buy and already having enough money in the bank to do so?

In that position you probably could get a 95% mortgage - although not using your entire deposit. More by buying the same value house but deciding to keep a load of cash and only put down 5%.

Most people will be saving up from scratch or from a low base though. If you've spent 3 years saving up 5% are you really going to refuse to buy at 95% LTV and save for another 3 years in order to manage the risk of negative equity? Might as well just buy and start paying the mortgage off.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hence why although the 95% loan might be there, I wouldn't be taking it. There's plenty out there in the same boat would be my guess.

What happens if the price of the house goes up by more than the amount you would have saved by not taking out that 95% mortgage, is it still a good decision?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

chucky wrote: »

What happens [STRIKE]if[/STRIKE] when the price of the house goes up by more than the amount you would have saved by not taking out that 95% mortgage, is it still a good decision?

Fixed that for you.

Harry_Boyle

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Most people will be saving up from scratch or from a low base though. If you've spent 3 years saving up 5% are you really going to refuse to buy at 95% LTV and save for another 3 years in order to manage the risk of negative equity? Might as well just buy and start paying the mortgage off.

Especially if their rents are higher than their mortgage would be, and increasing year on year due to inflations, whereas a mortgage can be fixed.

There are also the hidden costs with renting. There is no incentive for landlords to install insulation, efficient boilers, modern heating controls, new windows, etc. so the tenant gets hit with higher bills. Even more so if they have one of those pay meters.

I think we can 'put to bed' this notion that there are lots of FTBers or STRers waiting for prices to fall. There may be a few nutters on HPC, but pretty much everyone else has given up and bought.

Even on here all of the bears are home owners. The rest, such as geneer, !!!!!!?, Squat Now, Carolt, etc. etc. Have all bought homes and disappeared from the forum in order to get on with their lives - they don't stay on here to get a constant reminder of their poor financial decision to hold off buying.

james_toney

Harry_Boyle wrote: »

Especially if their rents are higher than their mortgage would be, and increasing year on year due to inflations, whereas a mortgage can be fixed.

There are also the hidden costs with renting. There is no incentive for landlords to install insulation, efficient boilers, modern heating controls, new windows, etc. so the tenant gets hit with higher bills. Even more so if they have one of those pay meters.

I think we can 'put to bed' this notion that there are lots of FTBers or STRers waiting for prices to fall. There may be a few nutters on HPC, but pretty much everyone else has given up and bought.

Even on here all of the bears are home owners. The rest, such as geneer, !!!!!!?, Squat Now, Carolt, etc. etc. Have all bought homes and disappeared from the forum in order to get on with their lives - they don't stay on here to get a constant reminder of their poor financial decision to hold off buying.

exactly i know the term "renting is dead money" is laughed at by the nutters on HPC but it really is dead money.

money saved renting £-15000:rotfl:

chucky

james_toney wrote: »

exactly i know the term "renting is dead money" is laughed at by the nutters on HPC but it really is dead money.

money saved renting £-15000:rotfl:

no, no, no, no. I'm saving for a bigger deposit so I'm saving money (and renting) even though house prices have risen in my local area.

Here is Richmond's price data.

December 2008 382,655
December 2009 406,169
December 2010 438,865
December 2011 452,047
December 2012 483,664

Even despite this some posters still think they're better off paying rent and saving for that bigger deposit but house prices in their local area have risen. Bless them...

shortchanged_2

chucky wrote: »

no, no, no, no. I'm saving for a bigger deposit so I'm saving money (and renting) even though house prices have risen in my local area.

Here is Richmond's price data.

December 2008 382,655
December 2009 406,169
December 2010 438,865
December 2011 452,047
December 2012 483,664

Even despite this some posters still think they're better off paying rent and saving for that bigger deposit. Bless them...

Are you aware that house prices are dropping in some areas?

Does this advice work the same for people in say Northern Ireland?

Try looking outside your local area [STRIKE]nollag[/STRIKE] sorry chucky.

Harry_Boyle

shortchanged wrote: »

Are you aware that house prices are dropping in some areas?

Does this advice work the same for people in say Northern Ireland?

Try looking outside your local area [STRIKE]nollag[/STRIKE] sorry chucky.

Even if prices are falling, you have to do the calculations to see if they're falling hard enough to pay off if you wait.

Rents are going up with inflation, utility bills are going through the roof and we have already established that there is no incentive for landlords to invest in energy efficient appliances, boilers, heating controls, insulation, draftproofing or new windows (nor is it an incentive for a tenant to invest in these as the payback period is too long), so bills are higher for tenants.

The problem is that crashers are entrenched in their positions and refuse to do the calculations. There again, if you believe half of the stories on HPC, they all live in free 5 bed houses that are attached to their employers and with utilties included, which begs the question of why on earth they want to buy a house if they have it so cushy?

N1AK

wotsthat wrote: »

Are you suggesting that FTB's have access to plenty of 95% loans but might be so credit averse they're saving up another 15% to be on the safe side?

We got our first mortgage with a 40% deposit because of the interest rate offered and all fees waived. We could have bought with a 10% mortgage (mid-2011) but didn't want to pay the higher rate and fees.

If a 5% mortgage has an interest rate of Base Rate + 3.5% and a 20% mortgage has a rate of Base Rate + 1.5% then the interest saving from having a larger deposit is considerable.

I don't mean to imply that our circumstances are normal; however I think there are a considerable number of people who could get 5% or 10% mortgages but don't want to because of the charges involved.

shortchanged_2

Harry_Boyle wrote: »

Even if prices are falling, you have to do the calculations to see if they're falling hard enough to pay off if you wait.

Rents are going up with inflation, utility bills are going through the roof and we have already established that there is no incentive for landlords to invest in energy efficient appliances, boilers, heating controls, insulation, draftproofing or new windows (nor is it an incentive for a tenant to invest in these as the payback period is too long), so bills are higher for tenants.

The problem is that crashers are entrenched in their positions and refuse to do the calculations. There again, if you believe half of the stories on HPC, they all live in free 5 bed houses that are attached to their employers and with utilties included, which begs the question of why on earth they want to buy a house if they have it so cushy?

Can the bulls not be accused of having the same blinkered opinion of their beliefs?

And I thought you were neutral renoman?