Is now really a bad time to buy?

Crashy_Time

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Getting_greyer said:

I always saw wealth as a stock. The net balance between assets and liabilities.  Is a  house an asset?   Depends on the circumstances.  The royalties example is more of a passive income from the asset of the copyright.  Whilst interesting not helpful to op so sorry for that.

The royalties example is a classic example of wealth from a one off effort that doesn`t need to be repeated on an ongoing basis, so real wealth (probably not a B-movie actor who did one great film though) the "passive income" idea was sold to the public by the real passive income players as BTL.

So it looks like you've now reverted to linking wealth to lack of effort, and added a new term of "real wealth". Please provide a source for your "standard" definition of wealth and explain how you differentiate wealth and "real wealth".

Crashy_Time said:

Splatfoot said:

We are in the process of selling our house. I have bought and sold at profit 3 times in my life so far. This is the last time, after buying at the end of 2006 just before the crash, as the next house we buy will be with no mortgage. I would never have been able to earn as much money through working as I have done through property. If I'd been renting all these years, I would absolutely be kicking myself. 

You can`t do anything with your "earnings" though if it is always tied up in property, or if house prices crash? True wealth is something you can access when you need it without having to sell the roof over your head.

You can't do anything with a big chunk of your "earnings" though if you will always need them to pay rent, and you can't spend any of them if they are in a frozen fund. You also might be left only being able to spend a reduced % of them if stock markets crash. A superlative of wealth could be said to be not having to access funds because nobody else can sell the roof over your head.

1) Maybe try googling "royalty payment" and see how much effort is required after the initial creation process, think about the writers of the song "Yesterday", do you think the surviving one still gets paid, and how much effort do you think he has to make regarding being paid this royalty?
2) You are just trying too hard to have property not be an illiquid asset, it is, everyone knows this. The only fund of mine "frozen" in this crisis was a pension fund with property exposure, everything else could be traded quite easily.

1) Thanks for the advice but I am aware what a royalty payment is. What isn't clear is your characterisation of it as one of a few (the only?) form of wealth (or "true"/"real" or whichever adjective you choose next wealth). I think the Beatles sold the copyright for their songs long ago, in fact. Paul McCartney tried to get some rights back and settled out of court, so who knows who gets paid when 'Yesterday' is played. It isn't really relevant. In fact decent IP royalties are relevant to such a small proportion of people (successful artists/performers etc.) that I really don't know why you're so obsessed with it. Have you had a one hit wonder?
2) Another very transparent attempt at a strawman argument. I have never once said (and nor do I think) that you can immediately sell a house at the click of a mouse. What I have said is that is not relevant to wealth assessment. It is you that is trying too hard to deny that property is an asset and may be considered part of a person's wealth. According to you HMRC, divorce courts, bankruptcy receivers etc. must be deluded when they ask for details of property ownership, why don't you write and tell them how misguided they are?

Were you tempted to prove the 'liquidity' of your remaining assets when they crashed by 40%?

1) Yes, only a small proportion of people are truly wealthy, that is why it is a good example.
2) Yes, property is an asset, no one is denying it, it doesn`t mean everyone with a property is wealthy though because lot`s of people have property as an asset but only a small proportion of people can be described as "wealthy".
Any way you try to cut it, Granny Jones who owns her bungalow outright for years and can feed herself three decent meals a day isn`t "wealthy".

1) You still haven't provided a source for your "standard" definition of wealth, or "true" wealth etc. Wealth is subjective and if it is now your assertion that only people that earn royalties from world famous songs are 'truly' wealthy then that is ridiculous. 
2) I am glad that you have finally admitted that. Also, I have at no point said that everyone with a property is wealthy, I said it would depend on individual factors (yet another transparent attempt at a strawman argument presumably compelled by your vested interest (VI) condition).
Regarding "Granny Jones", however, that fits comfortably within one of your previous definitions of wealth (I know you have see-sawed about but it shouldn't be that hard for you to remember). I'll quote you below for ease of reference:
You highlighted this section of my post:

- if someone has sufficient means they might not need to work for a wage any more but that is to do with their level of wealth 

and then said this:
"You are getting the point I made now, we are talking about the definition of wealth, not about the "effort required to come by wealth".
So "Granny Jones" has sufficient means that she doen't need to work for a wage and thus, according to you, is wealthy. Moreover, if 'Granny Jones' feels that she is wealthy then who are you to tell her that she isn't?

