Is now really a bad time to buy?

Crashy_Time

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

BikingBud

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

And here we go round the circle again, due to crazy prices many ordinary people cannot afford houses.

They are forced to rent to cover the vested interests of a market that is rigged against them.  As they cannot buy at a reasonable price and take the longer terms benefits of ownership they cannot exercise the true freedom of choice and they are forced to work for longer, for less return.

Their health will also suffer as they struggle to provide basic shelter  and are constantly shuffled around by landlords that are only interested in maximising their profits.  At the same time the lack of honesty and integrity across the emerging divide between those with and those without seems to be a reflection of Victorian times and we find we have made no real progress in fundamental quality of life, health and freedom, in over 100 years.

Perhaps the correction is long over due, and the conditions may be emerging, precipitated by COVID or not, to start that correction. 

dani17

MobileSaver said:

Crashy_Time said:

Are you seriously suggesting that the UK economy in the 1920`s equalled the housing market?

can you concede that if there is a wages shock it is BTL landlords who will be sucking up most of the pain?

Let me just check what I said... "The government of the day has been encouraging home ownership since the 1920s!" Nope I didn't suggest what you suggested. In the 1920s the government created tax breaks to encourage home ownership and that was the start of the growth in home ownership and the inevitable influence on the economy.

Rents are already increasing as a result of recent tax changes; do you think people are more likely to stop paying their rent or more likely to cut back on a Starbuck's latte or other unnecessary expense on the way to work each morning? I guarantee most landlords will still be landlords a year from now and they'll be doing all right.

Anyway this is again getting too much into debate territory and we should continue this once the Debate forum reopens.

Following the same logic, if all the landlords decide to double the rent , people will find a way to pay because they need somewhere to live anyway? and stop eating and stop buying clothes ...
IMO the house market is only about affordability and credit full stop. if banks decide tomorrow to lend up to 10 times the salary using interest only mortgages for 50 years we will see a huge increase in the house prices even if the salaries still the same ( we already saw what happened in the US ) . We were in a big credit bubble that crashed 12 years ago and from that moment we decided to continue living in a smaller bubble hoping that it will be more stable.

Norman_Castle

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

csgohan4

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

And here we go round the circle again, due to crazy prices many ordinary people cannot afford houses.

They are forced to rent to cover the vested interests of a market that is rigged against them.  As they cannot buy at a reasonable price and take the longer terms benefits of ownership they cannot exercise the true freedom of choice and they are forced to work for longer, for less return.

Their health will also suffer as they struggle to provide basic shelter  and are constantly shuffled around by landlords that are only interested in maximising their profits.  At the same time the lack of honesty and integrity across the emerging divide between those with and those without seems to be a reflection of Victorian times and we find we have made no real progress in fundamental quality of life, health and freedom, in over 100 years.

Perhaps the correction is long over due, and the conditions may be emerging, precipitated by COVID or not, to start that correction. 

Buying a house is not a right but earned and respected

You don't come out working at 18 and expect to get a house, your  statement which sum up the current generation of Now now and why not now, I am entitled

Are you suggested people should rent at dirt cheap rents or for free? How is that sustainable for the service providers? LL also have mortgages to pay, their not a charity, do you work for free?

You do what normal people do, advance career, save up a deposit and buy a house. 

Absolutely no shame in renting, allowed me to see several cities and allowed job mobility, buying a house is not for everyone, only when your financially secure and ready to settle on the city of your choice.  
Renting of course has it's pitfalls, dodgey LL, Gumtree experiences e.t.c but on the whole a good experience, Sure i've lost money to LL and I am not talking about rent, but that's life

[Deleted User]

On the one hand there are big discounts to be had due to lockdown. On the other we are about to be hit with a recession, lots of jobs gone, not clear if we can recover quickly or if this is the start of our second lost decade in a row. In other words you might get a bargain, or you might end up in negative equity.

Of course negative equity isn't a big problem if your job is secure and you don't intend to move. It's annoying but you can just wait it out.

[Deleted User]

dani17 said:

MobileSaver said:

Crashy_Time said:

Are you seriously suggesting that the UK economy in the 1920`s equalled the housing market?

can you concede that if there is a wages shock it is BTL landlords who will be sucking up most of the pain?

Let me just check what I said... "The government of the day has been encouraging home ownership since the 1920s!" Nope I didn't suggest what you suggested. In the 1920s the government created tax breaks to encourage home ownership and that was the start of the growth in home ownership and the inevitable influence on the economy.

Rents are already increasing as a result of recent tax changes; do you think people are more likely to stop paying their rent or more likely to cut back on a Starbuck's latte or other unnecessary expense on the way to work each morning? I guarantee most landlords will still be landlords a year from now and they'll be doing all right.

