London Has Peaked

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

But that is with hindsight, you didn`t know there would be a economic and political stability threatening credit bubble back then any more than I did. This bubble will crash and burn no matter how many silly posts you sit and make all day long on here. Why do you bother?

I purchased my last main residence about the time you were selling. I thought prices were high and might fall (I've always been bearish) but I still purchased.

The bet I took was that the benefits of buying would outweigh the negatives and, over time, compounded savings would make the purchase price a smaller proportion of the total cost of providing accommodation. Turns out I won that bet in spades - the opposite bet incurs a high monthly cost - the longer you rent the more likely it becomes you'll lose the bet.

If you were given your current flat/ room for free you'd still be on the losing side of the bet. To win you need a free house and a lump sum off the vendor for taking it off their hands.

HPI is almost irrelevant in the scheme of things and low interest rates were just the icing on the cake.

Anyway, if someone really wants to own (HPC is a collection of house hunters and nothing more) then renting forever doesn't really cut the mustard as a strategy does it?

westernpromise

Crashy_Time wrote: »

You don`t own your home until the mortgage is paid. How many years is it to go for you now?

1/ After how many years of renting do you own the home you rent?

2/ (i) A mortgage versus (ii) all the rent you'll have to pay if you don't buy. Which number is bigger, (i) or (ii)?

Crashy_Time

wotsthat wrote: »

I purchased my last main residence about the time you were selling. I thought prices were high and might fall (I've always been bearish) but I still purchased.

The bet I took was that the benefits of buying would outweigh the negatives and, over time, compounded savings would make the purchase price a smaller proportion of the total cost of providing accommodation. Turns out I won that bet in spades - the opposite bet incurs a high monthly cost - the longer you rent the more likely it becomes you'll lose the bet.

If you were given your current flat/ room for free you'd still be on the losing side of the bet. To win you need a free house and a lump sum off the vendor for taking it off their hands.

HPI is almost irrelevant in the scheme of things and low interest rates were just the icing on the cake.

Anyway, if someone really wants to own (HPC is a collection of house hunters and nothing more) then renting forever doesn't really cut the mustard as a strategy does it?

If you won the bet, why do you still post on here every day?

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

If you won the bet, why do you still post on here every day?

You have said similar things to me before, implying that if someone is doing well, why are they wasting their time on MSE. I'm sure (just like me) he doesn't think that he is wasting his time here, it is just a bit of fun and also a way of seeing what others think about things. Just because someone makes a few posts on most days, it doesn't necessarily mean that they spend a lot of their time on here, right now I am watching the cricket (Bangladesh v England) but it has just paused for lunch. I don't imagine many posters spend that long on here, they just drift in and out at various parts of the day (between doing more important things).

If you think this place is for people who aren't doing very well, does that mean you see yourself in that camp?

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Crashy_Time wrote: »

If you won the bet, why do you still post on here every day?

Why are you posting on here at 1am if you're not bothered about buying a property???:think::wave:

MobileSaver

Crashy_Time wrote: »

If you won the bet, why do you still post on here every day?

You seem to be suggesting only losers post on this site? I think you are confusing this site with housepricecrash.co.uk.

lisyloo

Do truly succesful people like mark zuckerberg, Alan sugar post on boards like this? Or do they perhaps have better things to do?

chucknorris

lisyloo wrote: »

Do truly succesful people like mark zuckerberg, Alan sugar post on boards like this? Or do they perhaps have better things to do?

They almost certainly will believe that they have better things to do, but having 'better things is to do' is extremely subjective, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing better things than you or I. For example Alan Sugar is a big Spurs fan, I definitely have better things to do than watch Spurs (some people might even say that watching any football is a waste of time). But I wouldn't be daft enough to suggest that he is wasting his time, because he obviously isn't, because that is what HE likes doing.

A lot of things that I would do, won't be everyone's cup of tea, this morning I've got up early to watch the cricket (again), I dare say a lot of people on here would say being asleep in bed is a better thing to do than watching cricket at this time in the morning. My favourite thing to do is to go for a nice long walk with my wife and dog in the middle of nowhere in the countryside, on a bright sunny (but not overly hot) day, but I accept that some people wouldn't want to do that either.

I would add that although Alan Sugar is obviously far more more wealthier than I am (and probably you too, no offence) but that doesn't necessarily make him any happier, and the true measure of success in life is 'are you happy'? You can't really expect or want more than that from life.

MobileSaver

lisyloo wrote: »

Do truly succesful people like mark zuckerberg, Alan sugar post on boards like this? Or do they perhaps have better things to do?

How are you defining "truly successful"?

You give some strange examples; Mark Zuckerberg was accused of stealing the idea for Facebook and paid out $65 million to avoid the matter going to court. Alan Sugar has been bankrupt twice.

So is that your definition of "truly successful", a bankrupt who steals someone else's idea to get rich themselves?

chucknorris

MobileSaver wrote: »

How are you defining "truly successful"?

You give some strange examples; Mark Zuckerberg was accused of stealing the idea for Facebook and paid out $65 million to avoid the matter going to court. Alan Sugar has been bankrupt twice.

So is that your definition of "truly successful", a bankrupt who steals someone else's idea to get rich themselves?

I think you could certainly ignore Alan Sugar's previous bankruptcies (are you sure that he was bankrupt? On this link he claims never to have bankrupt a company http://www.kgbanswers.co.uk/has-sir-alan-sugar-ever-been-bankrupt/3130303 ) as I believe that he is worth well over £1b. The thing that I really didn't like about Mark Zuckerberg was that he not only stole the facebook idea, but he was actually paid to research it and/or develop it for someone else.

Although this link says otherwise: Is bankruptcy a stigma, a reflection on someone’s character as well as a mark of professional failure, or is it a sign of a risk taker, someone with an entrepreneurial spirit? Ford, Disney and Heinz all filed for bankruptcy before becoming multimillionaires and legendary household names. According to Sir Alan Sugar (who has twice been bankrupt)

Although this link says otherwise: Is bankruptcy a stigma, a reflection on someone’s character as well as a mark of professional failure, or is it a sign of a risk taker, someone with an entrepreneurial spirit? Ford, Disney and Heinz all filed for bankruptcy before becoming multimillionaires and legendary household names. According to Sir Alan Sugar (who has twice been bankrupt)

http://talkingsolutions.gateleyplc.com/2014/06/06/skeletons-in-the-closet-are-your-directors-worthy/

Maybe that was personal not corporate?