What’s wrong with this property

Spikeygran

I agree, buying isn't for everyone.  

For some singles who move around a lot for work, or who work in an area where work dries up periodically, renting a 1 bedroom flat is probably a better option.  If you have to claim UC etc at any point you dont get the maximum rental covered and they will deduct for extra bedrooms.  Of course there is always the problem of eviction, with extra moving costs if the landlord needs to sell.

If you want to settle, and be in control then buying it is, and 2 bedroom minimum.  Its all very well watching the market and waiting for a dip to get a good deal, but sometimes if you find something you really love you have to be prepared to pay a bit extra to secure it.  You'll probably spend more time at home so there are savings to be made.  

MeteredOut

Spikeygran said:

I agree, buying isn't for everyone.  

For some singles who move around a lot for work, or who work in an area where work dries up periodically, renting a 1 bedroom flat is probably a better option.  If you have to claim UC etc at any point you dont get the maximum rental covered and they will deduct for extra bedrooms.  Of course there is always the problem of eviction, with extra moving costs if the landlord needs to sell.

If you want to settle, and be in control then buying it is, and 2 bedroom minimum.  Its all very well watching the market and waiting for a dip to get a good deal, but sometimes if you find something you really love you have to be prepared to pay a bit extra to secure it.  You'll probably spend more time at home so there are savings to be made.  

How many years is too long to watch and wait? Asking for a friend forum member.

ReadySteadyPop

Tabieth said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Emmia said:

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

How much do you think the 400k flat cost in 2008?

Somewhere about £250k. Someone will have made a tidy profit on it after holding it for 17 years. 

Assuming you mean 5 Inkwell close, which was the first link I found in here to a 400k flat, we can see the price history:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/details/d8ae29fe-8eb9-4059-8799-fe0bd097fa67

It was first sold for £138k in 1999, then for £405k in 2018. It failed to sell in 2023 and I don't see an asking price for it. 

Why it sold for £405k in 2018 and is now for sale for £400k in 2025 I don't know. Maybe it was wildly overpriced back then, maybe it's a market correction. 

What do you reckon it'll be worth in 2050? More or less than £400k?

Not someone buying now though?

It depends when they sell it. It could be worth £800k in another 20 years. 

Maybe the current seller bought at the wrong time, or overpaid for whatever reason. It doesn't matter. How does it compare to what else is available?

Or like this seller they could be struggling to get back what they borrowed ten years ago?

After 10 years of payments they'll owe significantly less than the asking price even with a minimal deposit. You can't really infer anything. 

And, if they'd be otherwise renting they've already least hung onto the money they'd have spent in rent by getting equity in their own place.

Unless they paid in cash for the house they have to pay the bank to rent the debt they borrowed, if they make a loss when they sell all that is gone. In fact the only way todays prices make sense at today`s interest rates is if you make a big profit when you sell, that is looking more and more unlikely for most buyers now though.

I find your stance utterly baffling. Of course the buyer has to pay interest on their mortgage. And of course a “bad” purchase or selling very quickly after buying may lose money for the buyer. But a more sensible purchase that isn’t immediately sold is very different. 

And what’s the alternative? People have to live somewhere. For the vast majority that means paying rent or paying a mortgage. So when considering if buying is a good idea or not, the opportunity cost has to be considered. Rents are significantly higher than mortgages. Landlords need their mortgage covered, their costs covered, empty periods covered, and they want to make a profit. So the person renting is paying all of that every month. A person paying a mortgage is paying the mortgage and of course have maintenance costs. But they are not paying the landlord the empty period or the profit chunks of money. 

I’ve just bought again after renting for too long. My mortgage is significantly (£400 pcm) cheaper than my rent was (and the landlord put the rent up by £100 pcm after I moved out). I now live in a 2-bed Victorian terrace which I love. It is comfortable, cheaper to run, suits my lifestyle and meets my needs. (Rather than a soulless flat which cost a fortune to heat because it was all electric). I’ve made my house mine (and hopefully added value) by replacing the rotting 1980s kitchen and bathroom. Other comparable houses in the area are being sold for £40k more than I paid (and they don’t have the downstairs loo and utility room that mine has). 

I’m sure you’ll say I’ve been stupid and I should have carried on renting. But buying has significantly reduced my monthly outgoings, given me an asset, and I have the security of owning my home. I can only lose my home if I stop paying my mortgage. Before I was at the whim of a private landlord. The thought of renting into retirement was scary and I feel so much happier and secure now I own. 

