House Sales rise in January, + 4k YoY

chucky

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.

Shortchanged, if you had read the thread I put Richmond. You obviously didn't like the facts in the post otherwise you wouldn't have thrown Northern Ireland in there and accusing me of being another poster.

I know you're not the sharpest and desperately don't want anyone buying a house but why don't you try to read the posts and even put a coherent reply together.

chucky

shortchanged wrote: »

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

Who are these bulls that you have these fantasies about?

shortchanged_2

chucky wrote: »

Who are these bulls that you have these fantasies about?

The opposite of the bears that renoman and certain others seem so fond of mentioning.

chucky

shortchanged wrote: »

The opposite of the bears that renoman and certain others seem so fond of mentioning.

Lovely, well done on distracting the attention of the thread.

Care to say that saving for a deposit and renting is better than buying in this area if you were buying a house?

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 but house prices in their local area have risen. Bless them...

shortchanged_2

chucky wrote: »

Lovely, well done on distracting the attention of the thread.

Care to say that saving for a deposit and renting is better than buying in this area if you were buying a house?

To be honest chucky you are probably right and seeing as I can't
be bothered to look at the figures.

But what I'm saying is for someone to say that buying than renting is a better decision full stop is not true.

If you look at other areas of the market not all are booming like London.

It is very blinkered to say that everyone who rents is a loser in all this.

Harry_Boyle

shortchanged wrote: »

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

And I thought you were neutral Harry?

Well the point I was making was for people who don't own already to do the calculations to see if they are better off waiting for a crash or better off buying. I assume that property 'bulls' as you've called them have already bought and so don't need to do these calculations? It would therefore not make sense to accuse the bulls of not 'doing the math' as they don't need to. Do try and keep up SC.

As to your second point. I am neutral, I made an observation that people thinking of buying should do their sums and if they are losing more money by renting than they gain from falling houses over a sustained period, then perhaps it's time to look at their position. This has nothing to do with 'ramping' and everything to do with good financial sense.

To be honest, I don't see how you can argue against it and maintain any sort of credibility?

chucky

shortchanged wrote: »

To be honest chucky you are probably right

I know I am right, thanks for agreeing. You probably need to educate this character too he seems very confused.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Ham is much cheaper than Richmond - but there is no train station so you have to get the bus to Richmond which can add another 20-30 mins on the journey so I don't really want to live there

shortchanged_2

Harry_Boyle wrote: »

Well the point I was making was for people who don't own already to do the calculations to see if they are better off waiting for a crash or better off buying. I assume that property 'bulls' as you've called them have already bought and so don't need to do these calculations? It would therefore not make sense to accuse the bulls of not 'doing the math' as they don't need to. Do try and keep up SC.

As to your second point. I am neutral, I made an observation that people thinking of buying should do their sums and if they are losing more money by renting than they gain from falling houses over a sustained period, then perhaps it's time to look at their position. This has nothing to do with 'ramping' and everything to do with good financial sense.

To be honest, I don't see how you can argue against it and maintain any sort of credibility?

Do you ever agree with anything a so called bear states on here?

As you seem very fond of the terminology such as crashaholics and uber bears etc etc. I don't seem to recall you ever agreeing with a point that us so called pessimists seem to have.

You may well be an optimist renoman but it doesn't mean you are always right as has often been proved in the past.

So to make out you are some sort of balanced poster is somewhat of a fallacy.

Harry_Boyle

shortchanged wrote: »

So to make out you are some sort of balanced poster is somewhat of a fallacy.

I've cut out the beginning of the rant because I think you're just trying to cause an argument and distract from the actual discussion.

So are you saying that my point about FTBers doing the calculations to see if the house price falls they are seeing are outstripping the increased costs of renting is wrong?

shortchanged_2

Harry_Boyle wrote: »

I've cut out the beginning of the rant because I think you're just trying to cause an argument and distract from the actual discussion.

So are you saying that my point about FTBers doing the calculations to see if the house price falls they are seeing are outstripping the increased costs of renting is wrong?

Renoman, sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong, very few people are right all of the time, an issue you really seem to have a problem with.

I just dispute that you are the balanced poster you claim to be when you blatantly have a ramping side to your postings.