Article about Crashy in the DT today

molerat

All I can say is that if I had to pay £700 pm - that is £12353 pa in earnings ! - to rent my house I certainly would not have been able to afford to retire at 55.

chucknorris

kinger101 wrote: »

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.

Me too, all my mortgages are interest only, but people like Crashy are incapable of such thoughts, he only understands simple concepts (like the mortgage could have been paid off by now).

My average mortgage rate is just over 1%. We've got over 4 times the value of our mortgages stored elsewhere (excluding property).

00ec25

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Makes you wonder why the country is in such a state with it`s national and personal borrowing doesn`t it? Reality is many people don`t have a clue about money and spend all or nearly all of everything they get (including some governments) most long term property owners (including yourself) just lucked into a credit bubble, there wasn`t any real economic savvy involved, many outright owners will have been relying on the property for their retirement, many will now wish they had other plans in place.

so easy to pick Crashy apart with the real life examples his fixated view has closed his mind to

bought my first house in 1991
paid its mortgage off in 2000 by which time it was let

no plans to sell as the income flow is steady and the "current" tenant has been there for 15 years as at 2017. Were I to sell now, it has risen in value by 430% so keep dreaming of your HPC nirvana and I'll carry on laughing. Yes South East "bubbles", ie where the people and jobs are so the property keeps being needed!

kinger101

00ec25 wrote: »

and the "current" tenant has been there for 15 years as at 2017

Crashies are godsends to landlords.

chucknorris

kinger101 wrote: »

Crashies are godsends to landlords.

The best part is that he actually thinks that he is getting the value.

phillw

Crashy_Time wrote: »

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

As long as you don't lose more than it would cost to have rented then you're fine.

Caring if house prices have dropped when adjusted for inflation is missing the point.

chucknorris

ilovehouses wrote: »

A fiftysomething living in a £400 Edinburgh suburb rented flat reads an article about how being a sixtysomething renting in retirement might find their cashflow damaged and he's only worried about whether his London friends will be able to sell.

He's a thoroughly nice guy but he really ought to start putting himself first.

Crashy cares more about London house prices than I do, which is very weird, given that he rents in Edinburgh, and we own investment property in London.

chucknorris

phillw wrote: »

As long as you don't lose more than it would cost to have rented then you're fine.

Caring if house prices have dropped when adjusted for inflation is missing the point.

Exactly, and not only that of course, having your own place brings to the table a lot more than just financial value.

BananaRepublic

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Makes you wonder why the country is in such a state with it`s national and personal borrowing doesn`t it? Reality is many people don`t have a clue about money and spend all or nearly all of everything they get (including some governments) most long term property owners (including yourself) just lucked into a credit bubble, there wasn`t any real economic savvy involved, many outright owners will have been relying on the property for their retirement, many will now wish they had other plans in place.

The reality is quite different. Those with sufficient income can save for a deposit, and then hop onto the property merry go round. From then on their hard earned money goes into paying off the mortgage. Those on lower incomes never save enough to cover the deposit and remain as renters for the rest of their lives. Unless of course they have recourse to the bank of mum and dad, or rich relatives pop off.

This is something that strikes me as grossly unfair. I would support a government scheme whereby the state builds homes, and then allows people to rent the homes, in the understanding that after 15 years say, they will have paid off a certain proportion of the value, and will become entitled to buy the property at a market value minus the amount notionally paid off. No longer needing a deposit, they will be able to get a mortgage to cover the purchase. I suspect there will be huge problems with this, the main one being the sheer cost of building sufficient properties in the first place. And then of course many will object on political grounds.

westernpromise

The main problem would be that few FTBs stay in the same house for 15 years so the houses would rarely be held long enough to be sold. The shortfall between what they cost to build and what they let for would be handed to me. So I would certainly oppose any such scheme.