How do you not get stressed / affected by house price?

ciderboy2009

Crashy_Time said:

ciderboy2009 said:

OP - ignore Crashy's doom & gloom rants.  They've been spouting the same rubbish for years and are desperate for there to be a crash in prices so they can finally have their 'I told you so' moment.

At the end of the day, there still aren't enough properties in this country to fulfil demand so, even if prices do drop a bit, then they are likely to soon recover.

At the end of the day, unless you've got a working crystal ball then nobody knows what is going to happen to house prices.  There have been a number of things happen in this country over the past 5 years which were predicted to have a catastrophic effect on them but it's not happened yet.

However, I'm another one that would suggest that renting is not the right way forward for you (assuming that your mortgage company or even your lease would even allow you to rent it).  It's not as easy as it seems and the likelyhood is that you would lose money.

So can you explain sales volumes between 2002 and 2019?
https://www.plumplot.co.uk/North-West-property-transactions.html

Typical Crashy - I mention the country so you just look at the North West figures.  Presumably because those are the only figures that support your warped view of the property market.

It's not quite clear what your point it with those pretty charts but, assuming it's that there are more sales of "used" houses than older ones then that's always going to be the case - particularly when there aren't enough new houses being built to fulfill demand.

Don't get me wrong, I'd personally always buy an oldhouse (1930's or earlier) over a new one.  However, we need more houses in this country and it's somewhat difficult to build more "old" houses!

The really crazy thing is that the only way you're ever likely to get your "dream" outcome is if there are more houses available in this country than people looking to buy them.

Crashy_Time

ciderboy2009 said:

Crashy_Time said:

ciderboy2009 said:

OP - ignore Crashy's doom & gloom rants.  They've been spouting the same rubbish for years and are desperate for there to be a crash in prices so they can finally have their 'I told you so' moment.

At the end of the day, there still aren't enough properties in this country to fulfil demand so, even if prices do drop a bit, then they are likely to soon recover.

At the end of the day, unless you've got a working crystal ball then nobody knows what is going to happen to house prices.  There have been a number of things happen in this country over the past 5 years which were predicted to have a catastrophic effect on them but it's not happened yet.

However, I'm another one that would suggest that renting is not the right way forward for you (assuming that your mortgage company or even your lease would even allow you to rent it).  It's not as easy as it seems and the likelyhood is that you would lose money.

So can you explain sales volumes between 2002 and 2019?
https://www.plumplot.co.uk/North-West-property-transactions.html

Typical Crashy - I mention the country so you just look at the North West figures.  Presumably because those are the only figures that support your warped view of the property market.

It's not quite clear what your point it with those pretty charts but, assuming it's that there are more sales of "used" houses than older ones then that's always going to be the case - particularly when there aren't enough new houses being built to fulfill demand.

Don't get me wrong, I'd personally always buy an oldhouse (1930's or earlier) over a new one.  However, we need more houses in this country and it's somewhat difficult to build more "old" houses!

The really crazy thing is that the only way you're ever likely to get your "dream" outcome is if there are more houses available in this country than people looking to buy them.

NW was random, first one I clicked on. Try East Midlands or any other area you want...
https://www.plumplot.co.uk/East-Midlands-property-transactions.html
The point is there are less sales of properties, so can you tell us how that fits your "demand" theory? Not sure what you mean by a "used" house being different to an "older" house but the question is about overall demand so it doesn`t really matter.

Mickey666

Crashy_Time said:

Mickey666 said:

Crashy_Time said:

RelievedSheff said:

Crashy_Time said:

steampowered said:

Don't try to make or lose money with your property. If you try to do that you will probably fail, because you don't have any special information the market doesn't. See your property as a place to live.

You have to take a long term view of things. You will likely want to be a home owner until you die. There will be numerous recessions during that time. 50+ years is more than enough time to go through the ups and downs of recessions.

As hazyjo pointed out, if house prices drop due to a recession, that also means that the cost of a property you might want to move into goes down. If property prices drop by 15%, that will reduce the cost of a £200,000 property more than it will reduce the cost of a £400,000 property. So, if you are currently a 2-bed and want to move into a 3-bed, it actually becomes easier to do that, as long as you aren't sitting in negative equity.

