http://saynotogeorge.co.uk

wotsthat

MARTYM8` wrote: »

It seems to be full of rather smug people who simply happen to have bought a house when it was a lot cheaper – and now think they are somehow masters of the universe for having done so and have seen the value of their property rise significantly. Just of course like every one else who has owned a house in the UK in the last 20 years.

Nothing special about them – bar their age – yet you would think they were Warren Buffet from the way they carry on!

Little self awareness, little concern for the social costs of all of this and little concern for how younger people and future generations will be able to afford housing if this madness continues. Just pointless baiting of a few posters who perhaps think we need to sort these issues out – so the country’s income can go on slightly more socially useful and productive things than rent and mortgage interest.

Don't worry - Brit and Crashy have no concern for how younger generations will be able to afford - they can crash and burn for all they care as long as they get a cheap house.

I bought in the '90's and readily admit how jammy I was. I don't know how old you are but I remember being told how expensive prices were and only mugs would buy. Of course this was before the internet got going and took moaning to a whole new level.

chucknorris

wotsthat wrote: »

Don't worry - Brit and Crashy have no concern for how younger generations will be able to afford - they can crash and burn for all they care as long as they get a cheap house.

I bought in the '90's and readily admit how jammy I was. I don't know how old you are but I remember being told how expensive prices were and only mugs would buy. Of course this was before the internet got going and took moaning to a whole new level.

When I bought in the early 90's it was the same thing, I was constantly being told by others, how the housing market had changed and prices would never flourish again. I just couldn't fathom why they couldn't see the bigger picture. But it was one of the significant reasons that I had decided to move to London after graduating in 1990, because (comparatively speaking) London property was so cheap (yet others were telling me that it was all over as far as house prices were concerned). The other reasons were to do with faster career progression and the availability of Masters courses.

Loughton_Monkey

chucknorris wrote: »

When I bought in the early 90's it was the same thing, I was constantly being told by others, how the housing market had changed and prices would never flourish again......

I bought in the 70's, when prices were rising fast, gazumping was rife, and our first house was bought on the basis of a 30 minute inspection by Mrs LM in her lunch hour. Had we waited until evening, it would have been gone.

Honestly, I don't recall any form of 'discussion' amongst friends, colleagues etc. The Interwebbie things like this didn't exist. I was 9 months into my first job and I bought a house for one simple reason. Because I could. You didn't need to be Einstein to know from first principles that it is the 'right thing to do'. Quite frankly, I think my main concern was the then 'universal knowledge' that people my age would retire at 50 or so. I couldn't envisage the concept of living on a pension from age 50 or 55 but having to continue paying rent.

We bought a nasty small mid-terrace in a cheap part of Nottingham, and 'furnished' it with cast-off furniture from family, plus some second hand stuff from our (then) total cash resources of £15 after paying the deposit. [I do keep meticulous accounts].

I am prepared to believe that I paid 10%/15% 'over the odds' due to the panic-buy state of the market just then. Now, >40 years later, that degree of over-payment is laughably small, and virtually 'pocket money' today, even at today's values.

It is a matter of extreme curiousity to me why the equivalent 'newly married couples' seem not to adopt the same common-sense behaviour rather than delay until such time as their 'dream' 3-bed semi in suburbia might become 'affordable'. Or worse still, surround themselves with rent books and offspring, thereby watching the prospect of buying any house (let alone the dream one) become more and more impossible as every day goes by.

The very same first house I bought could be bought, today, for around £85,000 if it were on the market. Probably including improvements like central heating and double glazing (which we didn't have). This is barely out of reach for a couple both on minimum wage, let alone a graduate and >min wage spouse. Who says houses are more expensive? What part of 'leveraged investment' don't they understand? Why would they turn away an opportunity to slap, say, £10K on the table and receive cumulative, tax free interest of 5% per year on £85K? Plus have free extra money because mortgage repayments are < rent? All for the 'price' of some minor 'less than perfect' comfort for a few years while they wait for pay rises, agressive saving, and house inflation to facilitate upsizing to a more comfortable house.

I need a gin & tonic.

I'll wait for tomorrow before looking for GD's obfuscating comments blaming fat cat landlords, high rents, house price inflation, the government, boomers, or anything else other than personal choices, behaviour, and common sense (or lack of it).

chucknorris

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Honestly, I don't recall any form of 'discussion' amongst friends, colleagues etc. The Interwebbie things like this didn't exist. I was 9 months into my first job and I bought a house for one simple reason. Because I could. You didn't need to be Einstein to know from first principles that it is the 'right thing to do'. Quite frankly, I think my main concern was the then 'universal knowledge' that people my age would retire at 50 or so. I couldn't envisage the concept of living on a pension from age 50 or 55 but having to continue paying rent.

.

I agree with what you said, but the discussions happened because I was buying investment property (not my home) at a time when some owners were posting keys back through estate agents doors, that was around 1991/2. Some of my colleagues thought I was a mad, it must have looked strange to them because I was only a graduate surveyor in those days. I do remember someone answering for me and saying, 'but he isn't buying properties, his tenants are buying them for him', he was one of the few that understood.

I not only didn't want to be paying rent in retirement, I wanted rent to be a substantial part of my income in retirement. Although it might actually pan out that I sell up shortly after I retire (next summer), but nevertheless the equity released will still be doing that same job.

brit1234

wotsthat wrote: »

Don't worry - Brit and Crashy have no concern for how younger generations will be able to afford - they can crash and burn for all they care as long as they get a cheap house.