Buying isn’t for everyone and obviously isn’t risk free. But buying in the U.K. has many, many advantages over renting. As long as one is sensible, does research, and makes good choices, buying is almost always going to be the better option. I gather you have a history on here and I do think you have an agenda. That’s fine and you can obviously post what you like but I do think your advice is quite biased to your agenda and not helpful in many cases. Please consider the impact your words may have. 

I believe the 400k flat being discussed (the one with multiple asking price cuts) was purchased nearly ten years ago for 405k, what is you definition of "immediate", I think it differs from mine. A lot of people trying to shift flats they overpaid for years ago remind me of gullible investors after the dot.com crash hanging on to stocks that had collapsed in value in the hope that they would one day be "hot" again.

Tabieth

ReadySteadyPop said:

Tabieth said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Emmia said:

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

How much do you think the 400k flat cost in 2008?

Somewhere about £250k. Someone will have made a tidy profit on it after holding it for 17 years. 

Assuming you mean 5 Inkwell close, which was the first link I found in here to a 400k flat, we can see the price history:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/details/d8ae29fe-8eb9-4059-8799-fe0bd097fa67

It was first sold for £138k in 1999, then for £405k in 2018. It failed to sell in 2023 and I don't see an asking price for it. 

Why it sold for £405k in 2018 and is now for sale for £400k in 2025 I don't know. Maybe it was wildly overpriced back then, maybe it's a market correction. 

What do you reckon it'll be worth in 2050? More or less than £400k?

Not someone buying now though?

It depends when they sell it. It could be worth £800k in another 20 years. 

Maybe the current seller bought at the wrong time, or overpaid for whatever reason. It doesn't matter. How does it compare to what else is available?

Or like this seller they could be struggling to get back what they borrowed ten years ago?

After 10 years of payments they'll owe significantly less than the asking price even with a minimal deposit. You can't really infer anything. 

And, if they'd be otherwise renting they've already least hung onto the money they'd have spent in rent by getting equity in their own place.

Unless they paid in cash for the house they have to pay the bank to rent the debt they borrowed, if they make a loss when they sell all that is gone. In fact the only way todays prices make sense at today`s interest rates is if you make a big profit when you sell, that is looking more and more unlikely for most buyers now though.

I find your stance utterly baffling. Of course the buyer has to pay interest on their mortgage. And of course a “bad” purchase or selling very quickly after buying may lose money for the buyer. But a more sensible purchase that isn’t immediately sold is very different. 

And what’s the alternative? People have to live somewhere. For the vast majority that means paying rent or paying a mortgage. So when considering if buying is a good idea or not, the opportunity cost has to be considered. Rents are significantly higher than mortgages. Landlords need their mortgage covered, their costs covered, empty periods covered, and they want to make a profit. So the person renting is paying all of that every month. A person paying a mortgage is paying the mortgage and of course have maintenance costs. But they are not paying the landlord the empty period or the profit chunks of money. 

I’ve just bought again after renting for too long. My mortgage is significantly (£400 pcm) cheaper than my rent was (and the landlord put the rent up by £100 pcm after I moved out). I now live in a 2-bed Victorian terrace which I love. It is comfortable, cheaper to run, suits my lifestyle and meets my needs. (Rather than a soulless flat which cost a fortune to heat because it was all electric). I’ve made my house mine (and hopefully added value) by replacing the rotting 1980s kitchen and bathroom. Other comparable houses in the area are being sold for £40k more than I paid (and they don’t have the downstairs loo and utility room that mine has). 

I’m sure you’ll say I’ve been stupid and I should have carried on renting. But buying has significantly reduced my monthly outgoings, given me an asset, and I have the security of owning my home. I can only lose my home if I stop paying my mortgage. Before I was at the whim of a private landlord. The thought of renting into retirement was scary and I feel so much happier and secure now I own. 

Buying isn’t for everyone and obviously isn’t risk free. But buying in the U.K. has many, many advantages over renting. As long as one is sensible, does research, and makes good choices, buying is almost always going to be the better option. I gather you have a history on here and I do think you have an agenda. That’s fine and you can obviously post what you like but I do think your advice is quite biased to your agenda and not helpful in many cases. Please consider the impact your words may have. 

