We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Is now really a bad time to buy?
Comments
-
Can you explain, don`t think we have heard your definition yet?Norman_Castle said:
You clearly have knowledge beyond mine. Please explain how "wealthy" is defined.Crashy_Time said:
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 said:
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?Crashy_Time said:
The availability of liquid funds is only one piece of the puzzle.Parking_Eyerate said:
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.Crashy_Time said:
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.Norman_Castle said:Crashy_Time said:
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.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.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.0 -
As stated repeatedly in this thread, wealth is measured by net worth. Hopefully you will reply with your definition rather than a critique of mine.Crashy_Time said:
Can you explain, don`t think we have heard your definition yet?
You clearly have knowledge beyond mine. Please explain how "wealthy" is defined.Crashy_Time said:
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 said:
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?Crashy_Time said:
The availability of liquid funds is only one piece of the puzzle.Parking_Eyerate said:
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.Crashy_Time said:
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.Norman_Castle said:Crashy_Time said:
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.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.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.
1 -
We know what wealth is measured by, the question is - At what level of net-worth is someone considered "wealthy", and you still haven`t answered!Norman_Castle said:
As stated repeatedly in this thread, wealth is measured by net worth. Hopefully you will reply with your definition rather than a critique of mine.Crashy_Time said:
Can you explain, don`t think we have heard your definition yet?
You clearly have knowledge beyond mine. Please explain how "wealthy" is defined.Crashy_Time said:
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 said:
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?Crashy_Time said:
The availability of liquid funds is only one piece of the puzzle.Parking_Eyerate said:
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.Crashy_Time said:
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.Norman_Castle said:Crashy_Time said:
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.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.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.0 -
It’s obviously relative.Crashy_Time said:
We know what wealth is measured by, the question is - At what level of net-worth is someone considered "wealthy", and you still haven`t answered!Norman_Castle said:
As stated repeatedly in this thread, wealth is measured by net worth. Hopefully you will reply with your definition rather than a critique of mine.Crashy_Time said:
Can you explain, don`t think we have heard your definition yet?
You clearly have knowledge beyond mine. Please explain how "wealthy" is defined.Crashy_Time said:
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 said:
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?Crashy_Time said:
The availability of liquid funds is only one piece of the puzzle.Parking_Eyerate said:
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.Crashy_Time said:
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.Norman_Castle said:Crashy_Time said:
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.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.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.2 -
As expected.Crashy_Time said:
We know what wealth is measured by, the question is - At what level of net-worth is someone considered "wealthy", and you still haven`t answered!Norman_Castle said:
As stated repeatedly in this thread, wealth is measured by net worth. Hopefully you will reply with your definition rather than a critique of mine.Crashy_Time said:
Can you explain, don`t think we have heard your definition yet?
You clearly have knowledge beyond mine. Please explain how "wealthy" is defined.Crashy_Time said:
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 said:
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?Crashy_Time said:
The availability of liquid funds is only one piece of the puzzle.Parking_Eyerate said:
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.Crashy_Time said:
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.Norman_Castle said:Crashy_Time said:
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.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.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.
2 -
What level would you say though, and do you think now is a good or a bad time to buy?Norman_Castle said:
As expected.Crashy_Time said:
We know what wealth is measured by, the question is - At what level of net-worth is someone considered "wealthy", and you still haven`t answered!Norman_Castle said:
As stated repeatedly in this thread, wealth is measured by net worth. Hopefully you will reply with your definition rather than a critique of mine.Crashy_Time said:
Can you explain, don`t think we have heard your definition yet?
