Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

deadasadodo

New Members
  • Posts

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by deadasadodo

  1. There's a big new development by Hove Station that's corporate BTL, owned by L&G I think. As Spyguy says, I suspect it'll be new build development rather than random terraces. As someone painfully familiar with B&H's rental sector I welcome it as long as it replaces private landlords rather than adds to them. Standards should be better and they'll be way less likely to serve you notice 6 months after you move in, as B&H landlords seem so keen on doing. 

    Where are you moving to HIH? Still in Hove, Brighton area or somewhere else entirely? Good luck with the move. 

  2. We've been buying/ selling - Hove to a greener part of Sussex. Listings have generally been coming on at peak of the market+ prices, due both to estate agents competing for business and sellers expecting what their neighbour got in 2017 plus a bit more. The house then generally sticks around until either the price is cut significantly or its withdrawn from the market. From a buying perspective it's just frustrating, as you have to wait for 3-6 months after a house is first listed before the seller is willing to consider a realistic offer. Chains are also difficult to create as a seller will say that they need £x to afford to buy their next house, which has been unrealistically listed at £y.

    Some places have been priced realistically from the off and sold quite quickly. The one that sticks in my mind was like a London re-locators little fantasy, really nicely done up and reasonably priced. That sold for asking within a few days.

    For our own sale we fell into the stupid trap of accepting the estate agent's bull, and our house failed to shift for ages. Eventually we accepted an offer for about 10% under the market peak of the street (similar houses). Overall impression is that the market is drifting downwards, but houses are shifting if the seller has realistic price ambitions. 

  3. Risk is the word here. If you don't know the area(s) very well renting for a year or so is a really good idea, as you'll reduce the risk of finding you hate the area and having to stump up a second fortune in stamp duty and fees. 

    Investing all of your equity is a big risk though. If house prices fall and your portfolio does well you'll look like a hero, but if the opposite happens you're in trouble. You'll also commit to years of obsessively checking stock and house prices. Ultimately if it's your wife's money I guess she has final say. 

    Personally I'd suggest renting for a year to get to know the area and stick the equity in the highest paying cash accounts I could find. 

  4. 25 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

    When I said that renting is risk free and buying is not, I was referring to financial risk

    The obvious financial risk of renting is costs incurred when your landlord kicks you out, so fees, removals, new furniture and deposit deductions. However, if you can afford to buy (and intend to) your main financial risk is the market moving against you and needing to find more money when you buy. 

    The main financial risks of buying is being forced to crystallise a loss of you're forced to sell in a falling market, and the enormous cost of an unforseen move (stamp duty, estate agents fees, legal fees, etc). 

    From a security perspective though you're way more likely to get kicked out of a rental than a owned /mortgaged home - in the latter you'd really need to stop paying your mortgage for a year, whilst in the former you can get thrown out just because your landlord doesn't like you. This is why prospective parents will crawl over glass to buy a place, as forced moves with kids and a houseful of furniture is not a happy prospect. That may not be something that people in the happy 'everything I own fits in the boot of a car' stage of life appreciate, or those who've only had positive experiences of renting. 

     

  5. Analysing the impact of working women on house prices is a bit like analysing the impact of the Earth going round the sun. Aside from the Incels and their ilk (who seem to think women as shrew like creatures to be used for sex and child rearing) the vast majority of people would agree that denying women the rights to work and have an independent financial existance was a huge historic wrong. This isn't going to change.

    What can change is how 2 salaries are judged in a mortgage application. But this involves banks making judgements. Should two mates or a homosexual couple buying together be given a mortgage based on both salaries but a young heterosexual couple only on the man's? What about if they say they don't want to have kids?

    What would be interesting is an analysis of the impact of couples getting together later in life and keeping their old (mortgaged) flats as rentals. This would seem to have had a huge impact on the availability of smaller flats to buy - effectively people climbing up the ladder and kicking away the bottom rung for other people.

    People arguing that women are being 'subsidised' by men in the workforce need to see the big picture. I'm sure I don't need to spell out where babies come from, but unless the father does a complete disappearing act his children will be financially reliant on him to a degree. If Mum has no money Dad will have to make up the difference. Maternity pay and employment rights protect both parent's finances. Younger men in the workforce can surely understand that the rights being afforded to their female parent colleagues will most likely one day be afforded to their own partner.