I believe the 400k flat being discussed (the one with multiple asking price cuts) was purchased nearly ten years ago for 405k, what is you definition of "immediate", I think it differs from mine. A lot of people trying to shift flats they overpaid for years ago remind me of gullible investors after the dot.com crash hanging on to stocks that had collapsed in value in the hope that they would one day be "hot" again.

I was making a more general point. Your advice is always the same regardless of the situation you’re responding to. I agree with you that one bed city centre flats aren’t the best investment. But your advice is always buying = bad. 

ReadySteadyPop

Tabieth said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Tabieth said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Emmia said:

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

How much do you think the 400k flat cost in 2008?

Somewhere about £250k. Someone will have made a tidy profit on it after holding it for 17 years. 

Assuming you mean 5 Inkwell close, which was the first link I found in here to a 400k flat, we can see the price history:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/details/d8ae29fe-8eb9-4059-8799-fe0bd097fa67

It was first sold for £138k in 1999, then for £405k in 2018. It failed to sell in 2023 and I don't see an asking price for it. 

Why it sold for £405k in 2018 and is now for sale for £400k in 2025 I don't know. Maybe it was wildly overpriced back then, maybe it's a market correction. 

What do you reckon it'll be worth in 2050? More or less than £400k?

Not someone buying now though?

It depends when they sell it. It could be worth £800k in another 20 years. 

Maybe the current seller bought at the wrong time, or overpaid for whatever reason. It doesn't matter. How does it compare to what else is available?

Or like this seller they could be struggling to get back what they borrowed ten years ago?

After 10 years of payments they'll owe significantly less than the asking price even with a minimal deposit. You can't really infer anything. 

And, if they'd be otherwise renting they've already least hung onto the money they'd have spent in rent by getting equity in their own place.

Unless they paid in cash for the house they have to pay the bank to rent the debt they borrowed, if they make a loss when they sell all that is gone. In fact the only way todays prices make sense at today`s interest rates is if you make a big profit when you sell, that is looking more and more unlikely for most buyers now though.

I find your stance utterly baffling. Of course the buyer has to pay interest on their mortgage. And of course a “bad” purchase or selling very quickly after buying may lose money for the buyer. But a more sensible purchase that isn’t immediately sold is very different. 

And what’s the alternative? People have to live somewhere. For the vast majority that means paying rent or paying a mortgage. So when considering if buying is a good idea or not, the opportunity cost has to be considered. Rents are significantly higher than mortgages. Landlords need their mortgage covered, their costs covered, empty periods covered, and they want to make a profit. So the person renting is paying all of that every month. A person paying a mortgage is paying the mortgage and of course have maintenance costs. But they are not paying the landlord the empty period or the profit chunks of money. 

I’ve just bought again after renting for too long. My mortgage is significantly (£400 pcm) cheaper than my rent was (and the landlord put the rent up by £100 pcm after I moved out). I now live in a 2-bed Victorian terrace which I love. It is comfortable, cheaper to run, suits my lifestyle and meets my needs. (Rather than a soulless flat which cost a fortune to heat because it was all electric). I’ve made my house mine (and hopefully added value) by replacing the rotting 1980s kitchen and bathroom. Other comparable houses in the area are being sold for £40k more than I paid (and they don’t have the downstairs loo and utility room that mine has). 

I’m sure you’ll say I’ve been stupid and I should have carried on renting. But buying has significantly reduced my monthly outgoings, given me an asset, and I have the security of owning my home. I can only lose my home if I stop paying my mortgage. Before I was at the whim of a private landlord. The thought of renting into retirement was scary and I feel so much happier and secure now I own. 

Buying isn’t for everyone and obviously isn’t risk free. But buying in the U.K. has many, many advantages over renting. As long as one is sensible, does research, and makes good choices, buying is almost always going to be the better option. I gather you have a history on here and I do think you have an agenda. That’s fine and you can obviously post what you like but I do think your advice is quite biased to your agenda and not helpful in many cases. Please consider the impact your words may have. 

I believe the 400k flat being discussed (the one with multiple asking price cuts) was purchased nearly ten years ago for 405k, what is you definition of "immediate", I think it differs from mine. A lot of people trying to shift flats they overpaid for years ago remind me of gullible investors after the dot.com crash hanging on to stocks that had collapsed in value in the hope that they would one day be "hot" again.

I was making a more general point. Your advice is always the same regardless of the situation you’re responding to. I agree with you that one bed city centre flats aren’t the best investment. But your advice is always buying = bad. 

