Is now really a bad time to buy?

Norman_Castle

harryharry305 said:

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

We're at the start of an unknown, your predictions will be as fanciful as anyone else’s and not welcome on this forum.

                                           Debate House Prices

We’re struggling at the moment with the huge volumes of messages we’re getting from Forumites about coronavirus and the impact it’s having on their finances. We’re a small team and we’re doing our best to manage this spike in demand. As a result, we’ve reluctantly decided to temporarily close the Debate House Prices & the Economy Board so that we can redirect our limited resources to those who need us most at this time.

Please do not post content intended for this board elsewhere in the forum – we appreciate your help and understanding during this exceptionally difficult time. It goes without saying, we hope to get back to full business as soon as possible!

BikingBud

csgohan4 said:

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.

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.  

Shows a limited perspective that assesses everything to be down to hard work and choices.  

Some are living in very expensive houses only due to luck. They were lucky in timing and lucky in opportunity. Everyone that makes the grades should now be able to go to uni, it just means its another loan and draw down on the income that others in the lucky generation didn't have to worry about. But no matter how much self-reflection and self-sacrifice others make they cannot roll the clock back to affordable times.  

And as for thinking that a take-away meal makes the difference, that is just down right insulting for the effort people put in and hard work that they do, albeit in less than glamorous high paid roles, and their ambitions that are constantly ripped apart by such crass statements.

BTW how do you self reflect on anyone other than yourself?

Parking_Eyerate

Someone who thinks we live in Victorian times and uses cult-like language to deride people they have never met accuses others of being crass. You couldn’t make it up.

csgohan4

BikingBud said:

csgohan4 said:

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.

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.  

Shows a limited perspective that assesses everything to be down to hard work and choices.  

Some are living in very expensive houses only due to luck. They were lucky in timing and lucky in opportunity. Everyone that makes the grades should now be able to go to uni, it just means its another loan and draw down on the income that others in the lucky generation didn't have to worry about. But no matter how much self-reflection and self-sacrifice others make they cannot roll the clock back to affordable times.  

And as for thinking that a take-away meal makes the difference, that is just down right insulting for the effort people put in and hard work that they do, albeit in less than glamorous high paid roles, and their ambitions that are constantly ripped apart by such crass statements.

BTW how do you self reflect on anyone other than yourself?

Your last statement is as it is. That one less take away is an example, or that newest nike trainer you just had to have but gave it up is another. How is it insulting? This is a money saving website is it not? 5 pounds doesn't get far for a takeaway that gets you full, but £5 for vegetables makes a good stew after a long day at work. Again personal preference and personal choice and sacrifice. I can't afford to eat a steak everyday or a lobster every day, in fact I only meat once a week as a treat. 

Are you saying everyone should be given the right to a house? There is the RTB scheme for those in council housing. 

Making things affordable and putting  a one size fits all approach is a very rose tinted view of the world. If your on a minimum wage and barely getting by, do you think saddling them with more debt and a house will make things better for them? I hope you know how much a boiler or re roof costs, not to mention fleecehold costs.

There is more to life than thinking life is all materialistic and must have a car, credit cards, condominiums/ houses

Sure there is debt, people had high student loans debt when they left Uni, worth it, but sadly others run debt to get the latest Audi or Mercedes. Use to live with a middle ages man who rather than save for a deposit bought a brand new BMW, might be an idiot to some, but on the other hand he might be enjoying life, fair play, his life his money. 

There's only so much luck goes for some, sometimes it's also about what you want to do in life than wasting it all on doing courses at University which have limited job prospects, there are countless Uni courses such as computer games studies, Football studies for example. It's one thing doing what you enjoy, but also reality how you are going to sustain yourself in the long run. 

Luck is nice when you win the lottery or your parents are wealthy, but sometimes you also ask why are people wealthy apart from lottery winners? Did those parents get born with a silver spoon in their mouth, or their family and their previous generations built a business and made it successful, what's wrong with that? They started from some where didn't they? Money had to come from somewhere. 

One has to consider that not everyone is  born to do high powered, high networth jobs, I would love to be a footballer earning millions a year. I agree helping out the poorest is a good thing, but unfortunately it is a one size fits all approach, in reality the government can't individualize nor control what people spend that welfare money which people do spend on non essentials, is that a good or bad thing? Giving people a choice?   

however some people are given an inch and they want a mile. 

Look at Singapore, minimal welfare state, everyone has it drummed in that you work hard or you don't survive, you save your own pension e.t.c. Sure it has it's own problems, but it is far more successful than alot of Asian nations that more far larger than themselves

Lastly I leave you with this, do you feel entitled to a house no matter your wage? There's a reason for the 2008 crash, have a look. 

jimbog

BikingBud said:

csgohan4 said:

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.

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.  

Shows a limited perspective that assesses everything to be down to hard work and choices.  

Some are living in very expensive houses only due to luck. They were lucky in timing and lucky in opportunity. Everyone that makes the grades should now be able to go to uni, it just means its another loan and draw down on the income that others in the lucky generation didn't have to worry about. But no matter how much self-reflection and self-sacrifice others make they cannot roll the clock back to affordable times.  

And as for thinking that a take-away meal makes the difference, that is just down right insulting 

From this and your previous  posts it does seem you are lucky to be young.
A cursory look at any money saving website advising on how to get rid of debt and on how to save questions the need to have to have that the posh cappuccino each day, that regular takeaway meal, that new iphone. In the 70's and 80's, the idea of furnishing your first home with brand new goods rather than 'hand me downs' would have been unheard of.
Was I lucky to have been part of a generation which was less materialistic? Maybe so, but it is just so pointless being so angry at previous generations. You need to draw a line and start to look forward. 

Crashy_Time

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 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.

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.

Yes, but that is different to relying on the equity as your wealth.

Norman_Castle

Crashy_Time said:

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 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.

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.

Yes, but that is different to relying on the equity as your wealth.

Yeabut, its you that suggested that was the measure of wealth.

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

movilogo

To answer OP's question in short,
It is a good time to buy at 20% less than pre-Corona price.
But it is a bad time to buy at full pre-Corona price.

CinderKona

I am at the pre contract stage and have been for 2 months - I am now a little hesitant as the few houses in the area are being reduced. As it’s my first house I’m not sure I’d welcome negative equity.

Crashy_Time

Norman_Castle said:

Crashy_Time said:

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 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.

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.

Yes, but that is different to relying on the equity as your wealth.

Yeabut, its you that suggested that was the measure of wealth.

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

What did I suggest was the measure of wealth?