Is now really a bad time to buy?

Parking_Eyerate

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

CRelying on equity fromrashy_Time said:

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

Getting an income from an asset, "Relying on "equity" from a very illiquid easily taxable asset isn`t what wealthy people do." Many people would be considered wealthy because of the property they own despite having a modest income.

Not at the BTL/New Build level they wouldn`t be.

It might not fit your narrative but that really depends entirely on several basic factors, such as the specific property/properties in question and whether or not there was a mortgage involved and, if so, how much of a mortgage. 

True wealth is diversified, not concentrated in one hard to sell asset.

That's just a meaningless platitude.

Not if you are stuck trying to sell a hard to sell asset it isn`t, especially if all or most of your "wealth" is based on that asset`s value.

Some houses may be difficult to sell at some points in time, some may not. Fund trading can be suspended, share trading can be suspended; how do you sell such assets at such times? If "liquid assets" crash 20% in a day's trading, how does liquidity help you if you can't afford to sell very rapidly at a significant loss? Basically, if people consider that they have a degree of personal wealth because they own a mortgage-free property and don't have any stock investments or cash in the bank, who are you to tell them that they are wrong?
Property varies hugely in terms of size, location, state of repair etc. yet you naturally assume that it must always be a "hard to sell asset". Your vested interest (VI) shines blindingly.....

Ah, it`s "mortgage free" people that are wealthy now, not just anyone with a mortgage? One of my pensions is frozen just now, due to the commercial property exposure, but I have other funds and banks accounts that are not frozen, that is being diversified. Some of my investments were down nearly 40% a few weeks ago, now they are back to nearly break even, and they were never frozen.

"Ah, it`s "mortgage free" people that are wealthy now, not just anyone with a mortgage?"
An excellent, if transparent, attempt at a strawman argument. I refer you to my post at 6.27pm on 28 May, of which mortgage-free is an example (and a fairly reasonable one given that millions of properties are owned outright). I fear that your vested interest (VI) condition compels you to try anything....

"One of my pensions is frozen just now, due to the commercial property exposure, but I have other funds and banks accounts that are not frozen, that is being diversified. Some of my investments were down nearly 40% a few weeks ago, now they are back to nearly break even, and they were never frozen."
I'm very glad you are comfortable with your strategy, I'm sure it is right for you. That doesn't mean that people that take a different approach are wrong or that they can't have a degree of personal wealth if they don't follow you. Do you assert that only your investments can increase in value after a sharp decrease? 40% really was significant, were you tempted to prove that you can always sell your liquid investments at that point, or did that not cross your mind? How long until your 'liquid' pension investment is unfrozen? Can property prices not go up as well as down, or is that just funds and shares?

tom9980

Time in the market not timing the market is a bit of an investor mantra. It is my opinion  that the same is true with property, crashy unfortunately sold his 15-25 years ago and has never bought back in. The result will mean he is paying more for his accommodation for the rest of his life than he needed to. 

It remains to be seen what damage has been caused to the housing market, but the signs are not good for a 30% crash happening at this stage. unless the 2nd wave proves to be worse we are looking at a long overdue correction rather than an outright crash in house prices.

MobileSaver

Crashy_Time said:

MobileSaver said:

Over 100,000 people every month didn't find it particularly hard to sell their "asset."

What month was that?

On average every single month for years but you knew that because you used to gloat about how transactions had fallen since the last financial crisis.

Surely even you cannot be so desperate to talk down the market that you are going to base your entire argument on the temporary lockdown between 23rd March and 13 May that brought most UK markets to a standstill?

Norman_Castle

"Not at the BTL/New Build level they wouldn`t be."

"Ah, it`s "mortgage free" people that are wealthy now, not just anyone with a mortgage?"

Pointless caveats added just to support your unnecessary argument. Hopefully you won't be hijacking every thread to defend your choices.

Crashy_Time

Norman_Castle said:

"Not at the BTL/New Build level they wouldn`t be."

"Ah, it`s "mortgage free" people that are wealthy now, not just anyone with a mortgage?"

Pointless caveats added just to support your unnecessary argument. Hopefully you won't be hijacking every thread to defend your choices.

I just think your definition of "wealthy" is way off.

csgohan4

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

"Not at the BTL/New Build level they wouldn`t be."

"Ah, it`s "mortgage free" people that are wealthy now, not just anyone with a mortgage?"

Pointless caveats added just to support your unnecessary argument. Hopefully you won't be hijacking every thread to defend your choices.

I just think your definition of "wealthy" is way off.

Wealthy is subjective isn't it? One who can pay their bills and able to have a takeaway once a week may consider themselves well off, while others may consider themselves poor. 

BikingBud

I have my health, time to enjoy life and the love of a close family, I feel very wealthy.

I don't have a mortgage and I don't own a house, I do not consider myself to be poor or disadvantaged.

Crashy_Time

csgohan4 said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

"Not at the BTL/New Build level they wouldn`t be."

"Ah, it`s "mortgage free" people that are wealthy now, not just anyone with a mortgage?"

Pointless caveats added just to support your unnecessary argument. Hopefully you won't be hijacking every thread to defend your choices.

I just think your definition of "wealthy" is way off.

Wealthy is subjective isn't it? One who can pay their bills and able to have a takeaway once a week may consider themselves well off, while others may consider themselves poor. 

Yes and no, there are accepted definitions of monetary wealth, a good way of describing it is Big Effort for Little Gain = poor, Little Effort for Big Gain = wealthy. IMO someone who could survive on their savings/investments for a few years without working is relatively secure, while someone who need never work again is wealthy. Property is only one part of the story and being leveraged to the eyeballs to own anything has no part in the wealth story at all IMO. One problem we have is that millions of people fell for the idea that property is their wealth and their pension and can be traded at any time for an imaginary figure that they have become attached to. It is just an accident waiting to happen really.

Norman_Castle

Crashy_Time said:

csgohan4 said:

Crashy_Time said:

Norman_Castle said:

"Not at the BTL/New Build level they wouldn`t be."

"Ah, it`s "mortgage free" people that are wealthy now, not just anyone with a mortgage?"

Pointless caveats added just to support your unnecessary argument. Hopefully you won't be hijacking every thread to defend your choices.

I just think your definition of "wealthy" is way off.

Wealthy is subjective isn't it? One who can pay their bills and able to have a takeaway once a week may consider themselves well off, while others may consider themselves poor. 

Yes and no, there are accepted definitions of monetary wealth, a good way of describing it is Big Effort for Little Gain = poor, Little Effort for Big Gain = wealthy.

Terrible description and a very questionable understanding of what wealth is. Monetary wealth is measured by net worth. What you've described is a measure of whether an investment is worthwhile.

eidand

This question has been here for a while and i am thinking things had time to change enough for this to not really be relevant.
At the moment, I think it's a great time to buy IF you're in a proceedable position. Otherwise, it's a pointless question tbh.