  6. 7 hours ago, Venger said:

    IT'S ALL ON YOU

    Except it's not is it? We live in a welfare state, which is what this thread is about. Currently there's some support from the state should we lose our jobs or get ill, which helps mitigate some of the financial and personal risks we take in life. People have different views on who should get what. 

    Sorry you don't like me telling stories. Personally I think our stories provide context for our views and concerns, and in a policy context sobby stories well told have a lot of power. But I'll hold back on them when I reply to you again.

  7. Thanks all. So views are that any support should either be a loan secured against the house, or on the proviso that the state comes in as a partner to share in any future HPI. 

    11 hours ago, spyguy said:

    BOLD-UNDERLINE is should be - 'maybe the bank will think twice about how much they lend'

    Yes it would, it would also encourage the banks to step in before things got too out of hand for fear their security would be eroded to nothing. 

    18 hours ago, Venger said:

    I won't feel bad as some sobby-story about change-of-circumstance (for a recentish buyer), with income drop from partner putting strain on their position, eating into their savings.

    Like I said, giving our background this year for context - our position is lucky and I've always been quite debt adverse/ savings focused. My mind likes to jump to worst case scenarios and project the current situation into the far flung future, hence I started thinking about how bad our finances would need to get before we pulled the little one of nursery, flogged the car, flogged the house, etc, etc.

    Anyway happy Christmas all, particularly if you're also hiding from the dreaded duo of the Strictly and Call the Midwife Xmas specials. 

  8. I went to the local Toys R Us a few months ago to get a grow bag for the youngest. Dreary, deserted warehouse is how I'd describe it. Ours is quite central and has free parking - I can't understand why they don't put in a soft play and a cafe to make it more of a destination for kids and parents. As it is they're just waiting for Amazon and co to put them out of business.

  9. On 23/12/2017 at 8:24 AM, Venger said:

    the human shielding (for homeowners / and babies of homeowners)... on HPC forum.  How do you have stomach to read it (ohhhh by HPI+++/BTL+++ winning to extremes and no HPC) and new member deadasdodo also not wanting to see 'owner suffering' - (no matter what position of owner vs needs to sell... whatever super mad-gainz equity they have...  mortgage, even with mad-gainz worth fortune = their home.. if they can't pay mortgage). 

    Venger, politely can I ask how you'd structure the benefit system for housing support - for tenants and homeowners - and also your line on mortgage or rent forbearance? 

    One reason why this thread has struck a chord with me is my wife lost her job earlier in the year. We can just about get by on my wage without drastic cutbacks, but there was a bit of 'drip drip' into our savings - unexpected car repairs and that kind of thing. Made me think about when we'd pull the rip chord so to speak and flog the house. Would I keep holding hope that things would turn around, even when the bank was threatening to repossess?

    In the event she recently found another job and the net result was we spent rather than saved for a few months. Point of saying this is not to seek sympathy - our position is fortunate and owes as much to luck as it does to our judgement - but to give context to why I've been thinking about this.

  10. On 19/12/2017 at 6:53 AM, PopGun said:

    I’m moving into my partners house, so pooling resources I’m making a contribution to bills etc but this enables us both to save a hell of a lot more than if we’re running two houses. Plus I was rattling around by my self in a starter family home which IMO was a bit of a waste. Now a young family have a home and will maximise the use of it.

    Just out of interest does your partner own/ mortgage the house or is she renting?

    I know several people who have kept their flat/ house when they've moved in with their partner - starts off as an insurance policy against the relationship going bad then stays on because they like the rent coming in. Mainly seems to be Londoners. Aside from the obvious 'one more rented house' thing it's not a great idea in my mind, as if there's an easy escape route there's a temptation to use it prematurely if the relationship goes through a rocky patch.

    Good luck to you - hope living with your partner goes really well.

  11. 25 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

    The problem is council tax, has those in low value properties paying a much higher proportion of the value of their home than those in expensive properties. It was deliberately designed that way. The 6 percent increase will be across the board and financially hurt a low income renter in a low value area much more than  a higher income individual who owns somewhere ten times the value. The main effect wont be on house prices, but the disposable income of poorer working people. Bolton will end up worse off than Belgravia. 

    Yeah, this. Plus properties haven't been revalued since the early 90s, so the huge in increace in wealth in some areas hasn't been reflected in the tax levied - round here expensive town center flats frequently pay less than council houses because they were grotty in the early 90s.

    Also the percentage increace cap encourages Councils to go for the maximum increace. If they don't they can't catch up with the 'lost' income if they need more cash in thr future. A badly designed tax that's been poorly implemented.