I bought in the '90's and readily admit how jammy I was. I don't know how old you are but I remember being told how expensive prices were and only mugs would buy. Of course this was before the internet got going and took moaning to a whole new level.

Please stop spouting rubbish and lies about what I think, you don't know me, you don't know my moral code or what makes me tick.

To set the record straight, I want my generation and younger generations to have the same opportunities to buy at 3 times salary, be able to have families and move up the market. I want a free and fair market.

The people I care little or have concern for are the property speculators like the saynotogeorge cronies. I have no problem in people investing in newbuilds to rent out but I do think there is something morally wrong with property speculators buying up all the existing stock and removing it from the market.

We need an end to the stimulus so house prices fall to traditional levels and we need landlords to be taxed fairly which they are not yet.

Loughton_Monkey

brit1234 wrote: »

....I have no problem in people investing in newbuilds to rent out but I do think there is something morally wrong with property speculators buying up all the existing stock and removing it from the market.....

Surely this is a very small issue (in terms of property units anyway) and generally limited to your rich Arab buying a £5m mansion? This does nothing to deprive "Joe Punter" of a modest house in which to live. Nor does it have much (if any) impact on the price of the sort of house Joe Punter would buy or rent.

So when the nasty landlord snaps up another semi to add to his portfolio, he's not really depriving anyone of a home. The only debate is why the occupier of that house will be a a renter, and not the owner/occupier.

While the population continues to be as large (and growing) as it is, and while the nation fails to build any decent quantity of new houses, the prices will continue to be high, and probably rise. Very little to do with Mr BTL.

At its basic level, barring any solutions to the housing shortage, we have to look at what is actually happening at street level. What we have is a BTL choosing to buy a £300K property. He rents it out at a rent which exceeds buying/mortgage costs by a big margin. So to me, the big question is why didn't the new tenant buy it instead? He can surely afford the mortgage repayments otherwise he couldn't afford the 'obscene' rent.

What we have here is largely a behavioural issue. Something else is at play. Maybe the tenant failed to find a large enough deposit, or doesn't earn enough (unlikely if he can afford rent). Maybe his problem is compounded by a bad credit record, or profligate financial habits. Maybe his lack of deposit (or affordability in the eyes of the lender) has something to do with the fact that he has 2 or 3 kids, pays high rents because he 'needs' a big house, and never saved because of his passion for high performance cars....

The truth is, you can pair off most renters, with those who did buy before the landlord, by sorting them by similar age, incomes, and geography. Then look for differences in lifestyles, priorities, choices, attitudes, and behaviours. Then you will see a pattern emerging, which indicates that it isn't really about prices, or the myth about BTL's forcing up the prices. It's about those who have decided and focussed on buying a house, and those who haven't [thus potentially forcing them into renting situations which by definition makes eventual house ownership virtually impossible].

Yes, prices in some parts of the country are at the high end, for reasons stated above. But the myth about BTL landlords causing the price boom, pricing out Joe Punter, can be scotched by one simple fact.... that a high proportion of houses are bought by people in exactly the same salary, with the same age, and in the same area, as some others who 'choose' [or because of circumstances are 'forced' to] rent.

I am no lover of BTL landlords, but they are simply trying to make a legitimate buck. They have no control whatsoever over why the tenant can "afford" £1,200 rent each month, but doesn't/can't put down a deposit and pay £800 a month mortgage repayment. They are no different from a good/honest car dealer [if exist] who sells a £15K motor to someone who earns minimum wage, has 2 kids, and borrowed £8K from his brother, £5K from his 'mate' and £2K from Wonga. The buyer has "chosen" to do it by choice, preference, and priority.

caronoel

brit1234 wrote: »

The people I care little or have concern for are the property speculators like the saynotogeorge cronies. I have no problem in people investing in newbuilds to rent out but I do think there is something morally wrong with property speculators buying up all the existing stock and removing it from the market.

Hmmm… this is from someone who has spent the last decade speculating on a crash that never came.

I find it morally reprehensible that someone could sit smugly in their government subsidised police accommodation in central London, coming on to this forum and others warning others not to buy to try to engineer a house price crash that could cause massive destruction to the wealth of home owning families, in addition to all the personal devastation (such as depression and divorce) that such an event would cause.

Are you still predicting a 50% price fall by Christmas, by the way?

:rotfl::rotfl:

mayonnaise

brit1234 wrote: »

Please stop spouting rubbish and lies about what I think, you don't know me, you don't know my moral code .

I learned enough about you and your moral code when you were wishing the misery of massive negative equity and possible repossession upon millions and millions of hardworking families or when you were having a good laugh on here when estate agents lost their livelihood.

wotsthat

brit1234 wrote: »

To set the record straight, I want my generation and younger generations to have the same opportunities to buy at 3 times salary, be able to have families and move up the market. I want a free and fair market.

You forgot world peace.

ruggedtoast

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I bought in the 70's, when prices were rising fast, gazumping was rife, and our first house was bought on the basis of a 30 minute inspection by Mrs LM in her lunch hour. Had we waited until evening, it would have been gone.

I see. It must have been awful buying a house for £5000 and then finding at the last minute you had to raise your offer by 3 and 6 to stay in the game.