Article about Crashy in the DT today

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

chucknorris wrote: »

I bought most of mine between 1991 and 1993 Crashy, there was no credit bubble, very few were buying, prices were falling. You are the last person that I would expect to comment on other people's economic economic wisdom, I honestly can't think of anyone worse than you, for not only getting it wrong, but even worse, being totally oblivious to doing it.

Not only is he wrong he has lambasted the very people who got it so very right whether through luck or planning. I just think he's invested so much time, money and effort into the HPC dream that he thinks if he was to admit he was wrong at this point it would destroy him.

GreatApe

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I have two elderly, frail Nans. At least we don't have to add greedy LLs and thieving, lying agents to the list of worries about their welfare.

Greedy landlords rent out for free about 500,000 properties to mostly the old and the sick

westernpromise

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Reality is many people don`t have a clue about money...just lucked into a credit bubble, there wasn`t any real economic savvy involved...

Priceless, priceless stuff.

westernpromise

The most effective way for a homeowner to reduce the lifetime cost of housing him/herself is to wait 25 years and pay off the mortgage. The most effective way for a renter to reduce the lifetime cost of housing him/herself is to die young.

westernpromise

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Is your house worth less than you paid for it yet Hamish? How are the "soaring" rents up there? :T

Rents still rising according to the ONS :T
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/datasets/indexofprivatehousingrentalpricesreferencetables

Scotland up 0.4% year on year (see table 2) in the year to October. Data freshly published today Crashy. This is based on actual rents secured. Of course I'm sure you know better.:j

Crashy_Time

westernpromise wrote: »

Rents still rising according to the ONS :T
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/datasets/indexofprivatehousingrentalpricesreferencetables

Scotland up 0.4% year on year (see table 2) in the year to October. Data freshly published today Crashy. This is based on actual rents secured. Of course I'm sure you know better.:j

Do you have the ONS stats for London sales volumes handy?

getmore4less

Buying is the clear winner long term however you try to measure the numbers even if you buy at the peaks

The hard trick is timing the market to make it better win case by getting in at one of the low points.

The issue is that the cycle is 15-20 years so you only get one shot two if very lucky before you get too old to make it pay.

The current cycle from the high around 2007 the low point was 2012(ish) it's going to be a while for the next one.

The issue is that it is much easier for people to ride out the dips while rates are so low so any down turns are less pronounced and lower stock levels.

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Do you have the ONS stats for London sales volumes handy?

The rent stats (which was his link/post was about) include the London details on the link that he provided!

kinger101

chucknorris wrote: »

If someone had owned the same house for 60 years, they have most likely lived mortgage free for 35 years, plus the last 15 years mortgage payments would have been much lower than renting too. I'd say that would have helped boost their cash flow very nicely.

There's a good chance the mortgage repayments might have been below rent for the duration in many parts of the country. I never looked at it that crudely though. For me, the mortgage cost is the interest element, and the difference in the performance I may have got repaying loan versus investing.

In fact, I've deliberately taken higher LTVs because I'd rather invest in stocks and shares than reduce a sub 2% interest loan.

kinger101

Crashy_Time wrote: »

They have already funded it through taxation IMO, but most people don`t need care, not in the "Old Folks Home" sense of the word anyway. Cash flow is what is important at all stages of life, not whether you have been sitting in the same pile of bricks for 60 years.

The lower 60 percentile of households are net tax beneficiaries. Not that I have a problem with that. But most people would be much worse off if they only got back what they put in.

As for cash flow, the roof over your head is typically around one-third of income. Would be nice if that expense wasn't there in your retirement (or just diminished to maintenance costs). Better still if it's gone a decade or so sooner, and put toward a better retirement.