The Next Nail in the Coffin

chucknorris

economic wrote: »

yes but i think the true test is when it comes time to sell.

I have done it to death now, explaining when I am selling, and I'm getting bored of explaining it.

economic

yes but it will be the test whether you were right or wrong. only time will tell.

chucknorris

economic wrote: »

he did advise me to keep hold of my property and buy another in london. because im still young. i would say hes one of those buy and hold forever folks that will eventually lose it all if he doesnt sell.

What on earth are you talking about? This is what I said to you on that thread about 4 months ago:

chucknorris wrote: »

I think they are on the high side, we have 8 London properties, I'm probably going to sell a few in 2-4 years, but I'll be in my early 60's then, and it was always part of my plan to start selling at about that age. If I was your age, I wouldn't be concerned, especially if you only have one property.

What part of the above post did you not understand, which led you to say 'hes (sic) one of those buy and hold forever folks'?

Furthermore how we will lose everything? We have 8 London properties and 1 Surrey property, with only about a total of 12% LTV mortgages, and we have other assets worth approximately double the value of those mortgages. We could easily pay the mortgages off, but they are very low margin tracker mortgages with only a 1% rate, our dividend income is about 3.5%.

chucknorris

economic wrote: »

yes but it will be the test whether you were right or wrong. only time will tell.

Right or wrong about what?

tkane

economic wrote: »

when people talk about london prices falling or rising they really ar missing the fact that it is highly location dependent.

prices in different areas in london go up or down at different rates at any one time.

central prime london has now stagnated or is falling. inner london has cooled down and is flat lining. outer london is rising. this is all in general still.

my view is prices in inner london has now peaked in real terms. outer may peak this year soon.

so i dont think london is a good invesment anymore for property both short term and perhaps even long term (but who knows).

Outer London Zones 3-5 is red hot. Will go up 20% or so over the next 3 years, at least.

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Of course if there is some posted evidence of his real market timing genius that I have missed I will take all that back...:rotfl:

Nothing genius about it crashy, it was just plain common sense to buy back then in the 90's. But the funny (tragic) thing is, wasn't it in the 90's when you also actually sold? :rotfl:

So on this post there are no geniuses, but at least one of us has some common sense.:rotfl:

cells

In London if prices stop going up then it is now a bad investment. Anyone buying this year is really hoping for at least a 8-10% HPI uplift to cover the now very high transaction costs.

I'm still buying but its definitely more risky than it has been. Threads like this do make me think and question a bit more but when I look at my local market its on fire.

Properties you agree to purchase by the time of completion look like good value compared to what is arriving on the agents books. That gives me enough confidence to go ahead with things.

Its like agreeing to buy a share a $10 and the market moving to $10.50 by the time you are actually exchanging.


I think this year I will spend a bit more time on downside risk management. Maybe top up the pension (free from creditors AFAIK) and maybe look into trusts. It feels a bit like the nutters who prep for the end of the world but that's the pressure/influence of group think

chucknorris

cells wrote: »

I think this year I will spend a bit more time on downside risk management. Maybe top up the pension (free from creditors AFAIK)

That is what I have been doing (DB pension and shares) since 2008, I haven't invested in property since then, and will not be again (not in the UK anyway).

Generali

It will be interesting to see what happens as interest rates rise. Increased interest rates will make BTL rapidly worse as an investment due to the new tax treatments and so will make other asset classes more attractive on a relative POV.

It's not just Central London, a survey of Central Sydney recently showed 70,000 empty properties in prime areas as the yield from renting them out simply isn't worth the hassle, depreciation (which can be expensed anyway) and risk.

I do have to wonder how much longer this can continue: buying for purely speculative purposes. The original point was to buy a house, tenant comes in and pays the rent and pays off your mortgage and then pays you an income in retirement. If interest rates rise, for more recent entrants to the London market, rents aren't going to be close to covering the mortgage.

Generali

cells wrote: »

As the world gets richer capital grows and capital and asset managers will earn more. As the world gets richer they will consume more software more film more advertising more fashion and they will want to travail the world more and visit tourist locations and spend lots of money all of which will benefit London and none of which will benefit stoke-on-trent.

Surely as the world gets richer more assets will be created for people to buy....? Otherwise our pensions would be held in shares in the East India Company and we'd be fighting over the 30 houses available for purchase in the village of Putney.

Don't get me wrong, network effects have made property in places that benefit from them much more valuable but there is a limit to that extra value before political pressure comes to bear to enable people to commute from further away or to provide more housing.

Just as political pressure is starting to come to bear on the BTL market.

Would you be hugely surprised if Labour stood on a policy of some Commissar setting rents and imposing tenure periods? I wouldn't.