Being able to feed yourself and go to the bingo once a week isn`t really how most people define wealth.

You can’t make up your own mind as to how you define wealth and contradict yourself so much that I really doubt you have any insight into how most people define it. Granny Jones might be able to afford to do whatever she wants because she doesn’t have to spend any of her pension on rent.

Unless Granny has a pretty substantial pension it is unlikely to get her categorised as "wealthy". Most sensible people can accept this definition.

Crashy_Time

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Splatfoot said:

We are in the process of selling our house. I have bought and sold at profit 3 times in my life so far. This is the last time, after buying at the end of 2006 just before the crash, as the next house we buy will be with no mortgage. I would never have been able to earn as much money through working as I have done through property. If I'd been renting all these years, I would absolutely be kicking myself. 

You can`t do anything with your "earnings" though if it is always tied up in property, or if house prices crash? True wealth is something you can access when you need it without having to sell the roof over your head.

Economic wealth is an accessible fund to trade with. Monetary wealth is net worth. The ability to earn is potential revenue but is not measured as wealth. "True wealth" can be anything you want it to be, in monetary terms it means nothing.

If you knew what you were talking about you would be able to explain.

 Most sensible people understand that a "wealthy" person can lay their hands on 100k easier and quicker than a "Non wealthy" person, it isn`t any more complicated than that really. Having 100k "equity" in your house doesn`t make you wealthy, for obvious reasons.

This is just completely daft. You are talking about the availability of liquid funds. I know that you are absolutely obsessed with liquidity but its meaning is not a co-definition of wealth.

The availability of liquid funds is only one piece of the puzzle.

The availability of liquid funds is only relevant to liquidity. If one person has £100k in the bank and another owns a £200k house outright, who is wealthier?

One is "cash rich" the other is "equity rich", one will have a much easier time deploying their monetary power than the other, but again this has nothing to do with how "wealthy" is defined.

Parking_Eyerate

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Getting_greyer said:

I always saw wealth as a stock. The net balance between assets and liabilities.  Is a  house an asset?   Depends on the circumstances.  The royalties example is more of a passive income from the asset of the copyright.  Whilst interesting not helpful to op so sorry for that.

The royalties example is a classic example of wealth from a one off effort that doesn`t need to be repeated on an ongoing basis, so real wealth (probably not a B-movie actor who did one great film though) the "passive income" idea was sold to the public by the real passive income players as BTL.

So it looks like you've now reverted to linking wealth to lack of effort, and added a new term of "real wealth". Please provide a source for your "standard" definition of wealth and explain how you differentiate wealth and "real wealth".

Crashy_Time said:

Splatfoot said:

We are in the process of selling our house. I have bought and sold at profit 3 times in my life so far. This is the last time, after buying at the end of 2006 just before the crash, as the next house we buy will be with no mortgage. I would never have been able to earn as much money through working as I have done through property. If I'd been renting all these years, I would absolutely be kicking myself. 

You can`t do anything with your "earnings" though if it is always tied up in property, or if house prices crash? True wealth is something you can access when you need it without having to sell the roof over your head.

You can't do anything with a big chunk of your "earnings" though if you will always need them to pay rent, and you can't spend any of them if they are in a frozen fund. You also might be left only being able to spend a reduced % of them if stock markets crash. A superlative of wealth could be said to be not having to access funds because nobody else can sell the roof over your head.

1) Maybe try googling "royalty payment" and see how much effort is required after the initial creation process, think about the writers of the song "Yesterday", do you think the surviving one still gets paid, and how much effort do you think he has to make regarding being paid this royalty?
2) You are just trying too hard to have property not be an illiquid asset, it is, everyone knows this. The only fund of mine "frozen" in this crisis was a pension fund with property exposure, everything else could be traded quite easily.

