Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by nicebuyer

  1. As for nurses, I wouldn't let my heart bleed for them if I were you schuey. I work in a medical research institute and the nurses who work on the clinical trials get about 30-35k here. Band 6 nurses (anyone with 5+ years experience, 2 of which are in a specialised field e.g. cancer care) get 28-32k. Just yesterday, I overheard two nurses discussing a new job advert and disdaining an advertised salary of 25k saying that 'no-one would work for that'. Yet that's the average salary in the country! And before you say 35k is a rubbish salary, let me tell you that there are plenty of PhD qualified scientists here who work for that. They are the people you need to thank for improving your son's health as they develop the actual science and medical therapies that save people's lives. THe nurses just deliver what the scientists and doctors develop - yet thanks to New Labour, they are entitled to affordable homes and the same salaries as anyone else, despite having spent less time in education and thus sacrificed less years of earnings than others. Are the medical researches entitled to affordable housing? No? Didn't think so...

    £35k is a rubbish wage for people like that in London. And yes, those PhD qualified scientists also deserve their fair share. My friend is one of those, at a guess he earns about £25k. It's not enough. As for the nurses 'just delivering' I think that's a bit unfair. They work long hours in pretty crappy environments and don't get paid enough. that's not to say others should be paid less or more, that's a separate discussion. Anyway, many of those scientists are employed privately so I can't do anything about their wages, it has nothing to do with me, but public sector pay has. It's mmy money after all.

  2. Kirsty Allsop is culpable because she was the figurehead. She was willing to stamp all over the television networks declaring that property was a win win investment and to not get involved made you stupid and your life would be ruined if you didnt get "on the ladder". She as good as frogmarched young couples to the banks and made them overborrow.

    'Made' them over-borrow? Honestly, I don't understand this, she never made anyone do anything.

    In any case, are you saying that her advice was wrong? That property was a bad investment? Ferranti was a great investment at one point. Just because it wasn't in 1993 didn't make the initial advice bad.

    Kirsty and Phil were right. Investing in property was a good move. The property market was increasing. You could make £10k a week without doing anything, by sitting back and watching the feverish mass hysteria of agents knocking on your door begging you to give them your property and then selling it at a 100% increase within 24 hours.

    If I tell you to put £300k into a property and that it would increase by 100% in two years it would be good advice.

    If in 5 years time interest rates were going up, inflation was increasing, you could start to see more houses on the market, lower increases and more for sale signs than sold signs would my initial advice have been bad? Would it be my fault that you didn't heed the advice and sell your property last year?

    Property was a fantastic investment. If you could afford to buy but didn't then you will have lost out by not taking the chance on it. Was it really such bad advice?

  3. You don't have to sell the house to be in negative equity...come on this is basic stuff.

    It's obviously not so basic is it???

    You do need to sell the house, because you don't know the value until you sell it. What's my house worth? £200k? £300k? £500k? Who knows? An estate agent? A surveyor? You because you saw what my neighbour sold for last year?

    Come on, this is basic stuff until you sell the house negative equity is just theoretical and based on guesswork.Even if you purchase a house for £50,00000000000000000000000 more than it sold 2 weeks before who's to say another idiot won't come in and offer £50,00000000000000000000000.1?

    As we hear from people on this board day in day out, a house is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Until the offer is in we simply cannot know what someone is willing to pay for it.

  4. Yeah!! Free housing for teachers. Great idea.

    If that happened I'd do a 3 week course and become one of those methinks.

    And that might be a good thing!! One of the problems as I see it is we have so many talented people in this country that would like to teach but simply cannot afford to do so.

    If it were me I would close schools for a period of three months. I would sack off all the teachers. I would then advertise teachers jobs with a starting pay of £80k with a top salary of £150k. I'd then spend my time hiring the very best people for the job. Okay I'm being glib but my point is we need to make sure we compensate teachers properly so we employ the very best the country has to offer rather than, as I saw, people who left Uni, did their PGCE and became a teacher because it was easy and they couldn't get any other job.

    My school paid teachers incredibly well. Offered subsidised housing, 14 week summer holidays, 4 week Christmas and Easter, full use of school grounds eg tennis courts, sailing, squash courts, football and rugby pitches, swimming pool, gyms, etc etc etc. Guess what? We had some incredible teachers. Many had actually worked outside of a school before coming into teaching. Our gym teacher played cricket for Essex. The result was kids coming out, well educated, good grades and going onto good universities.

    They're not running about on the streets killing people with knives, fighting in clubs and pubs on a Saturday night. IMO if we paid teachers well we'd all see a much nicer society in the long run.

    So if the government offers a scheme to key workers, nurses, teachers etc ad it works for them and gets them on the property ladder then so be it. That's a good thing.