But if you bought recently and prices drop 15% you will be?

That all rather depends on how much deposit you put down when you bought.

Ok, so what % of buyers up until recently had more than 15% deposit? The main point isn`t really the NE itself though, it is the effect on buyer sentiment that it creates, once NE is a "thing" people will struggle to sell for anything near what they paid.

I don't know the % but I'd say pretty much everyone who is not a first time buyer has more than 15% deposit/equity.

In practice negative equity really only affects FTBs, but even then as long as they can afford their mortgage payments (which they obviously can because otherwise they wouldn't have a mortgage in the first place) then what's the actual problem?

People tend to focus on the short term rather than the long term but the reality is that the short term doesn't really matter all that much because the only real choice is rent or mortgage and, broadly, both are going to cost the same on a monthly basis.  The REAL difference is that if you choose to rent then you have to pay for as long as you live, but if you buy with a mortgage then you only have to pay for 25/30 years.

When you're only 25/30 years old yourself, 25/30 years in the future is difficult to imagine and that's the problem - many (most?) people don't imagine planning over such a timescale.  Much the same is true for pensions.  And that's why there are so many people on this forum in their 50s posting questions about how can they afford to retire?  Unfortunately, 50 is a bit late to start thinking about such things . . . it's also a bit late to start thinking about buying a house when you've been putting off the decision for years and year either waiting for the next downturn in the market or worrying that there might be a downturn in the market.  Such procrastination is a sure way to lose out in the race of life.

The race of life? LOL. You sound like someone who "bought" recently?

Nope.  Bought first house in 1983, then moved in 1986, 1992 and finally in 2006 when I retired a few months before my 50th.  The final move was to release a whole load of equity by moving to a cheaper area for retirement.  Ended up with a house half the price but twice the size.

Except when I was a student, I've never rented anywhere to live.  Always thought of it as 'dead' and wasted money.  Seems to have been borne out in practice in my experience, regardless of living through three recessions.  Trying to 'micro-manage' house buying and selling decisions completely misses the longer term picture.

Mickey666

JGB1955 said:

Today I amused myself by looking at the selling prices of our first two houses on the outskirts of London.  Our first home, a 3 bed Edwardian terrace house cost us £11,850 - sold in early 2019 for £380K.. Our next house ( 3 bed 1930's semi) we bought for £32K and sold for 54K 3 years later - it's estimated 'worth' (only 3 sales in the road in the  past 15 years) is above £700K.  We moved to Gloucestershire in 1985 and had to reduce our mortgage to buy a 4 bed detached house.  Been mortgage free for over 20 years now but the 'worth' of the house means diddly squat to us as we are only leaving in a box.  Current market value? £360K.  Suits us as it fits in nicely with the RNRB.  Sorted!

Yes, it's interesting looking back.  I bought my first house a couple of years after graduating and starting work.  When I look at its price today and a typical graduate salary today I could not afford it today.  In other words house prices have (broadly)  risen faster than inflation and salaries, making them more expensive today.  So, any delay in buying your first house ends up costing you money in the long run. 

julicorn

If you're moving into a rental anyway, and are worried about the value of your flat going down, but think you can sell it now for how much you bought it for a few years ago, I don't really understand why you wouldn't just sell it? Being a landlord isn't easy at all, and if you believe property prices are going to fall (which is fairly likely imo, although my crystal ball has been out of action lately), and London will be more affected than where you're hoping to buy in a few years time, then wouldn't the right course of action be to just sell up now, and keep that money aside for a deposit in a few years time? You wouldn't have the hassle of renting it out, trying to kick out a tenant when you're trying to sell up, and sell under time pressure once you want to buy a new place. 

Scotbot

julicorn said:

If you're moving into a rental anyway, and are worried about the value of your flat going down, but think you can sell it now for how much you bought it for a few years ago, I don't really understand why you wouldn't just sell it? Being a landlord isn't easy at all, and if you believe property prices are going to fall (which is fairly likely imo, although my crystal ball has been out of action lately), and London will be more affected than where you're hoping to buy in a few years time, then wouldn't the right course of action be to just sell up now, and keep that money aside for a deposit in a few years time? You wouldn't have the hassle of renting it out, trying to kick out a tenant when you're trying to sell up, and sell under time pressure once you want to buy a new place. 

