Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Tummybanana

Members
  • Posts

    935
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tummybanana

  1. Maybe you could leverage your South Sea Company stocks?
  2. You have to agree, though, that those who bought a house for £100,000 in 2000, then STR'd in 2007 for £200,000 have only made that money from *luck* rather than any particular financial acumen. And that's what's piqueing the OP, not those who've judiciously put away 15% of their income every month since they were 16. Heck, we made £30K on an investment of £1000 (for arrangement fees) by sitting on our **** in a house for five years, and we're RUBBISH with money
  3. The EU? The whole of the EU except for the UK? Someone's suffering from poop-tainted glasses.
  4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7891234.stm I mean, £120,000 a year from 2010! That's a lot of freebies until then.
  5. Right, two live options, assuming 100% mortgage. Out of the 19 properties currently available for rent in my town of 20,000, there are two which are both for sale or rent. 1 bed flat Asking price: 129,000 After 10% discount: 116,100 @5% interest £775.67 Interest: £483.33 / Rental: £525 Renting = £500 p/a worse off. ----------- 3 bed semi Asking price: 250,000 After 10% discount: 225,000 @5% interest £1,504 Interest £937.50 / Rental: £775 Buying = £1,950 p/a worse off. So it's not a simple matter of one being automatically better than another - despite my earlier post - not by any means Certain properties will be cheaper to rent than buy, and others vice versa.
  6. It's pretty simple. BOE: 1% Inflation: 3.1% If interest rates beat inflation then the Renters "win." If inflation beats interest rates then the Mortgagors "win." Cash purchasers? How long's a piece of string? As most Renters will probably become buyers at some stage in their lives, however, all they're doing is postponing the inevitable; working on the assumption that there's a brighter horizon in the future. We're going to have low interest rates for a good two or three years yet - there's no financial capital in making thousands of people homeless so that a cohort of pensioners get an extra £5 a week on their interest. And after that five years, who knows? The BTL dust will have settled, and only professional landlords will be in the market. If the cost of living goes up, nd the market will bear it, they'll raise their prices. The mortgage company, however, can only charge a fixed fee, regardless of what the pound buys in the future. If we assume that an individual is happy to buy what they'd rent, then rental works out at about twice the price of interest payments on a mortgage for the same property - I worked this out before from properties that were either for sale or rent. Finger in the air maths means that the property needs to drop by a third since purchase/valuation for the renter to avoid paying for more than the equity loss. I can only compare to my own town, however, so if people want to find local equivalents, then we can start looking at the real figures. I'm sure, though, that if someone's distressed enough to discount their rent, then they're distressed enough to discount their house price.
  7. They haven't responded to my petition yet for a single block of flats for MPs, but in the meantime, how about putting your vote to something that REALLY matters? http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/toplessness/#detail
  8. Woah, woah, woah! If you're taking 9 years ago as your starting point, then to show parity, you need to take the house price then as well - which would be about £50,000. The other issue is that a £500 mortgage now will be £500 in ten years' time, even if £500 only buys you a mars bar. Conversely, rents will be revised according to the landlord's situation and RPI
  9. MSE HUGZZ* My question, then, is do you think this agressive selling attitude is exacerbated by state intervention, or restrained by it? *Stealing your wallet at the same time
  10. Aw, were the poor banks encouraged to invest in a product which turned out to be not as profitable as they'd hoped for? Makes a ruddy change.
  11. Plus he was the architect of the National Health Trusts competition, and the instigator of PFI.
  12. My God, if they're going to force people to learn a language it might as well be a USEFUL one. Most people in Morocco speak about four or five languages; it fair put me to shame. At first I thought this was just for the tourists, but even the lowliest berber nomad seemed to talk arabic, french and english. I'm determined that my kids are going to be fluent in another language by the time they're adults, but you can't learn a language from books, you need to live there - you need to fail a hundred times before you succeed. And that's the problem with the English; we don't like doing something unless we can do it well.
  13. An interesting slant. Here's mine. Gordon and Tony bemoaned the lack of social housing after Thatcher sold it off. Companies weren't willing to invest because of the poor returns. Gordon and Tony implemented minimum requirements on new estates, but still weren't getting the volume of new properties they wanted for social housing. G&T came upon a cunning plan. After removing tax relief from pensions, and the poor state of the stock market after 9/11, it was clear that investments were going to move into property. They encouraged this, effectively steering private investors into taking risks by constructing property. As prices started to rise, more wealthy individuals moved into BTL not as a long term investment, but a way to flip and improve property. Vast blocks of apartments were built, new housing estates sprang up in every nook and cranny, and the risk still lay with private speculators who were convinced the wheels would never come off. In 2007, the wheels came off. Taking receipt of banks' mortgage books, those assets which have previously been held by individuals and hedge funds suddenly drop like a white boxer. In comes Gordon, taking control of the banking sector, and taking the devalued property off the market. Whether it's 'worth' £500,000 or £10,000, it's still a place for someone to live, and that's all he cares about, and the losers are the private sector who bore the risk, took the benefits and now suffer the liabilities. The only problem is that those individuals in the private sector who are suffering are not necessarily those who gained previously. Nationalised banking in five years will, I think, be profitable for the government - Northern Rock has already paid back a larger proportion of the loan than they were scheduled to (Wonder if there are early redemption penalties). Hopefully, too, by then we'll be out of Iraq and Afghanistan - with Obama pulling out we won't be doing it on our tod, surely? - which should save a packet in the long run. Plus, cheaper heroin!
