House prices

Tahlullah

HPC_Ghuol_Hunter wrote: »

To be honest I am not sure why you are trying to shout at me in such an abrupt manner. I certainly didn't make, nor ask that you and your overweight partner breed, least of all that you fail to adequately invest in your own, and subseqnetly your own childrens future. A little bit of decency and self-restraint minght not go amiss on your side. :beer::j:money::p;):D:o:cool::rotfl::T:A:)

Wow! I need to go back and read the whole thread. Did he say his partner was overweight?

Harsh...

silverwhistle

gazzabboi wrote: »

Y Let's look at it a different way, standard corner shop you get a bottle of coke for £1. Service station it costs £2.50. It's not good value for money regardless of how hard you are working to buy it. But you buy it because you need it

My bolding. No you don't, you want it. The need is keeping your fluid levels up, which you could achieve by refilling a bottle at home.

I don't think the multiplying of asset prices is a good thing as it distorts the economy, makes it more rigid and diverts capital away from more productive capital investment. The people who say that prices will continue to go up never seem to look at the logical implications of ever increasing salary multipliers.

But before you go on about older property owners look at some of the other posts on this thread. When I bought at 28 I'd been variously living in digs and at my parents as I moved round the south on a graduate scheme and then a number of jobs. I didn't own a car before I bought, had a small portable B&W TV and in those days no phones or computers (apart from the big mainframes at work). When I bought I had second-hand furniture for years, took in lodgers for a bit when interest rates reached 15% or so. I've still never owned a colour TV, although I admit that is inertia and lack of desire rather than finances! But the point remains that although it's difficult now everybody has had to make choices on their spending.

In your situation you should be filling that water bottle, not buying a coke.

Batman2017

westernpromise wrote: »

Banks are indifferent to house prices. Their balance sheet does not alter when the value of a house they have lent against changes.

Estate agents are also indifferent to house prices. They make money on volume, not price, which is why they always lean on sellers to reduce the price.

Perhaps i'm wrong but if house prices rocket then buyers need to borrow more to buy the house. That means the bank lends more money at a higher interest rate courtesy of a higher LTV. Buyers will probably spread this increased cost over more years which means more interest recouped.

With regards to estate agents they work off a % of the sale so how do they not benefit from higher prices?

Happy to be put right if you can counter my point :beer:

Batman2017

chucknorris wrote: »

Some people say they work hard, but I suspect some of them really don't know what hard work is. When I was in my 30's I was working at least 50 hours a week in my day job (chartered quantity surveyor) and I was also working building up and running two of my own businesses (that 10 years later were making more money than my salary). If he was working as hard as I was, he would never see his children, and I mean never! Except for extremely brief moments. I worked late(ish) every evening, and quite late other nights in my day job, and for the businesses every weekend, some evenings (after work) and all my holidays too. I never actually had a holiday from 32 to 42 years old, apart from 1 week, and it created so much pressure I never had another one for many years. I couldn't do it now, to be honest, I would rather be dead, than have to go through that again, but back then I was really driven, I wanted to become financially independent.

Full respect to you for your work ethic and achievement. I'm sure you did this for the good of your family but it sounds bloody awful. Surely your children and you would of preferred to have spent more family time together than have lots of money?

ukcarper

Batman2017 wrote: »

Perhaps i'm wrong but if house prices rocket then buyers need to borrow more to buy the house. That means the bank lends more money at a higher interest rate courtesy of a higher LTV. Buyers will probably spread this increased cost over more years which means more interest recouped.

With regards to estate agents they work off a % of the sale so how do they not benefit from higher prices?

Happy to be put right if you can counter my point :beer:

The amount you can borrow and banks can lend is limited, so fewer people can buy. This reduced the number of house that agents sell and overall commission.

lisyloo

economic wrote: »

why isnt it possible to do that now? people can commute even from outside of london into the city of london for work. i knew someone who used to commute everyday from bristol into london for work!

people born to parents who have a home in london can easily save for a deposit if they stayed with their parents longer to commute into town for work. it really is a simple choice - stay with family to save on rent to buy a house later or rent and buy house much much later.

Some people have do the school run or elderly parent run.
Some people can't operate on little sleep (I gave up a long commute after a car crash - caused by fatigue).
Some people/jobs can't afford the cost.
Many people don't live near main line train stations.
Some people don't drive and live somewhere there is poor public transport. It only really works well for city -> city.
Some people aren't able bodied and able to do the waking involved in public transport.


I suspect the person commuting from Bristol to London didn't do the school run and had a well paid job to cover their train fares as that's at least a 9K annual cost (I use that line myself).
They also had access to a mainline route and probably didn't live/work a million miles away at either end (which is just pure luck if it was your parents choice of location).


My parents got divorced and my Dad said he "didn't want to be a landlord" so not all parents are willing to house their adult children.
It is not obligatory so it's not an automatic option for everyone.


I agree with you that it's an option for some whose parents are willing. but it's absolutely a fact that it's not an option for everyone as parents are not obliged to house adult offspring. How can you say it's a simple choice when it's not available to some people?


The actually point I was making - to someone I suspect is younger is that it was NEVER EASY for previous generations.
(I personally found it very easy but I appreciate that's the exception not the rule).


It's pretty obvious that housing is a finite resource and it's going to go to those who put themselves out the most OR have the most outside help. What I wouldn't agree with is that this is a level playing field. If you don't have parents will to house you then you can't stay at home and that's that.

MobileSaver

gazzabboi wrote: »

It is other people's fault, for asking too much for their houses

OK, so "it is other people's fault", not yours; can you therefore confirm that if it went on the market today you would be selling your house for the same £195k price you paid for it? Or would you be pricing your property at an incredible £75,000 more than you paid for it?

MobileSaver

Batman2017 wrote: »

Surely your children and you would of preferred to have spent more family time together than have lots of money?

I'd have thought horses for courses. The other side of the coin is the likes of Crashy, gazzabboi and the entire HPC crowd where a bread-winning family member is forever angry at the world and "it's someone else's fault" they're not as financially successful as chuck.

Someone who made sacrifices early in life and was fortunate to be successful gets to enjoy their (ever increasing) later years with a smile on their face. Others who made poor financial decisions may well still be angry and miserable until the day they shuffle off this mortal coil.

lisyloo

I did shared ownership in 1991.
After the 5 years was up, house prices were DOWN from what we'd paid and the 20% was still owned.
We foresaw this and we paid off the second charge at a 9% discount after 4 years.
I'm wondering whether the OP would prefer this position? because it was impossible for people to move if jobs or family size demanded it.
Personally I think it's a worse position to be in.
Perhaps that doesn't help the OP much but might help their attitude towards the situation.

lisyloo

Batman2017 wrote: »

Perhaps i'm wrong but if house prices rocket then buyers need to borrow more to buy the house. That means the bank lends more money at a higher interest rate courtesy of a higher LTV. Buyers will probably spread this increased cost over more years which means more interest recouped.

With regards to estate agents they work off a % of the sale so how do they not benefit from higher prices?

Happy to be put right if you can counter my point :beer:

Well I'll have a go at the last one.
It's a bit more complicated than just a straight %.
Estate agents benefit from lots of sales.
The market is currently stalling with very low transaction levels, this is in part due to rising prices but also other factors like stamp duty and uncertainty over brexit.
Estate agents would prefer to have a smaller amount on a larger number of sales than a larger amount on a tiny number of sales.
So I'm prepared to conclude that estate agents don't benefit from rising prices if those prices are so high that very few can actually make a sale.