Slum Britain

fc123

:eek: The links are ads????
Commercial property (retail) is at a tipping point at the mo.
In our town the white van was emptying out a large store (part of a a chain..albeit a bit of a dodgy one...they liquidated and set up again 2 yrs back)...........there are rental deals going on behind closed doors with current leases.......another chain near us has just negotiated a 50% rent reduction on its existing lease.

I think I'll stick with working out stuff from the ground from now on!!!

itsgototstop

Thanks your post is clearer now edited but I am still not convinced by your initial argument and no axe to grind.

fc123

itsgototstop wrote: »

macaque wrote: »

Lmao...I'm only asking as everything I have ever read says the opposite of your earlier post vis a vis long term equity vs res property

Just wanted you to explain as I didn't understand not try and browbeat me into going away

I use this forum to understand stuff OUT of my own experience too........it's a little fierce...........but someone will take the time to explain things at some point!!!:D

macaque_2

itsgototstop wrote: »

macaque wrote: »

Lmao...I'm only asking as everything I have ever read says the opposite of your earlier post vis a vis long term equity vs res property

Just wanted you to explain as I didn't understand not try and browbeat me into going away

Sorry, I did not mean to brow beat you. The poison spin of property seminars has spread widely. Generally speaking, equities perform better over the long term.

Graham_Smith_4

Commercial property is indeed at a tipping point. On the 1st April, empty commercial property will be liable for full rates, so imagine what effect that is going to have?

pinkshoes

macaque wrote: »

Pinkshoes;
This is not a very thoughtful response. A home can be a home or an investment. As soon as you try to realise its value as an investment however it ceases to be a home. Your 'grandparents A' did not use their home as a pension, they used it as a home. Your 'grand parent B' was poor. To compare their respective fortunes you need to consider:

(1) How much money they had to invest
(2) How well they invested it.

The quality of a home as an investment (like any investment) is dependant on the purchase price, the selling price and the income (or liabilities) it enjoys in between. Right now the prospects for property as an investment look pretty sick. It is also a fact that, over the long term, equities tend to outperform property.
.

Actually grandparent B HAD a house, and was not poor, but when moving, decided to rent for a bit (perhaps following rumours that prices would fall...) and then with price rises, and having spent all previous equity on rent, ended up being forced to rent. If she'd held onto her property, she could have been still living in a beautiful mortgage free house, and her pension would pay for home help and prevent her having to go into a care home. There is no way on a pension you can rent privately AND have home help!

Grandparents A had a home AND an investment. Their house can be treated as an investment in their retirement, and should their health fail, they can probably stay in their home, and the money spent on holidays can pay for home help.

I'd say the only difference between my grandparents is that one made the mistake of stepping off the property ladder, and then couldn't get back on, so is now spending her retirement in poverty. Seeing her live like that I find very upsetting, and I NEVER want to find myself in that position. SO regardless of what my HOME is worth when I retire, I will make sure that it is mortgage free, which will give me a much better standard of living in retirement than if I was still having to rent.

itsgototstop

pinkshoes wrote: »

Actually grandparent B HAD a house, and was not poor, but when moving, decided to rent for a bit (perhaps following rumours that prices would fall...) and then with price rises, and having spent all previous equity on rent, ended up being forced to rent. If she'd held onto her property, she could have been still living in a beautiful mortgage free house, and her pension would pay for home help and prevent her having to go into a care home. There is no way on a pension you can rent privately AND have home help!

Grandparents A had a home AND an investment. Their house can be treated as an investment in their retirement, and should their health fail, they can probably stay in their home, and the money spent on holidays can pay for home help.

I'd say the only difference between my grandparents is that one made the mistake of stepping off the property ladder, and then couldn't get back on, so is now spending her retirement in poverty. Seeing her live like that I find very upsetting, and I NEVER want to find myself in that position. SO regardless of what my HOME is worth when I retire, I will make sure that it is mortgage free, which will give me a much better standard of living in retirement than if I was still having to rent.

Must admit I agree, at least owning now and having a repayment mortgage I know in 20 years time it will be mine, one of the reasons I will not STR, rather live with interest rate uncertainty and house price falls in the short term for long term security...but I haven't got a huge mortgage and at the moment have 50% equity, if I had a huge mortgage and no equity I guess I would think again.

Generali

A few years back The Economist compared various investments held for a 20 year period starting from 1901-1921, 1902-1922.....1980-2000, 1981-2001 etc.

They found that the single best investment a person could make was to own their own home, then equities, then bonds, then cash and finally renting out property which gave an average annual loss of 0.1% IIRC.

itsgototstop

Generali wrote: »

A few years back The Economist compared various investments held for a 20 year period starting from 1901-1921, 1902-1922.....1980-2000, 1981-2001 etc.

They found that the single best investment a person could make was to own their own home, then equities, then bonds, then cash and finally renting out property which gave an average annual loss of 0.1% IIRC.

Thanks for that, I had heard something similar, thats why I queried links above by other poster, thought I must have got it wrong:o

Jonbvn

Generali wrote: »

A few years back The Economist compared various investments held for a 20 year period starting from 1901-1921, 1902-1922.....1980-2000, 1981-2001 etc.

They found that the single best investment a person could make was to own their own home, then equities, then bonds, then cash and finally renting out property which gave an average annual loss of 0.1% IIRC.

G,

Any linky for that info???