A scheme to avoid on Rightmove ?

Davesnave

One could argue that if a full medical was included it would be 'fairer.'



After all, one can bump-up an annuity pay-out by proving a history of couch potato beer-swilling and chain smoking!

Tom74

I wish Rightmove would ban this kind of agent, as the purchaser is not really buying the house at all.

westernpromise

Tom99 wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Getting back on track, the property is offered at 66% of its full value for a 69 year old male so with a life expectancy of 85 years £191,400 is buying a 17 year lease.[/FONT]

Or to put that another way it's £11,258 a year to rent it, paid in advance. Assuming a rental yield of about 4% that suggests the fair market value of the property is about £281k.

It feels like a bit of a punt to be honest. If you lived to 90 it looks cheap, if you live to 75 it looks expensive. Is it a scam to evade care home fees liability?

westernpromise

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

What is the price for a 69 year old female?

Per year of life expectancy, probably the same.

Tom99

westernpromise wrote: »

Or to put that another way it's £11,258 a year to rent it, paid in advance. Assuming a rental yield of about 4% that suggests the fair market value of the property is about £281k.

Using that logic the full price would only buy a 25 year lease.

westernpromise

Tom99 wrote: »

Using that logic the full price would only buy a 25 year lease.

Well, yes. If you rent a property for long enough, you can pay more rent than buying it would have cost, and still not own it.

It's not very grossly mispriced as long as you consider it a rental, but like all rentals it's a very expensive way to inhabit property in the first place.

What I find a bit objectionable is that although it's basically a long-term rental commitment, it's couched as though you're buying something, when you aren't.

Tom99

westernpromise wrote: »

It's not very grossly mispriced as long as you consider it a rental, but like all rentals it's a very expensive way to inhabit property in the first place.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I think it is overpriced. Using lease extension prices as a comparison 66% relativity would buy you a 45 year lease not a 17 year one.[/FONT]

westernpromise

It's not a lease, though, because as I read it it's not of fixed duration. All they've done is work out how long the renter is going to live, then gross up the appropriate number of years of rent. Thus capitalised, the rents become the price. To kid you you're still an owner, you get to pay for its upkeep.

It's a PCP scheme for houses without the buy option at the end.

moneyistooshorttomention

westernpromise wrote: »

Per year of life expectancy, probably the same.

As we know - I mean the exact price - in £s.:)

The answer is very conspicuous by its absence at the moment - just saying...

There's a saying coming to mind here "Tell the truth and shame the Devil"......

So, if anyone knows the truth (ie that price), it would be useful...

Red-Squirrel_2

Oh look:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/24/boys-vaccinated-against-hpv-cancer-england

Great news. Not comparable.