Anyway this is again getting too much into debate territory and we should continue this once the Debate forum reopens.

Following the same logic, if all the landlords decide to double the rent , people will find a way to pay because they need somewhere to live anyway? and stop eating and stop buying clothes ...
IMO the house market is only about affordability and credit full stop. if banks decide tomorrow to lend up to 10 times the salary using interest only mortgages for 50 years we will see a huge increase in the house prices even if the salaries still the same ( we already saw what happened in the US ) . We were in a big credit bubble that crashed 12 years ago and from that moment we decided to continue living in a smaller bubble hoping that it will be more stable.

I agree 
I managed to buy my forever house years ago when Northern Rock would essentially lend you whatever you wanted to borrow as long as you put 20% down as deposit! Same with UCB self certify mortgages. 

I miss those times but they were not sustainable for most people and of course it all went bang in 2007 ! 

The easiest it is to borrow money, the faster house prices increase

BikingBud

csgohan4 said:

BikingBud said:

And here we go round the circle again, due to crazy prices many ordinary people cannot afford houses.

They are forced to rent to cover the vested interests of a market that is rigged against them.  As they cannot buy at a reasonable price and take the longer terms benefits of ownership they cannot exercise the true freedom of choice and they are forced to work for longer, for less return.

Their health will also suffer as they struggle to provide basic shelter  and are constantly shuffled around by landlords that are only interested in maximising their profits.  At the same time the lack of honesty and integrity across the emerging divide between those with and those without seems to be a reflection of Victorian times and we find we have made no real progress in fundamental quality of life, health and freedom, in over 100 years.

Perhaps the correction is long over due, and the conditions may be emerging, precipitated by COVID or not, to start that correction. 

Buying a house is not a right but earned and respected

You don't come out working at 18 and expect to get a house, your  statement which sum up the current generation of Now now and why not now, I am entitled

Are you suggested people should rent at dirt cheap rents or for free? How is that sustainable for the service providers? LL also have mortgages to pay, their not a charity, do you work for free?

You do what normal people do, advance career, save up a deposit and buy a house. 

Absolutely no shame in renting, allowed me to see several cities and allowed job mobility, buying a house is not for everyone, only when your financially secure and ready to settle on the city of your choice.  
Renting of course has it's pitfalls, dodgey LL, Gumtree experiences e.t.c but on the whole a good experience, Sure i've lost money to LL and I am not talking about rent, but that's life

Not sure what your incomplete first statement was meant to say but you went to the bother of making the quote bold and then ignored the key part of the statement, ordinary people.  I didn't say anything about wannabe 18 year olds but cannot grasp the point you are trying to make as again you have not finished the sentence. 
I haven't suggested dirt cheap or free rents, I have suggested reasonable and I'm suggesting  that people should be able to rent property for a reasonable rate and with surety of tenure.  
Saving for a deposit is pointless if you cannot service the mortgage payments, see earlier thread regarding about extending the debt and not achieving freedom.
You appear to have chosen to live in a number of cities, well, well done, pat yourself on the back and give yourself yesterday off.  You also appear to have been lucky, that on the whole your experiences have been good. However, a lot of ordinary people cannot get financial security and likely never will when rents are so high and house prices are so far out of touch with reality.  
But the new reality is about to dawn and there will be many changes that this will enforce, so landlords should face up to facts that if they want to be seen as legitimate businesses then they should be prepared to adapt their business model to differing circumstances.
After all it will again just be life and many will have to to make significant adjustments to cope with it!

csgohan4

BikingBud said:

csgohan4 said:

BikingBud said:

And here we go round the circle again, due to crazy prices many ordinary people cannot afford houses.

They are forced to rent to cover the vested interests of a market that is rigged against them.  As they cannot buy at a reasonable price and take the longer terms benefits of ownership they cannot exercise the true freedom of choice and they are forced to work for longer, for less return.

Their health will also suffer as they struggle to provide basic shelter  and are constantly shuffled around by landlords that are only interested in maximising their profits.  At the same time the lack of honesty and integrity across the emerging divide between those with and those without seems to be a reflection of Victorian times and we find we have made no real progress in fundamental quality of life, health and freedom, in over 100 years.

Perhaps the correction is long over due, and the conditions may be emerging, precipitated by COVID or not, to start that correction. 

Buying a house is not a right but earned and respected

You don't come out working at 18 and expect to get a house, your  statement which sum up the current generation of Now now and why not now, I am entitled

Are you suggested people should rent at dirt cheap rents or for free? How is that sustainable for the service providers? LL also have mortgages to pay, their not a charity, do you work for free?

