Finally seeing house prices drop?

lookstraightahead

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

I think the people with the biggest regrets will be the vendors who are still holding on to the roots of their 'immortal' money tree house, trying to get even more.

No, the people with the biggest regrets are the ones who had a choice and chose to pay off their landlord's mortgage instead of their own for the last fourteen years.

Personally whether I pay a landlord for a house or whether I keep the banking sector in bonuses is neither here nor there to me. But I suppose it's whatever you feel more comfortable with.

You are very much in the minority; for most people, given the choice, it's a bit of a no-brainer to decide between paying your own mortgage for a fixed period of time and eventually having a substantial asset or alternatively paying probably even more every month to pay your landlord's mortgage for the rest of your life.

And that's without taking into account all the other benefits of home-ownership such as you deciding how long you stay in one place rather than your landlord, you deciding if you have pets, you deciding if you can knock out an internal wall or convert the garage into a habitable room etc. For most people there really is no comparison.

Of course for some people choosing to rent is absolutely the right thing to do but typically this is the younger generation still deciding what they want to do in life and/or for those who need relatively short-term accommodation - it's rarely a sensible long-term solution.

I have to say you sound like my parents when I was in my twenties (they were then in their fifties similar to me now). That's why I got onto the housing ladder so early. Huge mistake on my part.

I'm not saying it's good for ever to rent, but definitely until you really do decide that you want to be knocking walls through etc If that's your thing and that you are happy to stay put for years (you are stuck until you sell). But also understanding that the market can and will change and that financially you can accommodate things like high interest rates, negative equity etc. the risk of the banks taking their house back is far more devastating than having to move accommodation. Seeing that your house isn't always a money tree and doesn't always offer security.

Renting was a lifeline to me. 

MobileSaver

lookstraightahead said:

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

Personally whether I pay a landlord for a house or whether I keep the banking sector in bonuses is neither here nor there to me. But I suppose it's whatever you feel more comfortable with.

You are very much in the minority; for most people, given the choice, it's a bit of a no-brainer to decide between paying your own mortgage for a fixed period of time and eventually having a substantial asset or alternatively paying probably even more every month to pay your landlord's mortgage for the rest of your life.

If that's your thing and that you are happy to stay put for years (you are stuck until you sell).

With 12 month minimum rentals being the new norm, on average renters will also be stuck for 6 months before they can move which isn't that far away from the typical time it takes to sell a house so not much of a negative there for home-owners.

lookstraightahead said:

the risk of the banks taking their house back is far more devastating than having to move accommodation.

Agreed but as mentioned previously the risk of the bank taking back anyone's house is pretty much close to zero, certainly less than 1%. As numerous threads on this forum confirm, the risk of your landlord forcing you to move accommodation whether you want to or not is much, much higher.

newsgroupmonkey_

TXC said:

lookstraightahead said:

I think the people with the biggest regrets will be the vendors who are still holding on to the roots of their 'immortal' money tree house, trying to get even more. Or buyers who got involved in bidding wars and scraped together the difference in lender valuation and vendor expectations.

I agree with this, I just don't know why anybody would knowingly plug that gap from their own pockets, in the event of any correction or fall these will be the first people to feel it.

Unfortunately, as someone else pointed out, it's either this or rent forever.

Spoke to a FTB the other day who has no choice but to fork out an extra £30k out of their pocket, because the area they're buying in has absolutely no stock and everything becomes a bidding war.

propertyhunter

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

TXC said:

lookstraightahead said:

I think the people with the biggest regrets will be the vendors who are still holding on to the roots of their 'immortal' money tree house, trying to get even more. Or buyers who got involved in bidding wars and scraped together the difference in lender valuation and vendor expectations.

I agree with this, I just don't know why anybody would knowingly plug that gap from their own pockets, in the event of any correction or fall these will be the first people to feel it.

Unfortunately, as someone else pointed out, it's either this or rent forever.

Spoke to a FTB the other day who has no choice but to fork out an extra £30k out of their pocket, because the area they're buying in has absolutely no stock and everything becomes a bidding war.

Trust me, it's very common. If you need to move, you make it happen. I just don't know what will solve the problem with low stock. We can't keep up with demand. 

Thrugelmir

Lots of new listing everyday now. Same every year as spring approaches. Always be people that need to sell a property or move elsewhere. 

lookstraightahead

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

MobileSaver said:

lookstraightahead said:

Personally whether I pay a landlord for a house or whether I keep the banking sector in bonuses is neither here nor there to me. But I suppose it's whatever you feel more comfortable with.

You are very much in the minority; for most people, given the choice, it's a bit of a no-brainer to decide between paying your own mortgage for a fixed period of time and eventually having a substantial asset or alternatively paying probably even more every month to pay your landlord's mortgage for the rest of your life.

If that's your thing and that you are happy to stay put for years (you are stuck until you sell).

With 12 month minimum rentals being the new norm, on average renters will also be stuck for 6 months before they can move which isn't that far away from the typical time it takes to sell a house so not much of a negative there for home-owners.

lookstraightahead said:

the risk of the banks taking their house back is far more devastating than having to move accommodation.

Agreed but as mentioned previously the risk of the bank taking back anyone's house is pretty much close to zero, certainly less than 1%. As numerous threads on this forum confirm, the risk of your landlord forcing you to move accommodation whether you want to or not is much, much higher.

I remember when it used to take far more than a year to sell a house. I also remember lots of repossessions - have banks changed their stance on this? It used to be three months of arrears before the banks started proceedings.

My neighbours house was repossessed in the mid nineties. Her OH had moved out. Not sure there's any stress test for that. 

MobileSaver

lookstraightahead said:

I remember when it used to take far more than a year to sell a house. I also remember lots of repossessions - have banks changed their stance on this?

My neighbours house was repossessed in the mid nineties. Her OH had moved out. Not sure there's any stress test for that.

The average time from marketing to sale/completion of a house is between three and six months so it can often actually be quicker to sell than end a tenancy.

Yes, lenders now have a legal obligation to explore all reasonable alternatives before pulling the trigger on the nuclear option of repossession. (E.g. spreading the outstanding loan over a longer period, suspend interest payments for a period, change from repayment to interest-only etc.) This is one of the factors in why repossessions are down more than 90% from their peak.

Another point to note is that even once a lender has started proceedings, it typically takes another 2 years before a court actually grants the repossession order. Even with court backlogs a landlord will have you physically out of the property in less time than that.

I'm sure you are absolutely right regarding the stress test but, as you yourself know only too well, the real stress and hardship is because of the relationship breakdown regardless of whether you rent or own...

[Deleted User]

Renting into retirement isn't viable for a lot of people. Pensions aren't going to pay enough by the time people retire, if retirement is still a thing by then.