Totally agree put it on the market now, with the SDLT holiday and the fact there is no chain you should get a good price. If you don't  you can still rent it out.  Also agree prices  in London for flats will fall so now is the best time to sell.

ciderboy2009

Crashy_Time said:

ciderboy2009 said:

Crashy_Time said:

ciderboy2009 said:

OP - ignore Crashy's doom & gloom rants.  They've been spouting the same rubbish for years and are desperate for there to be a crash in prices so they can finally have their 'I told you so' moment.

At the end of the day, there still aren't enough properties in this country to fulfil demand so, even if prices do drop a bit, then they are likely to soon recover.

At the end of the day, unless you've got a working crystal ball then nobody knows what is going to happen to house prices.  There have been a number of things happen in this country over the past 5 years which were predicted to have a catastrophic effect on them but it's not happened yet.

However, I'm another one that would suggest that renting is not the right way forward for you (assuming that your mortgage company or even your lease would even allow you to rent it).  It's not as easy as it seems and the likelyhood is that you would lose money.

So can you explain sales volumes between 2002 and 2019?
https://www.plumplot.co.uk/North-West-property-transactions.html

Typical Crashy - I mention the country so you just look at the North West figures.  Presumably because those are the only figures that support your warped view of the property market.

It's not quite clear what your point it with those pretty charts but, assuming it's that there are more sales of "used" houses than older ones then that's always going to be the case - particularly when there aren't enough new houses being built to fulfill demand.

Don't get me wrong, I'd personally always buy an oldhouse (1930's or earlier) over a new one.  However, we need more houses in this country and it's somewhat difficult to build more "old" houses!

The really crazy thing is that the only way you're ever likely to get your "dream" outcome is if there are more houses available in this country than people looking to buy them.

NW was random, first one I clicked on. Try East Midlands or any other area you want...
https://www.plumplot.co.uk/East-Midlands-property-transactions.html
The point is there are less sales of properties, so can you tell us how that fits your "demand" theory? Not sure what you mean by a "used" house being different to an "older" house but the question is about overall demand so it doesn`t really matter.

It's not actually "my" demand theory - it's what most of the population are aware of.

The problem here is that you're looking at those figures with tunnel vision - less sales = less demand.

If this was the case then there would be a glut of properties on the market and prices would already be falling dramatically.  This is clearly not happening.

Rather than look at one statistic in isolation you need to look at multiple statistics - in this case I would also be looking at the number of properties on the market and possibly the number of people looking to purchase (although it's difficult to obtain reliable figures for this metric).

nb: In future, if you are going to link to a page with multiple charts of which only one shows your point then it would be helpful to mention which chart you are referring to.  I would also suggest that linking to official stats might give you a bit more credibility - in this case I would suggest https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/monthly-property-transactions-completed-in-the-uk-with-value-40000-or-above

Or do you have a problem with official stats which don't show what you want them to?

Mickey666

ciderboy2009 said:

The problem here is that you're looking at those figures with tunnel vision - less sales = less demand.

If this was the case then there would be a glut of properties on the market and prices would already be falling dramatically.  This is clearly not happening.

Exactly - and that's because people need somewhere to live.  They (mostly) can't just sell without buying something else, so there will never be a glut of properties because the supply side will always match the demand side. 

So yes, we might well see a 'crash' in the housing market but what this means in practice is that it simply SLOWS DOWN, not that actual PRICES crash.  It's this slowdown in the market that has a lot of knock-on effects, EAs are obviously directly affected but so are all the indirect businesses such as DIY stores, small builders, kitchen and bathroom suppliers, etc because as we all know house moving also often means renovation - redecorating, a new kitchen or bathroom etc.

