'We've reached a tipping point' Signs of house price weakness

Thrugelmir

padington wrote: »

That's the gambler mentality. You've walked into a casino and lost, now you want to keep walking back in to get your winnings back. Problem is, like the casino, the housing market is rigged. The chances are you will lose again and again and again.

Friends owned a Cheltenham Gold Cup winner a few years back. In stud he would have a fortune. Never made it. A few weeks after winning the race he died suddenly without warning. That's the reality of the unknown. There's no certainty.

padington

Crashy_Time

padington wrote: »

That's the gambler mentality. You've walked into a casino and lost, now you want to keep walking back in to get your winnings back. Problem is, like the casino, the housing market is rigged. The chances are you will lose again and again and again.

Sadly for you, more you lose, more you'll want to gamble to get your winnings back.

You would be much better cashing in your chips and buying a home instead. Like a recovering gambler you need to accept your loss and forgive youself for the mistake and appreciate the unfair dynamic presented to you and walk away from the roulette table called rent.

Y..A..W..N !!!!!! are you talking about :rotfl:

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

In a serious crash most overpriced property will be losing more in a month than I pay in rent in a year :j Wake the f*uck up guys, you have been in the casino too long.

The price of your property only matters when you actually sell it. For example I have 3 flats in one block in Battersea SW11, in the last peak they were worth between £315k and £325k, but in the last crash they dropped to almost £250k, but right now they are worth about £425k to £450k. It didn't matter that they dropped in 2008 because it is up to me when I sell them, and obviously I will sell them when the market is good. The good thing about the crash though was the low base rate, because since 2009 I have been paying £29k less interest every year.

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

In a serious crash most overpriced property will be losing more in a month than I pay in rent in a year :j Wake the f*uck up guys, you have been in the casino too long.

My garden shed could lose more in value in a month than you pay in rent in a year.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

wotsthat wrote: »

My garden shed could lose more in value in a month than you pay in rent in a year.

Hahaha it would be impossible to calculate since crashy's figures change more frequently than I change my socks.:o

Jason74

Crashy_Time wrote: »

In a serious crash most overpriced property will be losing more in a month than I pay in rent in a year :j Wake the f*uck up guys, you have been in the casino too long.

Leaving aside the question of how likely a serious crash actually is, my short answer to this statement is "so what". Whether my place is worth it's current value of £250k, doubles to £500k, or falls all the way back to the £92k I paid for it is utterly irrelevant in many ways. The fact is, I save about £1,000 per Month, every Month by owning it rather than renting it. And everyone who buys a home eventually reaches a point of making that kind of huge saving.

That is the value of home ownership. Monopoly money capital values really are neither here nor there to the principle benefit of home ownership

System

Jason74 wrote: »

Leaving aside the question of how likely a serious crash actually is, my short answer to this statement is "so what". Whether my place is worth it's current value of £250k, doubles to £500k, or falls all the way back to the £92k I paid for it is utterly irrelevant in many ways. The fact is, I save about £1,000 per Month, every Month by owning it rather than renting it. And everyone who buys a home eventually reaches a point of making that kind of huge saving.

That is the value of home ownership. Monopoly money capital values really are neither here nor there to the principle benefit of home ownership

This is why they can't win. They may cheer if a crash happens but we're still the ones better off. None of this pointless argument makes any sense to me.

Blooloo

chucknorris wrote: »

The price of your property only matters when you actually sell it. For example I have 3 flats in one block in Battersea SW11, in the last peak they were worth between £315k and £325k, but in the last crash they dropped to almost £250k, but right now they are worth about £425k to £450k. It didn't matter that they dropped in 2008 because it is up to me when I sell them, and obviously I will sell them when the market is good. The good thing about the crash though was the low base rate, because since 2009 I have been paying £29k less interest every year.

it matters to those borrowed to let to the hilt on their portfolio when the LTV drops to below contract level using current equity to expand.
Windmillers beware.
It doesnt matter to those who bought to let.

Blooloo

Jason74 wrote: »

Leaving aside the question of how likely a serious crash actually is, my short answer to this statement is "so what". Whether my place is worth it's current value of £250k, doubles to £500k, or falls all the way back to the £92k I paid for it is utterly irrelevant in many ways. The fact is, I save about £1,000 per Month, every Month by owning it rather than renting it. And everyone who buys a home eventually reaches a point of making that kind of huge saving.

That is the value of home ownership. Monopoly money capital values really are neither here nor there to the principle benefit of home ownership

It matters a lot to those in the market TODAY. If you arent in the market, then it is irrelevant unless you have a business mortgage with LTV requirements.

Gloating helps no-one.