1) Thanks for the advice but I am aware what a royalty payment is. What isn't clear is your characterisation of it as one of a few (the only?) form of wealth (or "true"/"real" or whichever adjective you choose next wealth). I think the Beatles sold the copyright for their songs long ago, in fact. Paul McCartney tried to get some rights back and settled out of court, so who knows who gets paid when 'Yesterday' is played. It isn't really relevant. In fact decent IP royalties are relevant to such a small proportion of people (successful artists/performers etc.) that I really don't know why you're so obsessed with it. Have you had a one hit wonder?
2) Another very transparent attempt at a strawman argument. I have never once said (and nor do I think) that you can immediately sell a house at the click of a mouse. What I have said is that is not relevant to wealth assessment. It is you that is trying too hard to deny that property is an asset and may be considered part of a person's wealth. According to you HMRC, divorce courts, bankruptcy receivers etc. must be deluded when they ask for details of property ownership, why don't you write and tell them how misguided they are?

Were you tempted to prove the 'liquidity' of your remaining assets when they crashed by 40%?

1) Yes, only a small proportion of people are truly wealthy, that is why it is a good example.
2) Yes, property is an asset, no one is denying it, it doesn`t mean everyone with a property is wealthy though because lot`s of people have property as an asset but only a small proportion of people can be described as "wealthy".
Any way you try to cut it, Granny Jones who owns her bungalow outright for years and can feed herself three decent meals a day isn`t "wealthy".

1) You still haven't provided a source for your "standard" definition of wealth, or "true" wealth etc. Wealth is subjective and if it is now your assertion that only people that earn royalties from world famous songs are 'truly' wealthy then that is ridiculous. 
2) I am glad that you have finally admitted that. Also, I have at no point said that everyone with a property is wealthy, I said it would depend on individual factors (yet another transparent attempt at a strawman argument presumably compelled by your vested interest (VI) condition).
Regarding "Granny Jones", however, that fits comfortably within one of your previous definitions of wealth (I know you have see-sawed about but it shouldn't be that hard for you to remember). I'll quote you below for ease of reference:
You highlighted this section of my post:

- if someone has sufficient means they might not need to work for a wage any more but that is to do with their level of wealth 

and then said this:
"You are getting the point I made now, we are talking about the definition of wealth, not about the "effort required to come by wealth".
So "Granny Jones" has sufficient means that she doen't need to work for a wage and thus, according to you, is wealthy. Moreover, if 'Granny Jones' feels that she is wealthy then who are you to tell her that she isn't?

Being able to feed yourself and go to the bingo once a week isn`t really how most people define wealth.

You can’t make up your own mind as to how you define wealth and contradict yourself so much that I really doubt you have any insight into how most people define it. Granny Jones might be able to afford to do whatever she wants because she doesn’t have to spend any of her pension on rent.

Unless Granny has a pretty substantial pension it is unlikely to get her categorised as "wealthy". Most sensible people can accept this definition.

You’ve made such a claim multiple times now so please provide a source for your “standard” definition, oh immensely sensible one.

Parking_Eyerate

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Splatfoot said:

We are in the process of selling our house. I have bought and sold at profit 3 times in my life so far. This is the last time, after buying at the end of 2006 just before the crash, as the next house we buy will be with no mortgage. I would never have been able to earn as much money through working as I have done through property. If I'd been renting all these years, I would absolutely be kicking myself. 

You can`t do anything with your "earnings" though if it is always tied up in property, or if house prices crash? True wealth is something you can access when you need it without having to sell the roof over your head.

Economic wealth is an accessible fund to trade with. Monetary wealth is net worth. The ability to earn is potential revenue but is not measured as wealth. "True wealth" can be anything you want it to be, in monetary terms it means nothing.

If you knew what you were talking about you would be able to explain.

 Most sensible people understand that a "wealthy" person can lay their hands on 100k easier and quicker than a "Non wealthy" person, it isn`t any more complicated than that really. Having 100k "equity" in your house doesn`t make you wealthy, for obvious reasons.

This is just completely daft. You are talking about the availability of liquid funds. I know that you are absolutely obsessed with liquidity but its meaning is not a co-definition of wealth.

The availability of liquid funds is only one piece of the puzzle.

The availability of liquid funds is only relevant to liquidity. If one person has £100k in the bank and another owns a £200k house outright, who is wealthier?

One is "cash rich" the other is "equity rich", one will have a much easier time deploying their monetary power than the other, but again this has nothing to do with how "wealthy" is defined.