  14. But I'm too busy making something else to trade with. However, a thousand people make what I make; only ten make what you make. I don't have the luxury of time to change my manufacturing processes, because I will die through lack of food. Because I am not as clever as you, because my parents were not as clever as your parents and could not afford to hire a teacher, you can charge me far more for your product than I can you for mine - which means that I have no profit margin and you have much. With your greater profits, you can monopolise the resource. There are other tyrannies than physical force. The problem is lack of compassion - you seem to believe that an individual, left to their own devices, will trade honestly, fairly, and contribute to welfare of the needy, including those with no families to support them. I'm sorry to tell you that this is not what happens in countries with minimal states.
  15. Whereas Capitalism - oh, you don't like that word, do you? INDIVIDUALISM, then, works through blackmail and extortion. I have this product or service which you need to exist. Unless you give me money, and dance like a performing monkey, I will let you die. Once you have my product and I have your money, you will realise what I have given you doesn't actually save your life, and will die anyway. I do not depend on your repeat custom, so I shall take the money. I might even loot your corpse so that I can sell my product to another sap.
  16. How? How on earth does Socialism get involved in this? The reason we're buggered up is because some individuals - who have a lot of money - decided to make more money by lending it out to people - who wanted to make money - but couldn't pay it back. Exactly the same thing has happened under the Republican Administration in the US; hardly the biggest fans of Socialism The only Socialist aspect to the whole debacle is the fact that the state has had to step in to shore up the failing banks, because people have become too dependent on aggrandising themselves through the pursuit of capital and bourgeois lifestyle trappings. Socialism would mean 100% tax and distribution according to an individual's needs - which is kind of what tax credits do, admittedly, but they're hardly to blame for the credit crisis.
  17. Well, this is what they'd have ACTUALLY done if they'd won in 1997. Much of it is now Labour policy, interestingly. Edit: Nitty Gritty here. http://www.conservative-party.net/manifest...manifesto.shtml
  18. Surely its the deregulation of the FSA that led to this? I'll give you my mea culpa moment. In 2000, the wife and I were living in a one bed flat in Peterborough. We were paying about £300 per month in rent. When she started working, we decided to look for somewhere a bit bigger. We found out that a mortgage for a £50,000 property would only cost £325 a month (IIRC). "Bargain!" We thought, "Let's buy instead!" So, we shopped around, and found a property going for 55K. We managed to talk the owner down to 52K, but found out that the best rate for us was a 95% mortgage. However, we didn't have a deposit. Now comes the confession. The property was VALUED at 65K (Although as no-one had paid that, I don't know where they got that from). So we agreed that the bank would lend us 95% of the value of 65K, and that on paper the mortgage info would say that we paid 65K for the property, when we paid 52K. We were assured this was legal, although the vendor's solicitors needed convincing, and at one part were going to pull out. If that practice was, or became, commonplace, then HPI becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; house prices rose on paper to reach the LTV, and as a result historical records showed house price rises. Oh, and I voted for Labour in '97, and don't regret it a bit. Mind you, it was in Aldenham, so didn't stand a bloody chance. I sincerely believe that if we hadn't stuck our oar in on Iraq and Afghanistan that most of the manifesto pledges would have been carried out and we'd be in a better place financially. It'd be great if people didn't wheel out the whole "Labour didn't get the popular vote" trope, as well. 1997 election Popular vote: Labour - 43.21% Conservative - 30.69% Lib Dem - 16.76% 2001 election Popular vote: Labour - 40.67% Conservative - 31.7% Lib Dem - 18.26% 2005 election Popular vote: Labour - 39.91% Conservative - 33.86% Liberal Democrat - 23.09%
  19. Right, piss or get off the pot time. As lots of people seem to be of the same mind, I've submitted a "single block of flats" petition to Number10 - don't see why it won't get through, I didn't use any names or defamatory language. MPFLATS if it gets published. You do have to give your name and address to prove that you're a British Citizen, though, so it's not for the fainthearted. But faint heart never won fair maid, and all that.
  20. You and me, Acerman *pointy head thing* The reason we've had financial problems are because people aren't actually letting their money work for them. They're either sticking it on a property and waiting for it to rise, or they're handing it over to a bank and letting them work out exactly what to do with it - no-one's taking responsibility for making their money grow. Now property's shot, and the banks are hamstrung, the days of sitting on your money and doing bugger all with it are long gone. The only way to make money from investment will be to actually do research about companies, and invest in those with good strategies and backers - either directly or through the purchase of shares. Banks will be places to store your money, not to make it. The days of casual investing are long gone.
  21. I'm glad you put the hyphen in; I always thought it was Expert-Sexchange.com, which is a VERY different site.
  22. Exactly. It's a bubble. All of the job losses, all of the HPC, all of the urban decay, it's just restoring things to the way they ought to be in the first place. Sorry finance guys, estate agents, builders, and everyone who benefited indirectly from their success, but you shouldn't have had those jobs in the first place. Enjoy the time you had. When the dust clears, we should be where we'd have been without the bubble in the first place, just with a shed load more city centre flats ripe for State or Housing Association Ownership.
×
×
  • 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.