  12. 1 hour ago, ManVsRecession said:

    It's not the same as opting out of the NHS.  That's a public service that requires taxes to run. A pooled insurance scheme of sorts.  Pensions are wrappers for our own money that is intended to benefit us personally..

    I think the analogy is that, if someone could opt out of the NHS, they probably wouldn't be left to die in the street because their alternative medical provision (if any) didn't work out. The cost of saving that person's life would fall back on the taxpayer.

    Relating that to pension choices if a person made some poor investment decisions and hit retirement without any cash the tax payer would probably end up supporting that person through the benefits system rather than let them live in poverty. That said, your suggestion of broadening pension investment options out makes a lot of sense as long as there's encouragement to diversify investments (although it's perfectly possible to 'put it all on black' in a SIPP).

  13. I manage a geographically distributed team and things have been dead as a dodo for the last week or so - once a few key people knock off it's hard to get anything done and everything goes flat. So I'm left with not a great deal to do (hence posting here at 9.30) with the nagging fear that a client will ask for something important NOW and they'll be no way of getting it done.

  14. 14 hours ago, Venger said:

    I disagree with you on matter after matter and each time have put up reasoned argument for why I disagree with you.  

    Venger, I have been reflecting on Beary's comments whilst on a long drive. As I've said, I've been lurking here for a long time and feel I know posters, but obviously I haven't been posting for long and forum regulars don't know me from Adam. Looking at what Beary said I thought "what would people think of me from my posting history?" - the answer is a angry person who wants to pick a fight, mainly with you. So, I apologise - sorry.

    I still think the best laid plans can come unstuck despite our attempts to build a safety net, and life frequently kicks people in the guts for no good reason. I had no inkling of the two most defining moments of my life (one very good, one very bad) when I woke up on the day they occurred, and that's affected my thinking about life a great deal. But I'll be more community minded in the future.

     

  15. 36 minutes ago, Beary McBearface said:

    If you genuinely feel that you've been misrepresented and misunderstood then a more productive approach is to look back at what you've written and see where you've failed to make your intended meaning sufficiently clear. Once you've been around a while the people know generally where you are coming from and that helps them interpret what you've written but I clearly remember that for a long while as a rookie poster I was getting the wrong end of the stick when reading other people's posts and people seemed to me to be grasping the wrong end of the stick when reading mine. Looking back on the latter, their challenges were often reasonable and fair and highlighted to me some of my unconsidered beliefs and prejudices.

    Thanks Beary, good point. 

  16. 5 hours ago, Venger said:

    It's your own responsibility to have some money set aside for change .

    V, I get (and agree with) your view is that people should make their own safety net. What I don't get is whether you're naive enough to think that there are no circumstances that could quickly burn your safety net to the ground, or you honestly believe that you'd go to sleep penniless in a cardboard box telling yourself that this is quite ok as your own actions or inactions brought you to this point.

    Your arguments play the man rather than the ball. You clearly believe I've a selfish vested interest and nothing I can write will make you think otherwise. I understand you want to buy a house when you feel they represent fair value. At this point will your brain make a mental flip to HPI+++ forever? If not, why has mine?

    I'll give you the last word here - whilst I don't believe that post count makes anyone more of less write I agree that you've invested a lot more time and effort in this forum than I have through my years of lurking. 

  17. 1 hour ago, Venger said:

    What I do know is many of your posts/positioning on HPC since you joined, including posts on this thread about homeowners.. many a clash with my position.  You're not the architect of S24 after 20 years renting, and having bought.

    Marvelous - a forum full of people agreeing with each other would be a dull place indeed. Are you implying though that everyone involved in the design and sign off of S24 was a renter?

    1 hour ago, Venger said:

    deadasadodo and other homeowners, the protectors of all other people's choices (if they turn bad).  I "genuinely care"

    I remember getting throw out of my rented house because my absentee landlord wanted to sell. I know three people who have been chucked out of their rented houses this year as the landlord wanted to sell. My best mate at school sat his GCSEs whilst living in a B&B after his parent's home was repossessed. A baby friend is woefully behind on his mortgage after his high earning wife got postnatal depression and had to quit work. Above all I'm not so stupid that I can't see that bad things could actually happen to me, and that the right choice can become the wrong choice in an instant. Why do you find it so hard to believe that people can see beyond their current self interest?

    1 hour ago, Venger said:

    BTW; how does improved security of tenure bring down house prices from these levels in my area?

