Buying cheaper than social housing for half the country

mwpt

Is "crash troll" now an official word here? Even the newcomers use it. Nice to see the forum upholding the high standards of not being like HPC.

PixelPound

cells wrote: »

Honestly the biggest problem for the 'houses are too expensive' website is that they completely ignore the cheap bottom of the ladder type properties. To be honest everyone ignores them who wants to live in the lowest priced properties? but someone has to we cant leave them empty.

Looking at 2 bed houses here in Leeds for last 18 months, typically there are 3 bands. The pre 1950's houses in need of modernisation going for sub£70k, Ex-council 20thC that may need redecorating for £80-100K, and newer builds for around £130K+. So who goes for the lower end? FTB may find it a big project, or at the very least not have the extra cash needed to make modernisation steps in addition to buying it. Developers may find the margins too tight to make it worth flipping, and BTL may not find them as appealing.

westernpromise

wotsthat wrote: »

The crash trolls would like you to see and realise that loss today rather than trying to ride it out to a breakeven.

They'll try and claim they have the moral high ground and any connection between their desired outcome and their own financial interests are, of course, entirely co-incidental.

Owners with little or negative equity who move out and let, instead of selling cheap to a crash troll, are those trolls' hated, hated enemy.

Crash trolls have trashed decades of their own lives waiting for a bargain at existing owners' expense. They want to change places with owners. The crashtrolls want the cheap house at the price of 10 or 20 years ago, and they want smug™ boomers™ to get the crippling financial handicap that comes from not having bought 10 or 20 years ago.

Few owners with negative equity need ever crystallize such a loss. Instead they look at what the house would sell for, look at how cheap the mortgage is, and say, I don't need to sell so I'm not giving it away™.

So it boils the crash trolls' collective p1s5 that, taken together, the assured shorthold tenancy, cheap money, and thriving rental demand mean their dream of profiting by others' misfortune won't happen. If there's a crash there'll be nobody selling until the crash is past.

As a result, there is literally no type of house owner or market participant they don't hate. They hate landlords, they hate accidental landlords, they hate FTBs who broke the faith and bought last year, and they hate the buyers of 40 years ago. They hate the buyers of 10 years ago because they're sheeple™ stupidly counting the money that's not real and not really theirs. They hate downsizers who actually crystallize these gains because they prove the gains can be real, and they also hate them because in buying small houses, they can outbid crash trolls for them. They hate people who add extensions because these are another selfish wheeze to avoid moving and selling up to a crash troll. They hate people who sell to a crash troll and take his money, because the seller didn't earn it. They hate estate agents, they hate banks and they hate having any of this pointed out to them.

CKhalvashi

nic_c wrote: »

Looking at 2 bed houses here in Leeds for last 18 months, typically there are 3 bands. The pre 1950's houses in need of modernisation going for sub£70k, Ex-council 20thC that may need redecorating for £80-100K, and newer builds for around £130K+. So who goes for the lower end? FTB may find it a big project, or at the very least not have the extra cash needed to make modernisation steps in addition to buying it. Developers may find the margins too tight to make it worth flipping, and BTL may not find them as appealing.

I generally agree with the banding theory there. It's the same here but just on a bigger scale.

OH recently flew with someone that commutes to Heathrow from Coventry, who paid £90k for a 3 bedroom house and stays in a hotel the night before if on a pre-10am departure, as apparently it's a lot cheaper then living near London.

The thinking behind this was that if you can get your bid right, that trip can be once in 4-5 days rather than daily.

cells

westernpromise wrote: »

Owners with little or negative equity who move out and let, instead of selling cheap to a crash troll, are those trolls' hated, hated enemy.

Crash trolls have trashed decades of their own lives waiting for a bargain at existing owners' expense. They want to change places with owners. The crashtrolls want the cheap house at the price of 10 or 20 years ago, and they want smug™ boomers™ to get the crippling financial handicap that comes from not having bought 10 or 20 years ago.

Few owners with negative equity need ever crystallize such a loss. Instead they look at what the house would sell for, look at how cheap the mortgage is, and say, I don't need to sell so I'm not giving it away™.