No, my advice is that houses are overpriced due to years of cheap debt and the hard to shift belief among the public that just owning or holding a house for a period of time = profit when selling, I am saying be careful what you buy and for how much. and don`t  assume you won`t make a loss when selling, and also be aware how much the debt on the house is costing and could cost in an inflation spike.

ReadySteadyPop

Tabieth said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Emmia said:

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

How much do you think the 400k flat cost in 2008?

Somewhere about £250k. Someone will have made a tidy profit on it after holding it for 17 years. 

Assuming you mean 5 Inkwell close, which was the first link I found in here to a 400k flat, we can see the price history:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/details/d8ae29fe-8eb9-4059-8799-fe0bd097fa67

It was first sold for £138k in 1999, then for £405k in 2018. It failed to sell in 2023 and I don't see an asking price for it. 

Why it sold for £405k in 2018 and is now for sale for £400k in 2025 I don't know. Maybe it was wildly overpriced back then, maybe it's a market correction. 

What do you reckon it'll be worth in 2050? More or less than £400k?

Not someone buying now though?

It depends when they sell it. It could be worth £800k in another 20 years. 

Maybe the current seller bought at the wrong time, or overpaid for whatever reason. It doesn't matter. How does it compare to what else is available?

Or like this seller they could be struggling to get back what they borrowed ten years ago?

After 10 years of payments they'll owe significantly less than the asking price even with a minimal deposit. You can't really infer anything. 

And, if they'd be otherwise renting they've already least hung onto the money they'd have spent in rent by getting equity in their own place.

Unless they paid in cash for the house they have to pay the bank to rent the debt they borrowed, if they make a loss when they sell all that is gone. In fact the only way todays prices make sense at today`s interest rates is if you make a big profit when you sell, that is looking more and more unlikely for most buyers now though.

I find your stance utterly baffling. Of course the buyer has to pay interest on their mortgage. And of course a “bad” purchase or selling very quickly after buying may lose money for the buyer. But a more sensible purchase that isn’t immediately sold is very different. 

And what’s the alternative? People have to live somewhere. For the vast majority that means paying rent or paying a mortgage. So when considering if buying is a good idea or not, the opportunity cost has to be considered. Rents are significantly higher than mortgages. Landlords need their mortgage covered, their costs covered, empty periods covered, and they want to make a profit. So the person renting is paying all of that every month. A person paying a mortgage is paying the mortgage and of course have maintenance costs. But they are not paying the landlord the empty period or the profit chunks of money. 

I’ve just bought again after renting for too long. My mortgage is significantly (£400 pcm) cheaper than my rent was (and the landlord put the rent up by £100 pcm after I moved out). I now live in a 2-bed Victorian terrace which I love. It is comfortable, cheaper to run, suits my lifestyle and meets my needs. (Rather than a soulless flat which cost a fortune to heat because it was all electric). I’ve made my house mine (and hopefully added value) by replacing the rotting 1980s kitchen and bathroom. Other comparable houses in the area are being sold for £40k more than I paid (and they don’t have the downstairs loo and utility room that mine has). 

I’m sure you’ll say I’ve been stupid and I should have carried on renting. But buying has significantly reduced my monthly outgoings, given me an asset, and I have the security of owning my home. I can only lose my home if I stop paying my mortgage. Before I was at the whim of a private landlord. The thought of renting into retirement was scary and I feel so much happier and secure now I own. 

Buying isn’t for everyone and obviously isn’t risk free. But buying in the U.K. has many, many advantages over renting. As long as one is sensible, does research, and makes good choices, buying is almost always going to be the better option. I gather you have a history on here and I do think you have an agenda. That’s fine and you can obviously post what you like but I do think your advice is quite biased to your agenda and not helpful in many cases. Please consider the impact your words may have. 

It would just take a "stagflation" event ( CEO of JPM says it is very possible) to flip this on it`s head, rents would be falling and your mortgage debt costs would be rising or staying at a high level. As they say  - you can leave a rental but you can`t leave a mortgage debt. Some of the "average rent" figures quoted by rental agents and some internet posters are to be taken with a large grain of salt, rental demand is falling already and many landlords are feeling the pinch of double council tax, voids, non-payment etc.

Tabieth

ReadySteadyPop said:

Tabieth said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Emmia said:

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

How much do you think the 400k flat cost in 2008?