None of which answers the question, not that I should be surprised. 

eidand

can you two not create a separate thread about the definition of wealth? do you not see how pointless and spammy this is ?

Norman_Castle

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Splatfoot said:

We are in the process of selling our house. I have bought and sold at profit 3 times in my life so far. This is the last time, after buying at the end of 2006 just before the crash, as the next house we buy will be with no mortgage. I would never have been able to earn as much money through working as I have done through property. If I'd been renting all these years, I would absolutely be kicking myself. 

You can`t do anything with your "earnings" though if it is always tied up in property, or if house prices crash? True wealth is something you can access when you need it without having to sell the roof over your head.

Economic wealth is an accessible fund to trade with. Monetary wealth is net worth. The ability to earn is potential revenue but is not measured as wealth. "True wealth" can be anything you want it to be, in monetary terms it means nothing.

If you knew what you were talking about you would be able to explain.

 Most sensible people understand that a "wealthy" person can lay their hands on 100k easier and quicker than a "Non wealthy" person, it isn`t any more complicated than that really. Having 100k "equity" in your house doesn`t make you wealthy, for obvious reasons.

This is just completely daft. You are talking about the availability of liquid funds. I know that you are absolutely obsessed with liquidity but its meaning is not a co-definition of wealth.

The availability of liquid funds is only one piece of the puzzle.

The availability of liquid funds is only relevant to liquidity. If one person has £100k in the bank and another owns a £200k house outright, who is wealthier?

One is "cash rich" the other is "equity rich", one will have a much easier time deploying their monetary power than the other, but again this has nothing to do with how "wealthy" is defined.

You clearly have knowledge beyond mine. Please explain how "wealthy" is defined.

graphs

Parking_Eyerate said:

graphs said:

I would wait. I take home over 3k per month and that is currently being matched in price falls (according to the nationwide) 

So as I am all good to go and set to enter the property market.. in effect I am 6 grand richer per month.

Do your sums. Increase your buying power.

Wow, so you’ll then definitely be able to buy a house that costs £150k at the moment for just half that in cash in only two years’ time! That makes saving a measly 10% seem really unambitious, everyone should just do what you do! 

I am so sorry my financial position has triggered you. I am merely presenting the facts.

Splatfoot

I'm not seeing reductions in prices where I am. My neighbours son has had his house on the market for two years. I always thought it was overpriced. However, full asking price offer last week, cash buyer. Why has it suddenly moved now? 🤔🤔

Parking_Eyerate

graphs said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

graphs said:

I would wait. I take home over 3k per month and that is currently being matched in price falls (according to the nationwide) 

So as I am all good to go and set to enter the property market.. in effect I am 6 grand richer per month.

Do your sums. Increase your buying power.

Wow, so you’ll then definitely be able to buy a house that costs £150k at the moment for just half that in cash in only two years’ time! That makes saving a measly 10% seem really unambitious, everyone should just do what you do! 

I am so sorry my financial position has triggered you. I am merely presenting the facts.

Not sure at all what you mean by that, I really just think it's amazing! I guess if you wait just over four years then you could even get a house that costs £150k at the moment for nothing or maybe just a few grand or so, and also save £150k as well. No need for a mortgage at all so no interest to pay ever, I think that's absolutely fantastic and really wish you all the best!

eidand

Parking_Eyerate said:

graphs said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

graphs said:

I would wait. I take home over 3k per month and that is currently being matched in price falls (according to the nationwide) 

So as I am all good to go and set to enter the property market.. in effect I am 6 grand richer per month.

Do your sums. Increase your buying power.

Wow, so you’ll then definitely be able to buy a house that costs £150k at the moment for just half that in cash in only two years’ time! That makes saving a measly 10% seem really unambitious, everyone should just do what you do! 

I am so sorry my financial position has triggered you. I am merely presenting the facts.

Not sure at all what you mean by that, I really just think it's amazing! I guess if you wait just over four years then you could even get a house that costs £150k at the moment for nothing or maybe just a few grand or so, and also save £150k as well. No need for a mortgage at all so no interest to pay ever, I think that's absolutely fantastic and really wish you all the best!

don't worry, you'll get used to resident spammer number 2.
You could suggest he waits 8 years then he will get paid 150k to accept a property.