But actual house prices don't crash because most people simply decide not to sell and stay put.  Because most people have mortgages they will stay put rather than sell for less than they paid and risk negative equity.  Sure, they may drop a little, but any drop will be fairly insignificant and certainly nothing that could sensibly be called a 'crash'.

GarciaLorca

Scotbot said:

julicorn said:

If you're moving into a rental anyway, and are worried about the value of your flat going down, but think you can sell it now for how much you bought it for a few years ago, I don't really understand why you wouldn't just sell it? Being a landlord isn't easy at all, and if you believe property prices are going to fall (which is fairly likely imo, although my crystal ball has been out of action lately), and London will be more affected than where you're hoping to buy in a few years time, then wouldn't the right course of action be to just sell up now, and keep that money aside for a deposit in a few years time? You wouldn't have the hassle of renting it out, trying to kick out a tenant when you're trying to sell up, and sell under time pressure once you want to buy a new place. 

Totally agree put it on the market now, with the SDLT holiday and the fact there is no chain you should get a good price. If you don't  you can still rent it out.  Also agree prices  in London for flats will fall so now is the best time to sell.

Could I just put it on the market straight away and sell subject to tenancy? I know it restricts to BTL landlords. But I’ve already committed to renting and also letting it out. I can’t wait for a sale to move into the rental as the purpose of that was moving in with partner. 

Crashy_Time

ciderboy2009 said:

Crashy_Time said:

ciderboy2009 said:

Crashy_Time said:

ciderboy2009 said:

OP - ignore Crashy's doom & gloom rants.  They've been spouting the same rubbish for years and are desperate for there to be a crash in prices so they can finally have their 'I told you so' moment.

At the end of the day, there still aren't enough properties in this country to fulfil demand so, even if prices do drop a bit, then they are likely to soon recover.

At the end of the day, unless you've got a working crystal ball then nobody knows what is going to happen to house prices.  There have been a number of things happen in this country over the past 5 years which were predicted to have a catastrophic effect on them but it's not happened yet.

However, I'm another one that would suggest that renting is not the right way forward for you (assuming that your mortgage company or even your lease would even allow you to rent it).  It's not as easy as it seems and the likelyhood is that you would lose money.

So can you explain sales volumes between 2002 and 2019?
https://www.plumplot.co.uk/North-West-property-transactions.html

Typical Crashy - I mention the country so you just look at the North West figures.  Presumably because those are the only figures that support your warped view of the property market.

It's not quite clear what your point it with those pretty charts but, assuming it's that there are more sales of "used" houses than older ones then that's always going to be the case - particularly when there aren't enough new houses being built to fulfill demand.

Don't get me wrong, I'd personally always buy an oldhouse (1930's or earlier) over a new one.  However, we need more houses in this country and it's somewhat difficult to build more "old" houses!

The really crazy thing is that the only way you're ever likely to get your "dream" outcome is if there are more houses available in this country than people looking to buy them.

NW was random, first one I clicked on. Try East Midlands or any other area you want...
https://www.plumplot.co.uk/East-Midlands-property-transactions.html
The point is there are less sales of properties, so can you tell us how that fits your "demand" theory? Not sure what you mean by a "used" house being different to an "older" house but the question is about overall demand so it doesn`t really matter.

It's not actually "my" demand theory - it's what most of the population are aware of.

The problem here is that you're looking at those figures with tunnel vision - less sales = less demand.

If this was the case then there would be a glut of properties on the market and prices would already be falling dramatically.  This is clearly not happening.

Rather than look at one statistic in isolation you need to look at multiple statistics - in this case I would also be looking at the number of properties on the market and possibly the number of people looking to purchase (although it's difficult to obtain reliable figures for this metric).

nb: In future, if you are going to link to a page with multiple charts of which only one shows your point then it would be helpful to mention which chart you are referring to.  I would also suggest that linking to official stats might give you a bit more credibility - in this case I would suggest https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/monthly-property-transactions-completed-in-the-uk-with-value-40000-or-above

Or do you have a problem with official stats which don't show what you want them to?

The chart titled "Transactions" will be the one you need for the discussion about transactions. Can you show us from your "official" figures how the chart for the NW is the only one that supports my "warped" view of the property market?