Somewhere about £250k. Someone will have made a tidy profit on it after holding it for 17 years. 

Assuming you mean 5 Inkwell close, which was the first link I found in here to a 400k flat, we can see the price history:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/details/d8ae29fe-8eb9-4059-8799-fe0bd097fa67

It was first sold for £138k in 1999, then for £405k in 2018. It failed to sell in 2023 and I don't see an asking price for it. 

Why it sold for £405k in 2018 and is now for sale for £400k in 2025 I don't know. Maybe it was wildly overpriced back then, maybe it's a market correction. 

What do you reckon it'll be worth in 2050? More or less than £400k?

Not someone buying now though?

It depends when they sell it. It could be worth £800k in another 20 years. 

Maybe the current seller bought at the wrong time, or overpaid for whatever reason. It doesn't matter. How does it compare to what else is available?

Or like this seller they could be struggling to get back what they borrowed ten years ago?

After 10 years of payments they'll owe significantly less than the asking price even with a minimal deposit. You can't really infer anything. 

And, if they'd be otherwise renting they've already least hung onto the money they'd have spent in rent by getting equity in their own place.

Unless they paid in cash for the house they have to pay the bank to rent the debt they borrowed, if they make a loss when they sell all that is gone. In fact the only way todays prices make sense at today`s interest rates is if you make a big profit when you sell, that is looking more and more unlikely for most buyers now though.

I find your stance utterly baffling. Of course the buyer has to pay interest on their mortgage. And of course a “bad” purchase or selling very quickly after buying may lose money for the buyer. But a more sensible purchase that isn’t immediately sold is very different. 

And what’s the alternative? People have to live somewhere. For the vast majority that means paying rent or paying a mortgage. So when considering if buying is a good idea or not, the opportunity cost has to be considered. Rents are significantly higher than mortgages. Landlords need their mortgage covered, their costs covered, empty periods covered, and they want to make a profit. So the person renting is paying all of that every month. A person paying a mortgage is paying the mortgage and of course have maintenance costs. But they are not paying the landlord the empty period or the profit chunks of money. 

I’ve just bought again after renting for too long. My mortgage is significantly (£400 pcm) cheaper than my rent was (and the landlord put the rent up by £100 pcm after I moved out). I now live in a 2-bed Victorian terrace which I love. It is comfortable, cheaper to run, suits my lifestyle and meets my needs. (Rather than a soulless flat which cost a fortune to heat because it was all electric). I’ve made my house mine (and hopefully added value) by replacing the rotting 1980s kitchen and bathroom. Other comparable houses in the area are being sold for £40k more than I paid (and they don’t have the downstairs loo and utility room that mine has). 

I’m sure you’ll say I’ve been stupid and I should have carried on renting. But buying has significantly reduced my monthly outgoings, given me an asset, and I have the security of owning my home. I can only lose my home if I stop paying my mortgage. Before I was at the whim of a private landlord. The thought of renting into retirement was scary and I feel so much happier and secure now I own. 

Buying isn’t for everyone and obviously isn’t risk free. But buying in the U.K. has many, many advantages over renting. As long as one is sensible, does research, and makes good choices, buying is almost always going to be the better option. I gather you have a history on here and I do think you have an agenda. That’s fine and you can obviously post what you like but I do think your advice is quite biased to your agenda and not helpful in many cases. Please consider the impact your words may have. 

It would just take a "stagflation" event ( CEO of JPM says it is very possible) to flip this on it`s head, rents would be falling and your mortgage debt costs would be rising or staying at a high level. As they say  - you can leave a rental but you can`t leave a mortgage debt. Some of the "average rent" figures quoted by rental agents and some internet posters are to be taken with a large grain of salt, rental demand is falling already and many landlords are feeling the pinch of double council tax, voids, non-payment etc.

Yes, one can leave a rental. But one has to live somewhere. For the vast majority of us that means paying rent or paying mortgage. It’s not a case of laying a mortgage versus paying nothing. And of course paying rent is “wasted” money in the sense no asset is owned at the end. 

Anyway, I’m bowing out. I think you’ve been making your property market crash predictions for very many years. If the fact that what you predict keeps not happening hasn’t taught you anything, I doubt that I can. 

Murphybear

RHemmings said:

GDB2222 said:

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Emmia said:

Ybe said:

Emmia said:

It's a one bed with that horrendous kitchen/lounge/diner combo. I think one beds are hardest to sell, as many people want a second bedroom to work in if they work from home.