    Because the banks only started handing out BTL mortgages like sweeties when ASTs delivered the 2 month no fault eviction. Take that away and BTL mortgages become harder to get and/ or more expensive, and the impact of BTL on house prices is further eroded .

  18. 1 hour ago, Venger said:

    If you wanted renters tenure to be improved you should have pushed for it during all those years you've claimed to have lurked on HPC. 

    Crikey V, you and I have no knowledge of each other outside of this forum. For all you know I could be the policy wonk behind S24 and now, my work completed, I've decided to start posting here. I'm not of course, but the point remains.

    I sense I'm not going to convince you that I'm not 'pity the homeowner and screw the renter', and that my brain didn't make a cognitive flip when I bought a few years ago after 20 years of renting. For the record though (again) I agree speculators and the intentionally overstretched should live by the consequences of their actions, I'm just not so keen on people suffering misfortune in life (redundancy, ill health, relationship breakdown, etc) being forced out of their homes - renter or mortgage payer.

  19. 3 hours ago, Beary McBearface said:

    This is really wrong, I mean so wrong it should get some kind of prize. I note that Ah-so has already picked up the idea that an interest-only mortgage jubilee would take out most of the mortgage lending banks. The only way that you could do a interest-only mortgage jubilee would be to nationalise the banking sector. The numbers are eye-watering. Taking the Lloyds Banking Group 31 December 2016 balance sheet as an example fully 31% of the outstanding loans to owner occupiers are interest only. That is a cool £70bn worth of interest only mortgages. For scale that is more than three times the bailout extended to Lloyds TSB plc in 2008.

    RBS, which is still in state control, has 12% of its owner-occupier lending stock on interest-only terms and a further 5% as part interest-only and part repayment:

    image.thumb.png.9ae02c5381a62746315c43cefdddb3d9.png

    Source

    For the uninitiated "bullet principal repayment" is an emerging piece of industry jargon which is replacing the more familiar term interest-only. Also worth noting is the business of "conversion to amortising"; again, for the uninitiated, amortising just means you pay off the loan as you go - i.e. it means a repayment mortgage. Notice also the explosion of the value of mortgages reaching maturity over the next seven years and also pay due heed to the fact that this issue has been well understood for well over a decade, that new interest-only lending essentially stopped in 2012 and the it was effectively regulated back to the lending volumes consistent with its proper role as a niche lending product for wealthy and sophisticated individuals back in 2014.

    Anybody posting about an interest only jubilee is either ignorant, trolling or just kidding themself.

    The next thing that is really, really wrong with the post is the idea that banks need to replace old lending with new lending. A reasonable way to understand the behaviour of the big lenders (in the hope of perhaps correctly anticipating their behaviour) is to borrow some of ideas from the excellent Fragile By Design and mix them in with a bit of public choice theory. The self-interested agents that determine the behaviour of the too big to fail banks are the banks' executives (particularly those on the board), institutional investor and the state (as represent by the Treasury and the Bank of England). The executives need to show profitability and, sometimes, growth - they only really need to show growth when they are small enough to be at risk of hostile takeover and that threat is itself partially determined by the broader credit environment. None of the major UK mortgage lenders will be worried about the threat of hostile takeover. Growth can also be a way to show profitability. The executives can take big risks today (e.g. the small lenders presently piling into buy-to-let) in order to secure fees today and thus generate profits this year and then let tomorrow worry about tomorrow.

    An eloquent example of this dynamic playing out at the moment is the behaviour of the Lloyds Bank balance sheet. Lloyds spat out TSB in 2013 and after the split their total UK mortgage lending was £303bn. As of their most recent annual reporting their mortgage lending stood at £293bn. Lloyds are clearly focusing on profitability rather than chasing growth.

    Finally, the banks are not bankrupt and the upcoming misfortunes of Generation Rent From the Bank (being the cohort of borrowers who lashed their financial future to the interest only lending and sky high house prices of the 1997-2008 boom) will not bankrupt them. The average loan to value of the Lloyds interest-only mortgages is presently 43.8%. House prices could halve from present prices and the borrowers will still be able to repay the bank (sorry, 'make the bullet payment on their principal', obvs) with the proceeds of selling the house. The end of this story is just some people who had expected to be homeowners who end up renting in retirement.

    image.thumb.png.0acb4c2448aaf44061d1e5fc034b67c0.png

    Source

    Off topic, but your posts are wonderfully well written Beary - a real pleasure to read.

