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

Crashy_Time

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The 2007 peak? Yep. And now well over 100K better off by buying rather than renting since then. Prices well above those levels nowadays too.

Whereas you just spent 17 years buying a house for your landlord.

And yeah, I take it back, I don't feel that bad laughing at you.....:rotfl:

Make that eight landlords, and for all I know half of them are still renting from the bank on I.O. However they were kind enough to supply my housing needs cheaply, and do all the repairs, gardening etc. What`s not to like?


Hamish, I bet you never thought that a flat sold for around 70k in central Edinburgh in 2004 would be trying to sell for around 70k today? So glad you are not my financial advisor.

Crashy_Time

saguk1234 wrote: »

But you and house have not "made" £100k. You have to sell it first. And then what will you buy because every other property has increased. Scotland is a cheap place to buy but where will you buy to get the benefit of the £100K?

Don`t tell Hamish things like that, the nurse will end up having to increase his meds. He bought right before it all imploded, and ever since he has been trying to convince anyone who will listen that he made the right decision.


When people post things on the thread like - A house is always worth more than you have paid into it! - then you know you are dealing with morons.

ukcarper

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Make that eight landlords, and for all I know half of them are still renting from the bank on I.O. However they were kind enough to supply my housing needs cheaply, and do all the repairs, gardening etc. What`s not to like?


Hamish, I bet you never thought that a flat sold for around 70k in central Edinburgh in 2004 would be trying to sell for around 70k today? So glad you are not my financial advisor.

But the person who bought it has still done better than you I notice you ignore all the figures that show how much better off people who bought are I suppose it's to upsetting.

saguk1234

Ukcarper. No he hasn't done better. He hasn't sold yet. Wait until he sells and then rents/buys and then we will see if he has done better.

Crashy Time. The housing market is going downhill here in London. Wait untill that ripples outwards and starts affecting house prices every else.

Lloyds Bank has reduced its HTB1 scheme to £150k and its only a matter of time until every other bank to forced to follow suite. I wonder why Lloyds are doing this....let me think.

The government may remove HTB altogether. Would that mean all properties could drop by 20%? Lets hope so!

And now that BTL landlords are going to get spun over for evading tax. Beautiful!!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

saguk1234 wrote: »

But you and house have not "made" £100k. You have to sell it first.

Well, first of all it's not 100K, it's well over 100K.

The difference between mortgage interest and equivalent rent alone is nearly 100K in my favour. (thanks Merv)

That's money that I haven't had to pay a landlord or a bank.

It's an actual realised gain to me, whether or not I sell.

Capital gains are another 50K or so.;)

No matter how you cut it, prices could fall 50% from here and I'd still be better off buying in the mid 00's than I would have been renting since.

It must be absolutely soul-destroying to have refused to buy since 1998, and to realise you could own a place outright today for less than you've paid in rent since then.... No wonder he is so obsessed about it all.

Percy1983

What is going on here?

Basic maths from my own point of view.

I have signed up to a 25 year mortgage, lets say payments stay at £480 for the duration.

Ok its just cost me £144k for a £93k house (ignoring value of house in 25 years time).

I will be 53 when it is paid in full so going with a life expectancy of 80 I then have 27 years rent free.

Right now I could rent a similar house for £400, but lets just call that £350. for the sake of it, so from 28 to 80 thats £218.4k in rent (ignoring inflation.

So I can spend £144k and end up with a house 'only' worth £93k or I can spend £218.4k and have nothing.

Now lets be honest the rent figures will only go up, the value of my house will only go up and my mortgage payments will come down so if anything this post is understating the the gap by quite some margin.

By all means I disagree with Hamish on many things but with this there is no argument, you can't argue with basic maths.

saguk1234

If its well over £100k and its not sitting in your bank, then you have made diddly squat. Zero. Nada. 0.

When you sell, then come and tell us how much you have made.

ukcarper

saguk1234 wrote: »

If its well over £100k and its not sitting in your bank, then you have made diddly squat. Zero. Nada. 0.

When you sell, then come and tell us how much you have made.

I don't know if or what he has spent it on but it's £100k he wouldn't have had if he rented.

I'm £14.5k a year better off than I would have been if I had rented ignoring the value of my house and the amount I spent on mortgage repayments compared to rent.

saguk1234

Percy1983 wrote: »

Now lets be honest the rent figures will only go up, the value of my house will only go up and my mortgage payments will come down so if anything this post is understating the the gap by quite some margin.

This is silly mindset that most people are in. Why??

saguk1234

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't know if or what he has spent it on but it's £100k he wouldn't have had if he rented.

But he doesn't have it now. He has to sell first! And then where will he live/buy/rent?????