If one with the same layout (and presumably in similar condition) sold for ~£20k less recently, it's probably still overpriced.

They all sold as a new build 5 or so years ago for over 400k, some well over. But I guess new builds tend to be overpriced and the market has cooled since then. 

5 years ago was pre pandemic? I'd say one beds are much less desirable now as people work at home more and often want a separate space for that.

I know of a zone two, one bed flat on at £300k,  no cladding issues and a 3 minute walk to a well connected tube station with a frequent service that's had no offers, and limited viewings. 

WFH for most people won`t work out, big banks etc. want the bulk of their workforce in the office, these flats are just ridiculously overpriced, that is what it boils down to, the flat under discussion is reducing price so at least the sellers understands that much about the current market for flats.

Blimey Crashy, out of touch again?

Most companies (and I'd say the majority) who have office workers will allow WFH at least one day a week.

Not everyone in London works for "big banks".
And I'd like to see some evidence of this "bulk in the office"
Barclays have changed up their rules to say 3 days in the office now. But 2 WFH
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/barclays-tightens-working-from-home-rules/

Nationwide have said 3 days at home
https://www.nationwide-jobs.co.uk/benefits/hybrid-working/

Nat West seem to mix it up
https://jobs.natwestgroup.com/pages/remote-and-flexible-working

Lloyds say 3 days (but up to 5 in summer)
https://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/careers/culture-and-inclusion/agile-working.html

HSBC have said 2 days in the office now.
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/hsbc-employees-warned-of-office-attendance-link-to-pay/

And that's before we start with other companies. In IT supporting said big banks and public sector, for instance, many of our staff are 5 days from home. Our policy suggests that we should all meet in person quarterly.

I think the days of drawing a London salary but living cheaply in the sticks are now over. 3-4 days a week in the office has put the kibosh on long distance commuting. 

Having 1 day a week WFH means you have to allocate a space at home for working, but you are still travelling to work 4 days a week. 

I know people who do long distance commuting. E.g. from Sheffield to Leicester by motorcycle three days a week. I would have no problem living in, say, Milton Keynes, and travelling to London 3 days a week for work, on the train. 

Our first house together was in Milton Keynes.  It was a terrace of 3 storey houses.  The original developer had gone broke and the Council bought them.  They were really cheap and we bought it for cash.  The kitchen was hilarious, there was literally nothing in it apart from the kitchen sink 

I was going to get a job in London and commute but a brilliant job at the OU came up which was well paid and less than 5 minutes away.  I loved Milton Keynes.   

Herzlos

ReadySteadyPop said:

No, my advice is that houses are overpriced due to years of cheap debt and the hard to shift belief among the public that just owning or holding a house for a period of time = profit when selling, I am saying be careful what you buy and for how much. and don`t  assume you won`t make a loss when selling, and also be aware how much the debt on the house is costing and could cost in an inflation spike.

That applies if you're only considering the sale price and ignoring the 'having to live somewhere' aspect of it. 

Say you buy for a £400k and sell 10 years later for £400k. You've made nothing, right?

No. Because in those 10 years your mortgage has probably been less than equivalent rent. For those 10 years you've had stability and aren't dependent on a landlord to keep you and to repair things. You've also built up equity. 

So you could easily sell a property at a "loss" later and still be better off.

MeteredOut

Herzlos said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

No, my advice is that houses are overpriced due to years of cheap debt and the hard to shift belief among the public that just owning or holding a house for a period of time = profit when selling, I am saying be careful what you buy and for how much. and don`t  assume you won`t make a loss when selling, and also be aware how much the debt on the house is costing and could cost in an inflation spike.

That applies if you're only considering the sale price and the 'having to live somewhere' aspect of it. 

Say you buy for a £400k and sell 10 years later for £400k. You've made nothing, right?

No. Because in those 10 years your mortgage has probably been less than equivalent rent. For those 10 years you've had stability and aren't dependent on a landlord to keep you and to repair things. You've also built up equity. 

So you could easily sell a property at a "loss" later and still be better off.

RSP, would you be willing to share how much you've spent on rent since you sold up in the expectation that there would be a house price crash and you could buy back in cheaper?

(that's assuming you have been renting, and not living in a doorway in your local high street)

And bonus points if you tell us how much said house sold for, and its its sale history and current value since then.