You do what normal people do, advance career, save up a deposit and buy a house. 

Absolutely no shame in renting, allowed me to see several cities and allowed job mobility, buying a house is not for everyone, only when your financially secure and ready to settle on the city of your choice.  
Renting of course has it's pitfalls, dodgey LL, Gumtree experiences e.t.c but on the whole a good experience, Sure i've lost money to LL and I am not talking about rent, but that's life

Not sure what your incomplete first statement was meant to say but you went to the bother of making the quote bold and then ignored the key part of the statement, ordinary people.  I didn't say anything about wannabe 18 year olds but cannot grasp the point you are trying to make as again you have not finished the sentence. 
I haven't suggested dirt cheap or free rents, I have suggested reasonable and I'm suggesting  that people should be able to rent property for a reasonable rate and with surety of tenure.  
Saving for a deposit is pointless if you cannot service the mortgage payments, see earlier thread regarding about extending the debt and not achieving freedom.
You appear to have chosen to live in a number of cities, well, well done, pat yourself on the back and give yourself yesterday off.  You also appear to have been lucky, that on the whole your experiences have been good. However, a lot of ordinary people cannot get financial security and likely never will when rents are so high and house prices are so far out of touch with reality.  
But the new reality is about to dawn and there will be many changes that this will enforce, so landlords should face up to facts that if they want to be seen as legitimate businesses then they should be prepared to adapt their business model to differing circumstances.
After all it will again just be life and many will have to to make significant adjustments to cope with it!

Ordinary people rent at prices they want to rent at, I see an ad that is out of my budget I look elsewhere, I don't choose to rent in Chelsea for fun. 

Financial security is Subjective however to some, be it either getting that nice car, or being able to have enough food on the table. Like I said, buying a house is not a right, certainly something nice to have and aspire to, but not everyone can afford to go to University, get their dream job or life plays to what they want. 

Some people are unlucky and live on minimum wage, below the poverty line, benefits, that's Life sadly. 

LL put their prices according to market value, if people aren't prepared to pay a certain rent they will find they will have void periods, that's business and frankly not my problem as a tenant, I want to get the best accommodation at my budget

If you cannot afford to service the mortgage requirements, then that means you cannot afford that particular house or have a mortgage. You can't buy what you can't afford, hence the new MMR rules on mortgages as a result of people getting 100%+ mortgages and self certifying 

Reality as you say, not everyone can get a house and those that do, are not always because their family are rich and aristocrats, but rather simply worked hard, saved, sacrificed and able to buy a house.

I've known people who didn't have expensive weddings, just a some witnesses at the registrar office. Tough choice which help financially and help them reap rewards later on in life, or buy 1k old bangers to get from A to B, no fancy BMW or modified cars to make them sound like more expensive cars e.t.c. 

Life is also about choices, other's are made for you, you can only change you can have control over. 

I don't regard myself lucky, I prefer not to move cities every year, I had to due to my job, not great for family, friends, sacrificed alot like many on here for their career. Wasn't easy but manged to buy a modest place, far from a mansion but  mid terraced house, least i have my neighbours heat my house for me. 

I lived in London for a period but I couldn't afford the rent for long so I moved out by choice, had alot of friends there, what to do, it's life, I'd love to live in London forever but I can't afford it, sadly some people think it's a right to live in a particular location and get bitter because they can't and start pointing fingers.

Sometimes some self reflection should be done on ones self and the financial choices they have made in their life, that one less extravagant honeymoon, holiday they had, that car they passed over for a cheaper one, that takeaway you passed over for home cooking e.t.c.  

harryharry305

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

BikingBud said:

Norman_Castle said:

It shouldn't take much deep though to understand some "ordinary people" have invested in an asset which presumably they would prefer to retain or increase in value. We're not all in the same position with regard to home ownership.

And isn't that the fundamental problem, classing it as asset rather than a home tends to bring out the worst traits in all.  All other critical components to support life are viewed differently yet people consider a house a small pot of gold or a pension that should be protected to the detriment of all other things, including integrity and honesty.

Most properties are far more than basic shelters or "critical components to support life".

Based upon the consideration that true wealth is about health and freedom, tying ourselves up to working till we are 65-70 or even later to pay interest on an over priced house is to me anathema. Our duty should be to protect the affordability of housing for the future generations and we should therefore negotiate prices down wherever and whenever. 

  

Good health and freedom of choice is more readily available if you are wealthy. I suspect most home owners would consider their duty is to protect their asset value for their future security and their beneficiaries and negotiate accordingly.

Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do.

Its not what rich people do. Most would consider owning a home a measure of wealth.

In a bull market maybe, but now we are at the start of a multi year bear market in property