So it boils the crash trolls' collective p1s5 that, taken together, the assured shorthold tenancy, cheap money, and thriving rental demand mean their dream of profiting by others' misfortune won't happen. If there's a crash there'll be nobody selling until the crash is past.

As a result, there is literally no type of house owner or market participant they don't hate. They hate landlords, they hate accidental landlords, they hate FTBs who broke the faith and bought last year, and they hate the buyers of 40 years ago. They hate the buyers of 10 years ago because they're sheeple™ stupidly counting the money that's not real and not really theirs. They hate downsizers who actually crystallize these gains because they prove the gains can be real, and they also hate them because in buying small houses, they can outbid crash trolls for them. They hate people who add extensions because these are another selfish wheeze to avoid moving and selling up to a crash troll. They hate people who sell to a crash troll and take his money, because the seller didn't earn it. They hate estate agents, they hate banks and they hate having any of this pointed out to them.

I think you are too harsh on them. I think the vast majority of them simply cant afford to buy (almost irrespective of price). Certainly they cant afford to buy the type and size they would like.

I think less than 5% of them are true speculators (selling to rent or can buy but dont)

I would also add that indecision paralysis is a thing especially for the first purchase.

PixelPound

cells wrote: »

I think you are too harsh on them. I think the vast majority of them simply cant afford to buy (almost irrespective of price). Certainly they cant afford to buy the type and size they would like.

I think less than 5% of them are true speculators (selling to rent or can buy but dont)

I would also add that indecision paralysis is a thing especially for the first purchase.

Some of them wish they speculated a decade ago (hindsight being a wonderful thing), but yes it does seem that most are focused on houses they want are going for more than they want to pay (crash before they buy and rise when they want to sell).

Dan83

I live on the outskirts of Liverpool, a town called Kirkby. My 3 bedroom mid terrace house with decent size front and back gardens and off road parking cost £68k in Aug 11. Currently my mortgage is £301 p/m. There is a guy next door but 1 paying £600 p/m rent to a private landlord. I have no idea what social landlord rent is in this area, but I doubt it's less then £301 p/m.

I've not read all the post's, but in my area at least, I totally agree with what the opp is saying.

Generali

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I generally agree with the banding theory there. It's the same here but just on a bigger scale.

OH recently flew with someone that commutes to Heathrow from Coventry, who paid £90k for a 3 bedroom house and stays in a hotel the night before if on a pre-10am departure, as apparently it's a lot cheaper then living near London.

The thinking behind this was that if you can get your bid right, that trip can be once in 4-5 days rather than daily.

I met a lot of people in The City, especially in IT, that had a really nice country pile oop north or in Norfolk that were doing 10 years in finance in order to pay for the house and private school for the kids.

One of them announced one morning that he'd paid off his mortgage and had enough saved for his pension so he could go and work for the local council to keep the lights on for 15 years until he retired. I once asked if he fancied a beer on a Friday after work as everyone at work knew that he liked drinking a lot. He looked at me as if I'd asked if I could sleep with his wife and told me that he never had a hangover on his own time but he was beggured if he was going to walk out on 10 years of redundancy payments which is why he made a point of drinking heavily 4 days a week.

Within a month he was made redundant with a year's salary as a payoff.

PixelPound

Dan83 wrote: »

I live on the outskirts of Liverpool, a town called Kirkby. My 3 bedroom mid terrace house with decent size front and back gardens and off road parking cost £68k in Aug 11. Currently my mortgage is £301 p/m. There is a guy next door but 1 paying £600 p/m rent to a private landlord. I have no idea what social landlord rent is in this area, but I doubt it's less then £301 p/m.

I've not read all the post's, but in my area at least, I totally agree with what the opp is saying.

What's not factored into the equation is the upkeep. Social housing have fairly high minimum standards - council maisonettes down my road all getting new windows, insulation, etc because the double glazing they had wasn't up to latest standards, even though perfectly fine. Private rents are a whole new matter, since you tend to get fairly poor accommodation for sub £600 in private sector.

Mistermeaner

^ this

You can spot the houses still owned by the council/ha on estates near me as they a!l have new roofs windows and doors (and empty beer cans in the garden)