Why won't the agent take no for an answer?

Crashy_Time

lisyloo wrote: »

Ok, so we have 1/3rd million net immigration (high % economically active) and 1/3rd million natural growth and we know we’re not building enough houses.
That looks like a major factor against a house price crash to me.

Crashy wants a house price crash and doesn’t like what happened.
But what crashy wants and thinks isn’t a factor.

Population growth and unemployment rates are major factors.

FWIW - I own my home and it’s value to me is as a place to live so I’m not personally invested in what happens to house prices. I may not even sell during my lifetime.

That doesn`t come across in your posting IMO, you sound VERY keen not to have prices fall, in fact you are one of the most vocal posters IMO on prices not being allowed to fall as this is a very bad thing. This isn`t consistent with the prevailing economic realities or the mood in the country IMO.

Crashy_Time

lisyloo wrote: »

No it’s not.
It the 1/3rd million net immigration every year coupled with the lack of building new homes.
Strong demand for homes will continue whilst we have record low unemployment.

I’m not trying to justify any banking actions, just that mathematically if you planning to stay in one place it’s a mathematical certainty that you’ll be better off buying than renting over the long term. There are exceptions such as sink holes but they are the exceptions.

There are also exceptions such as major cities...

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/let-the-bloodbath-begin-house-prices-in-sydney-and-melbourne-could-halve-in-worst-crash-since-1890s/news-story/5918ea13042d5f819cb13c77629f060a

I suppose there might be a possibility, maybe, of a "Mathematical certainty" if you choose very very carefully where you buy, otherwise predicting "Mathematical certainty" in regard to this global house price bubble and economic climate is terrible investment advice IMO. As I have said many times...this isn`t the 90`s.....

lisyloo

Crashy_Time wrote: »

There are also exceptions such as major cities...

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/let-the-bloodbath-begin-house-prices-in-sydney-and-melbourne-could-halve-in-worst-crash-since-1890s/news-story/5918ea13042d5f819cb13c77629f060a

I suppose there might be a possibility, maybe, of a "Mathematical certainty" if you choose very very carefully where you buy, otherwise predicting "Mathematical certainty" in regard to this global house price bubble and economic climate is terrible investment advice IMO. As I have said many times...this isn`t the 90`s.....

I may not have made it clear but I was talking about a home for the long term (and you can move).

I disagree with you.
Paying repayments means you end up with a house after 25 years (many do it in less - I did it in 22 including a move upwards so I was mortgage free at age 44).

It is absolutely a certainty that if you pay the mortgage you get a house that you can live rent free in for the rest of you life which may be several decades.
You don’t have to stick with the same house of course you can transfer your equity.

Advice to rent for a long term home is bad advice IMO.
Of course if it’s an investment or your economically mobile then that’s a different matter, but long term it’s better to buy a home and pretty much the only way to get a comfortable retirment these days as paying rent in retirement is not a great plan.

I was mortgage free at 44 with a dream home, perhaps you can present your credentials for the OP? Still with mummy and daddy in your 50s? Single? Living in a grubby HMO? I doubt you will which tells us everything we need to know, but would be nice for the OP to know who they’re taking advice from.

Crashy_Time

lisyloo wrote: »

I may not have made it clear but I was talking about a home for the long term (and you can move).

I disagree with you.
Paying repayments means you end up with a house after 25 years (many do it in less - I did it in 22 including a move upwards so I was mortgage free at age 44).

It is absolutely a certainty that if you pay the mortgage you get a house that you can live rent free in for the rest of you life which may be several decades.
You don’t have to stick with the same house of course you can transfer your equity.

Advice to rent for a long term home is bad advice IMO.
Of course if it’s an investment or your economically mobile then that’s a different matter, but long term it’s better to buy a home and pretty much the only way to get a comfortable retirment these days as paying rent in retirement is not a great plan.

I was mortgage free at 44 with a dream home, perhaps you can present your credentials for the OP? Still with mummy and daddy in your 50s? Single? Living in a grubby HMO? I doubt you will which tells us everything we need to know, but would be nice for the OP to know who they’re taking advice from.

You have talked about "mathematical certainty" regarding a 20 to maybe 40 year debt burden at interest and said buying (borrowing is what most are doing) a house is "pretty much the only way to get a comfortable retirement" - Those two statements alone, and your obvious desire/need for prices to stay high would negate any investment/financial advice you give for me I`m afraid. It never ceases to amaze me how many posters there are on here with a "dream home" who type away day after day making sure that any discussions around falling prices are discredited as much as possible! Truly eye-opening to how houses and house prices have become many people`s main savings pot.

lisyloo

Those two statements alone, and your obvious desire/need for prices to stay high

What a complete loaf of rubbish you’ve made up.
I don’t need prices to stay high at all.
You get the benefit from an owned property in retirment by LIVING iN IT and paying ZERO rent.
You’re just making stuff up.

I’m happy to discuss corrections.

Yes successful people do like to discredit those who are just making stuff up as you clearly have been exposed to be.

It’s certainly not my main savings pot (another completely made up statement).
I have more in my pension.
I don’t regard my home as a liquid asset and I’m not reliant on its value in any way.

You’re a liar.
Care to tell us about your circs and success?? Or do you need to do your homework?

Albala

AdrianC wrote: »

Natural growth figures - the number of births minus the number of deaths - are published. They show that natural growth is on a par with net migration as a contributor to population growth.

Of course, natural growth is a drag on the economy - because babies and the elderly aren't economically active - whereas migrants are mostly economically active (more so, by most measures, than the population that's born here).

That often gets countered by "Oh, but the babies are born to migrants" - as if one baby is somehow inherently inferior to another, simply because of where its parents were born...

And there are more smaller households, due to families splitting up and living apart.

AdrianC

Albala wrote: »

And there are more smaller households, due to families splitting up and living apart.

Average household size in the UK has remained static - 2.4 people - for the last decade or so. The number of households has increased by about the same number - 7% - as the number of people.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2016#average-household-size-remains-stable-over-the-decade-to-2016

Crashy_Time

lisyloo wrote: »

What a complete loaf of rubbish you’ve made up.
I don’t need prices to stay high at all.
You get the benefit from an owned property in retirment by LIVING iN IT and paying ZERO rent.
You’re just making stuff up.

I’m happy to discuss corrections.

Yes successful people do like to discredit those who are just making stuff up as you clearly have been exposed to be.

It’s certainly not my main savings pot (another completely made up statement).
I have more in my pension.
I don’t regard my home as a liquid asset and I’m not reliant on its value in any way.

You’re a liar.
Care to tell us about your circs and success?? Or do you need to do your homework?

Your statements about mathamatical certainty and the only way to save for retirement are just wrong, no amount of calling people liars changes that I`m afraid.

Crashy_Time

Anyway, the markets are getting interesting today, I`m off to make a few investments.

lisyloo

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Your statements about mathamatical certainty and the only way to save for retirement are just wrong, no amount of calling people liars changes that I`m afraid.

No it isn’t.
If you pay a mortgage for 25 years it’s a mathematical certainty that its better than paying rent 60 years.
There are other things to factor in like insurance maintenance for sure but it’s nowhere near.

If you think it’s wrong then you need to put up a case as to why 25 years mortgage is NOT better than 60 years rent.
Random articles about the market in Sydney wont do it (that’s your usual trick).

Calling you an exposed liar doesn’t change any facts but it does expose you for what you are to newbies.

Are you still living with mum and dad or on your own in an HMO?