  20. 6 hours ago, Venger said:

    As I already pointed out, for the renter who has saved a spit of any money towards buying a house (with prices as they are in so many areas) you get no state help with rent.

    Taking tenure out of the equation, it's unfair that people who make their own safety net (via saving) are denied benefits. I like saving, have a 12 year old car, have a week in Cornwall or France every year etc, etc. My neighbours get a new car every year, go on lots of lovely holidays and from the sound of things don't save very much. Yet if we both lose our jobs they can claim a full range of benefits and I can't.

    I also agree that in the present system it's unfair that housing equity isn't included in a means test. As I said upthread, it's unlikely that someone would be able to remortgage to borrow more if they didn't have a job, but there's no reason why the state couldn't do the same thing by providing benefits as a secured loan.

    When I was a kid someone told me about the Swiss model for unemployment benefits where you get a proportion of your former salary for (I assume) a limited time. I thought this was really unfair, but the older I get the more it makes sense. Firstly if you earn more you've presumably contributed more, and secondly you'll have bigger commitments. I signed on briefly after I graduated, and could live quite comfortably with my parents on £40 something quid a week. If I lost my job now I'd get the basic £70 odd quid a week, which wouldn't go anywhere near my commitments as the main breadwinner for a young family.

    The OP started this thread as they wanted to see less support for troubled homeowners and more forced sellers. I agree that people should face the consequences of their actions, but there's always human tragedies when people lose their homes - both renters and mortgage payers. Ideally the benefits system and banks would come down harshly on landlords, speculators, hopelessly optimistic overextenders and the MEW to infinity brigade, whilst taking a more forgiving approach to people with modest mortgages who have genuinely fallen on hard times. I'm not sure how you'd design this though.

    You may take this as 'pity the home owners', but I presume we both want the same thing namely secure, affordable roofs over people's head. Security of tenure in the private rented sector needs to be massively improved, which should bring down house prices in addition as offering greater security.

    Guilty as charged about bringing other things in here - I'll rant about the job centre process elsewhere.

     

  21. 2 hours ago, Sour Mash said:

    Facebook is now THE social media platform.  Google is THE search platform.  Spotify is THE streaming music platform.

    I think you're right here that Fear of Missing Out is one driver of the bubble, but being first mover doesn't seem to be much of an advantage in tech. MySpace and Friends Reunited, Excite and AltaVista, Napster and (out of examples here) are all earlier versions of the things you listed that aren't around anymore. Google is a great example of a company that came late to the party with a much better product that crushed the incumbents.

  22. Bitcoin's cheerleaders are a trinity of techies, libertarians and speculators. The former two either can't see or don't care that the price is entirely driven by the speculators.

    There's a certain irony that Bitcoin fans on this site understand that housing is in a speculative bubble, but deny there's one in Bitcoin. This time it's different, yeah right. 

    That said, do I wish I'd bought some Bitcoins a few years back - yes. Would I sell out before the inevitable crash - probably not. Is everyone affected by the Bitcoin bubble in the same way as they are by house prices - no.

  23. 10 hours ago, mattyboy1973 said:

    One thing that has always annoyed me is that a home is never counted as an asset for means-testing purposes, whereas a fairly small pot of savings will push you over the threshold for just about anything (is it £16k for benefits, in general?)

    Yeah, and if you're sticking money away for a deposit then you're more likely to have a reasonable pot of savings that makes you ineligible for benefits. The changes the OP highlighted seem like a reasonable compromise, with any support for mortgage payers based on a loan secured against the house. 

     

  24. 41 minutes ago, Venger said:

    Maybe homeowners should put some money aside into savings for lifes ups-and-downs, instead of expecting Govt to flood them with even more money, but I see you don't even like that.

    Sorry V, but this is is a case where a renter gets a better deal than a mortgage payer - renters can get housing benefit to pay their landlord's mortgage pretty much immediately, whilst a mortgage payer has to wait 39 weeks to recieve support (both savings and partner income dependent). You can't remortgage and borrow money against your mad gainz if you don't have a job.

    My point was that national insurance should act like the name suggests - if you pay in a lot you should have be able to get a reasonable pay out (for a limited period) that helps towards your outgoings if you fall on hard times. The current system rewards people that spend rather than save whilst they're employed, whilst job centre personnel treat everyone like shirkers rather than focusing their efforts on people who genuinely need help geting back into work.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.