    You know, I recently became a dad. Unfortunately my son developed a few problems after birth and he had to go to the NICU. The nurses there were brilliant. They were keeping babies alive. That was their job. All day every day, keeping people's children alive. I was chatting with one of them. She was essentially living in a squat because she couldn't afford anything else. She won't be able to afford her own home or car for the next 10 years. She can hardly afford to get into work on the bus. What are we doing as a country allowing this to happen? That nurse should be given a house close to work. For free. I have no idea how long she trained for but the result of what she does is amazing. I'm going off topic here a bit :) But it does relate to these govt schemes that people like to criticise. If they work for teachers and nurses and allow them to afford to buy something then we should all be happy about that. Whether the scheme is affordable or financially viable is another matter.

  5. You're absolutely right but people that's a risk you take with any financial decision. We took a decision within what we classed as affordable limits, and with enough safety built in to make it reasonably safe.

    Just by virtue of being involved in this scheme doesn't make our purchase any more or any less risky. You could argue it is less risky because if prices do fall then somebody else absorbs 21% of that fall (and yes I've checked the contracts to ensure this is true)

    Finally I am always amazed at how quickly things do get personal on here but it really doesn't bother me. I know how great this scheme is to us personally and I can see that it bothers people, even real people that I know, not just keyboard warriors. But we did what we believed was best for us and like you say that's the most important thing.

    If it works for you then I don't see what anyone else's problem is. Good luck to you and i hope it works out. To be honest if anything we should be arguing for a better deal for you and your wife. Like totally free housing for teachers who do one of the most important jobs in society. The government should be paying your mortgage for you not just 'enabling' you to get onto the ladder. Either that or start paying teachers properly.

  6. See, the commercial reality is this: people do fall for advertising. People do believe what they hear through the media. Once you know this, you have to be pretty brave not to stock the stuff that has the biggest marketing budgets.

    By this same logic, it won't only be stupid people who buy property just because some fat tart on the telly tells them it's a good idea.

    I understand how mass hysteria can make even the most sensible bunny jump into a boiler. I'm not denying it. I'm simply arguing against those that see Kirsty Alsopp as being culpable and even at the fore of the problems we see today. As you say, she's a 'fat tart off the telly'. She's just one cog in a million that has turned to put us where we are. Anyone that listened to her specifically and based spending 8x their salary on a property because they saw her on a TV show is an idiot.

    My point is that it's unfair to target one person, especially when there are many more easy and sensible targets to choose. However for whatever reason people target her and lay the blame at her door. It's nonsense quite frankly.

    So just what kept many of us from jumping aboard the bandwagon? Speaking personally, I feared that when the money ran out and prices tailed off, the property progs would vanish. This could only mean one thing : exacerbation of the bear market. The removal of a capital profit motive, coupled with a removal of credit represent a serious threat to property prices in themselves, but couple that with what amounts to the ending of a multi-billion property-owning advertising campaign ... well, I'm sure you get the point.

    Personally speaking I'd feel a bit silly right now if I'd held back from jumping on the bandwagon. Sure it wasn't going to last forever but as long as you kept your eyes open then you will have benefited enormously. Did this site start in 2003? Let's take that as an example. I won't speak for myself but a friend of mine moved to Berlin last week and has purchased a place on the proceeds he made on property between 2003 and 2006. Another is up a house, a Bentley and a flat because he went in at the right time and got out at the right time. The last 5 years have been a brilliant time to make money. In that sense Kirsty and Phil weren't far off the mark. It wasn't their job to tell people when to sell, if people knew what they were doing once they bought their property life is looking pretty for them right now.

  7. What really annoys me about this discussion is the way in which it reflects everything we should hate about modern society and the notion of responsibility. We're getting one step closer to this horrible blame game we see in America, let's blame everyone but ourselves. Next thing we'll start suing people because it's easier to blame someone else than take responsibility for one's own stupid actions.

    If someone is so silly as to borrow £500k and 10x their salary on the basis of what Phil Spencer speaks about on an entertainment show then I have no sympathy. I have even less for those that then blame Phil Spencer.

    Crazy talk.

  8. 51KH6mJT80L._SS500_.jpg

    This is laughable. People came on the show wanting to move because of a lifestyle change etc. Kirsty and Phil, under adevice from the people appearing on the show, found properties within a specific radius. They then gave their opinion on whether the house was in a good location or not.

    Now people want to blame them for a HPC? Laughable. take advice, don't take advice, ultimately you make the decision.

  9. Everyone's being a bit silly about this really. Yes I know there's a difference between an actor and presenter. I was accentuating the point by suffering to them as actors.

    they told people that property would be a good investment. It has been. They have never advised when to sell or when to get out of the market. That's not what the show was about.

    The fact is that many thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions made a lot of money from property. A LOT of money. As long as you're not stupid and get rid of it at the right time or stay in for the long run and treat it as a family home rather than an investment you've won. If you're stupid enough to buy big, at big prices with a massive loan with no escape plan then so be it, you're to blame, not Kirsty and bloody Phil Spencer.

    They never told anyone what mortgage to get, how much they should borrow. If you borrowed 10x income then how's that Kirsty's fault? I can't stand people that blame others because of their own stupidity. Only stupid people do it. Take some responsibility, accept you made a mistake and move on. Next you'll be blaming Jeremy Clarkson for choosing a shoddy car YOU should have researched properly.

    P.s (I'm not talking to you specifically but speaking to the wider issue in general)

  10. I'm afraid KIRSTY MUST take her share of the blame.

    After all JOE & JOANNE Public are more likely to listen to KIRSTY & PHIL than they are to a top economist from the GUARDIAN arn't they ?

    That's Joe Public's fault no? In any case I have no idea why one would single out the presenter, it's probably fairer to take umbrage with Channel 4 and those commissioning the series. Let's be honest, Kirsty and Phil are just actors fronting an entertainment show for C4. I guess the problem is that many people were so ridiculously idiotic that they actually thought this was a show to take financial advice from rather than something amusing to watch in the evening.

    Singling out an individual is silly and misses the point completely. How about writing to the BBC about the hundreds of shows they've had on that you and your tax money actually paid for? Done that yet? Write to C4, write to the BBC, don't pick on individuals who are just figureheads. Waste of time and not very nice either.

  11. I don't think she's done anything wrong. She and Spencer gave some good advice, made an entertaining TV show and made a bit of cash doing it.

    Let's remember that it was a TV show, entertainment. Anyone that took it as investment advice is probably the same person that runs their lives via the Mystic Meg phone line. I for one enjoyed (enjoy) the show and hope it continues. It was a great way of seeing what you could afford, what was out of your price range and it gave great ideas about prices outside of areas in which you live. It was fun and allowed us to snoop and see what others were doing in the property market.

    What annoys me are the idiots who blame people such as her or Spencer for things they have no responsibility nor obligation over. If you took out a loan for 5X your salary then if you can't pay it it's your problem. The idea that taking money advice from a TV show excuses your stupidity is in itself, yes, STUPID.

  12. Maybe I do. :lol: So perhaps my view of what these houses are worth is skewed by the rent I pay, but I don't think they are worth anything like £500k+. They really are very, very small and not suitable for a family long-term.

    That house isn't number 16 btw, 16 is an end of terrace. And I don't see how it's a student house, student houses rarely come unfurnished, do they?

    It's 14 then, I saw it a couple of days ago, it's a student house in terms of what it looks like, dirty carpets, yellow stains on walls, you know the thing, the kind of place I rented for £30 a week during University. Horrible. Rental on Clarence, Faraday and even Birkbeck are above £2k for 3 beds, most nearer £2.5k.

  13. You are so far off. I pay less than half that for my house. Granted mine is not extended into the attic, so is just a two bed. But I doubt one extra bedroom would cover £1350pm in rent.

    You obviously have a good deal. Florence rents a bit cheaper than Clarence but still, have a look at what's renting at the moment and it's no where near £1500. There's one on florence at the moment, number 16, on with some small agency, it's a student house, falling apart, not extended, a ***hole to be honest and they want £1500 for that :)

    Here it is, no pictures for a reason :)http://www.findaproperty.com/displayprop.a...f0-0c0095207ff8

    I saw it, YUK

  14. The question is where do these rights come from? Who is it that gives us these rights and how are these met? How do you meet someones "right" to something without creating negative rights (ie rights of the state). What don't I have the right to and why? Should some groups have rights that others don't?

    That question is almost identical to one I was given in my first year in my PPE degree :) You should take a look at: http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/rights/ and then have a glimpse at 1789 France to put the writings into context. A fascinating period of history, both historically and philosophically.

    As for those calling for a bill of rights or a codified constitution we all know who the major proponents of such an idea are. Don't we? I mean. who will make the most money from it? Which of the MPs suggesting these documents sit on boards of law firms?

    :) Yay, let's make lawyers even richer :) Sorry, I have a thing against law firms today. :)

  15. Where do I save 200k nowadays? Would Kaupthing Edge be safe bet? Thanks

    I have some money with Kaupthing Edge but only up to the £35k mark. For the £200k we need to access quickly we've got it in £35k chunks with a few different banks, ING, KE etc etc. I'd rather personally have it all guaranteed and know it's safe than making a few extra quid sticking it in one single better interest account. My advice is play safe unless the £200k is just play money and you can afford to lose it. If that's the case let me know as I'd have some fun playing with it :) There's really no bother in having a number of different accounts.

  16. Rent & Relax would be my advice.

    I pay nearly £2.5k per month to rent a three bedroomed house in Richmond, and I'm has happy as a pig in sh1t!

    My landlord thinks very fondly of me because he believes I'm subsidising his pension, and I think very fondly of him because I believe he's subsidising my accommodation during a crash!

    Hehe :) I was looking in Richmond actually, there's not much going at the moment so I think I'll stay in Wimbledon. As you say, I might just rent and relax. I saw a nice place earlier today at only £2.2k which would suit us to the ground for a couple of years. As you say, maybe I should just sit back and relax for a bit and wait to see prices drop. I really hope they do :)

  17. Thanks for the link it says:

    Thats about what I would have imagined. This is of course graduate recruiters. Not every graduate gets a graduate job, some end up stacking shevles in Tescos or whatever until they find their way, so this will bring down overall graduate wages, but according to the link you supplied, if your sons had a job offer from a graduate recruiter, then the salaries they were offered put them in the bottom 10%. (I'm looking at the little table on the link)

    I couldn't see the part showing average London wages for Graduates. I know that my London waiting (public sector) is around 3K.

    I took what was typically a job offered to new graduates in 2004 in London and the starting salary was 19.5K and went up to 21K the next year. This was just a Government job (not financial) and I just have a 2.2 in history. I didn't think it wasn't a competitive salary at the time.

    I think it's also worth noting that most of the best employers don't advertise in prospects, they go direct to universities. If I remember correctly Prospects advertises graduate roles with companies such as Mcdonalds. There's nothing wrong with that but these are not the best paying jobs out there. If this is where the figures come from then they will be very low compared to reality.

  18. Engineering grads with us start on £22k rising to £25k over 3 years.

    Once qualified (Chartered) and stay with the company they usually earn between £40-£50k

    That sounds okay I guess, upwards of £40k after 3 years. But what's the progress from the $40k/£50k mark? does it go up by another large jump after another two years or so? I suppose engineering grads have a lot more security than those of us working in tech fields or banking/finance.

  19. http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Ho..._/p!eaLXbeX

    Average (official figures) grad salary 2006 was £18,000. Currently claimed to be £22K plus. Also see qualifying factors related to location etc in link above.

    Reality is that employers are offering 14K -20K routinely outside London. Often little more in London, excluding financial world. I have two sons, Warwick Ist BA, MA, and Bristol Ist BA, MA - and both were offered well under £20K in their first jobs (London, Brighton, Manchester).

    Sure, a receptionist can earn more than a graduate. It's getting to be a difficult marketplace for grads, good uni's or not.

    That's actually terrible, something has gone seriously wrong, unless your sons were looking for a very specific vocational career then the advice they received was bad and someone should be talked to in very strong terms. A first from Bristol and Warwick and a starting of under £20k in London? That's incredible. My sister in law started on £45k and she got a 2:1 from a trad red brick. We wouldn't dream of employing someone at less than £30k. Competition is too high. You can walk into McKinsey on £45k. Heck my brother just started a new job at Pet City or some big pet place and he's never got a qualification in his life. He's on £26k and that's in Basingstoke!

    The figures I see banded about re. grad salaries is usually nonsense. It tends to include the thousands of grads that did sociology or American studies at the University of West Ealing :)

  20. A key consideration is the rental value. Taking a quick look through Wimbledon rentals suggests something similar would rent for roughly £2000 per month, see this as an example,


    At say a 7% BTL interest rate you'd have to buy it for something less than £350k in order to stand a chance of covering the mortgage from rental income (allowing for voids and repairs you couldn't do that immediately, but maybe in a few years the property might start to wash its face). Someone looking to augment their pension might place a premium on the fact that this property is convenient for public transport, and Wimbledon will always attract couples with young kids because of the common, consequently this should be an easy property to rent out. Therefore I'd guess the floor price would be round about £400k. Is that "affordable"? I think it is, easily. A 25% deposit would take the loan down to £300k, at x4 income that's £75k for a sole earner, or say one person earning about £55k and a partner earning say £30k. Nothing rare about that in London. Toss in a small premium because it's recently modernised and the kitchen/diner opens directly onto the garden, and I doubt this property will come down much below about £450k.

    That particular property is actually a flat but yes, you're not far off the rental value. I would say it's nearer £2.5k for this house, at least that is what I would think reasonable. Your opinion on £450k ties in with what I was originally thinking, perhaps a little low because there are some great schools nearby and lots of families pay a slight increase because of that. It's actually what I'm thinking as my son will be the right age in a couple of years. If we said that the value will drop to between £450k and £475k then offering early 500s wouldn't be terrible if one were to stay in the long term. Would you agree? Perhaps I ought to wait it out for another year and see what happens. I don't suppose I'm losing all that much, I just hate paying someone else £2.5k to rent their house :)

  • 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.