You clearly have knowledge beyond mine. Please explain how "wealthy" is defined.Crashy_Time said:
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 said:
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?Crashy_Time said:
The availability of liquid funds is only one piece of the puzzle.Parking_Eyerate said:
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.Crashy_Time said:
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.Norman_Castle said:Crashy_Time said:
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.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.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.1 -
Crashy_Time said:
Good luck fixing your interest rate for 30 years. Using a mortgage as a "line of credit" is shockingly bad advice and partly the reason the economy is in the state it is!lisyloo said:
I had an offset mortgage where I could do that.Crashy_Time said:
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.Norman_Castle said:Crashy_Time said:
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.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.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.
youre missing the fact that a mortgage can be a very cheap line of credit and if set up correctly immediately available.You seem remarkably uneducated (Or out of date) about some aspects of finance,
why would anyone listen to someone that doesn’t Appear to know about fixed rates or offset mortgages?? And appears to believe people should line landlord pockets forever in fear of (shock, horror) having to move house??Can you explain why it's "shockingly bad" to have access to an already set up cheap line of credit.No-one is saying go out immediately and spend it on fast women and slow horses.I appreciate for some people it would be a bad idea, for a disciplined person with sensible financial planning (who may never actually use it) it's a good idea.I actually made a profit on my mortgage for many years, was that "shockingly bad"? and if so why?I managed to do it without spending the who lot on shoes....amazing really
many of the long term posters on the mortgages board do not agree with you and see the value of flexibility for disciplined peopl6 -
2008 should be a good starting point to research the pitfalls. A "cheap line of credit" is different to "a line of credit that uses where you live as collateral", your brother in law could offer to lend you money at no cost to "tide you over", that is a cheap (free) line of credit, a credit stream based on the equity in your house is just another bankers gimmick to get you to borrow more, and in the context of the original discussion that we were having someone who is disciplined with money (or dare I say it....WEALTHY) doesn`t need a line of credit, unless they are expanding/starting a business maybe, and surely you agree that using equity backed loans for something like that could be risky if the property market hits turbulence? Anyone who is disciplined with money can get a free line of credit from a credit card (in fact with "cashback" you are more or less being paid to use free credit?) and would probably be making over-payments on their mortgage instead of trying to squeeze more borrowing out of it? As for long term posters with mortgage debt giving advice about mortgage debt, I don`t really give them any more credibility than the next person TBH, they will change their opinions as the facts change, just like everyone else.lisyloo said:Crashy_Time said:
Good luck fixing your interest rate for 30 years. Using a mortgage as a "line of credit" is shockingly bad advice and partly the reason the economy is in the state it is!lisyloo said:
I had an offset mortgage where I could do that.Crashy_Time said:
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.Norman_Castle said:Crashy_Time said:
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.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.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.
youre missing the fact that a mortgage can be a very cheap line of credit and if set up correctly immediately available.You seem remarkably uneducated (Or out of date) about some aspects of finance,
why would anyone listen to someone that doesn’t Appear to know about fixed rates or offset mortgages?? And appears to believe people should line landlord pockets forever in fear of (shock, horror) having to move house??Can you explain why it's "shockingly bad" to have access to an already set up cheap line of credit.No-one is saying go out immediately and spend it on fast women and slow horses.I appreciate for some people it would be a bad idea, for a disciplined person with sensible financial planning (who may never actually use it) it's a good idea.I actually made a profit on my mortgage for many years, was that "shockingly bad"? and if so why?I managed to do it without spending the who lot on shoes....amazing really
many of the long term posters on the mortgages board do not agree with you and see the value of flexibility for disciplined peopl
https://www.idealhome.co.uk/news/phil-spencers-house-price-prediction-250206
0 -
I have never said it was financial planning advice.
neither did I claim you can cover interest rate risk for 30 years (people generally don’t need to do that as mortgages are nominal so the risk is often short term)
i was arguing against your assertion that you cannot access the equity in your home, and that is patently false.
an equity loan is risky if you might need to move, but it might be justified in certain circumstances. Risk isn’t bad per se.
Credit cards are Not a store of wealth, they are not an asset.
who said the posters advising had mortgage debt? Some are professional mortgage advisors who may or may not have their own mortgage.0 -
I personally wouldnt buy until after the real crash which will come when furlough ends in October. Prices bound to fall and banks tighten lending0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards