Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

sleepwello'nights

New Members
  • Posts

    2,683
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sleepwello'nights

  1. 9 hours ago, wsn03 said:

    According to my accountant i do very well, so he was always amazed by my choice of daily runaround- Fiat Seicento for a few years followed by a battered old Peugeot 106 - i was only doing low mileage. 

    My lovely BMW (bought at an obscene discount) was sparred for occasional business use only and is now becoming a classic  (who'd have thought it), and ive saved so much money over the years im going to treat myself to a 10 yr old XKR Supercharged Jag as a toy.

    I loved being looked down on, it gave me the biggest kick you can imagine. Now i have a respectable daily drive ( a 27k Passat i only paid 6k for at 6 yrs old..amazing car) because im doing a further commute i really do miss driving a banger. 

    Btw when i do buy a decent car i always go 5 or 6 yrs old, let the suckers pay the depreciation. 

    I enjoy driving my new car. I can afford it, I know it will depreciate and I know roughly how much that will be over the four or five years I choose to keep it. Why does it bother you so much that's how I choose to spend my money?

    What's the phrase I should use to describe you? How about inverted snob. 

  2. 5 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

    I've read that in the event of something happening, life would really go downhill in weeks 2 to 4 if you weren't prepared, as your food would run out, no freezers, no access to clean water so you'd have swathes of desperate, starving people roaming the streets looking for food.

    Agree. As the cliches say: "Survival of the fittest", "It's a dog eat dog world".

  3. 1 hour ago, wonderpup said:

    Come the apocalypse I doubt there will be time for all that- it's more likely to be a short vicious fight to grab the exisiting food supplies before stavation sets in. If it's true that fragility and complexity are somewhat interelated when it comes to civilisations then ours is the most complex and therefore the least resiliant civilisaton that has ever existed.

    I remember not too long ago there was a strike by the petrol tanker drivers- I was in cornwall on holiday at the time- and some of the scenes I witnessed at the rural garages as the pumps started to dry up were like something from a cheap sci fi movie- it's scary how fast normal civiised people can turn on each other when they feel threatened.

     

    Of course we do depend on the cooperation of those around us. Even so I doubt a Mad Max scenario would ensue, unless the TFHatters are correct

  4. 23 hours ago, Millaise said:

    One of his guests in this episode is Ann Pettifor from an organisation called PRIME.

    She states that money, being a promise, has no limit to its creation, and therefore there can never be a shortage [presumably, credibility eventually runs out?]. She mentions that she thought the chancellor disingenuous when he said there is 'no pot of money under my desk'.

    She's absolutely right with that analysis. The problem I can't grasp is what all this stored money represents after the debtor has gone and the creditor is no longer under an obligation to him. Kinda fits in well with the probate thread discussion on inheritance tax.

  5. 32 minutes ago, wonderpup said:

    It's true I couldn't grow a potato to save my life- but I can paint pretty pictures.:D

    Neither could I. I could however dig a small hole put a potato in it, maybe water it from time to time if there was no rain, and a few months later after the plant has flowered dig up some more potatoes that had miraculously grown from the original potato I had put into the hole in the ground.

    We may not be as helpless as we think we are.

  6. 43 minutes ago, Sterling Loss said:

    I'd guess most people would agree and I'm no exception. I don't think anyone would define happiness as an electronically stored number though.

    There is a healthy looking beggar who sits in our local shopping centre for hours every day, he may well be happy to do so day in day out. Would you say he has real wealth?

    I doubt even a monk would say that. The monks probably worked towards a purpose. The steps towards attaining that purpose could count as real wealth.

    Thinking about the question what is real wealth, well I would say thinking about how most people in this country go about their every day lives that we have real wealth in the infrastructure we all use and share with each other, the relative safety in which we live, the fact that most of us have enough to eat, clothes to wear, shelter, heating, education, health care, the shared society we live in. 

     

  7. On ‎10‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 10:11 AM, CunningPlan said:

    Work hard and tax that work less to leave us enough money to help our children when they are children - be it education / better house with garden / travel / money left for hobbies etc.

    If we do our job as parents well at the beginning of their life an inheritance should be of little importance to them when they are 60.

    A close relative of mine leads a very frugal life. She buys all her clothes from charity shops, all the food she consumes is purchased from the reduced aisle in the supermarket, she drives an old car and only drives when walking or public transport is impractical. She doesn't wear make up or have her hair done until it is absolutely necessary. She doesn't go on holiday, days out, the theatre, restaurants. She saves all the money she can. She always pleads poverty but in reality we know she must have a very large sum saved. We're sure she's the poorest multi millionaire we know.

    We ask why she doesn't spend some money and get some pleasure and enjoyment from it. Her reply is I must leave it to my children to make their lives easier when I'm not here. We tell her that most of her estate will be taxed at 40% when she dies. It makes no difference she simply wants to save as much as she can. She can't see the futility of her life I think it would serve her right if IHT was 100%.

    On the other hand I want whatever I leave my children to be untaxed.

  8. On ‎10‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 9:33 PM, Economic Exile said:

    I agree. FFS, I can do better myself in comparison to the medical "profession" on the internet regarding an ailment and possible solution to a health problem. 

    I know. It's a wonder I'm still alive, what with all the conditions I'm suffering from. Doctors have never correctly diagnosed a single one of all those life threatening conditions that a quick google throws up I'm suffering from or about to succumb to, and then...........................................................................................................................

  9. 22 hours ago, stormymonday_2011 said:

    These statistics are going to start coming into play as boomers begin to die in numbers

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths

    Worth watching the year on year trends.

    Mortality rates are currently running above the 5 year moving average and at least half  British baby boomers are not even 60 yet. This change started about 3 years ago and in general the weekly rates are coming in more or less regularly above the trend even if sometimes the figure is as low as 500 deaths a week.

    Exactly what Harry Dent has been predicting for many years.  Recent interview

    I think he's right because I've just purchased some more shares!

  10. 6 minutes ago, nome said:

    Is there really any evidence for this 18 year cycle occurring for hundreds of years?

     

    My admittedly limited knowledge of historical house prices gave me the impression that, prior to the 1970's, HPI had been very steady and very modest, no major peaks and troughs and no booms and busts? 

    There you go: XLS Table 502: house prices from 1930, annual house price ...Your browser indicates if you've visited this link

    of house price inflation, it is not ideal. This is because movements in the simple average house price can ... 1950.00 1940.35 1951.00 2115.42 1952.00
  11. 6 hours ago, Venger said:

    sleepwello'nights, on 06 Dec 2008 - 4:00 PM, said:snapback.png

    What a nonsensical response. How does it deprive anyone of a home. The house still exists and someone can still live in it. It hasn't disappeared or been taken out of use. All it means is that someone can rent it. There are advantages to renting as you will see if you read posts on this site. Indeed lots of people prefer to rent because it gives them more mobility, its less expensive than buying, the worries of maintenance are someone else's responsibility, and so on.

    Extending your argument housing associations, local housing authorities, are depriving other human beings of a home in which they can raise a family.

    No wonder your angry. Nah! you can't be that stupid you must just be trying to provoke a response, mustn't you?

     

    sleepwello'nights, on 06 Dec 2008 - 4:37 PM, said:snapback.png

    Another stupid response. When a house is built it is an investment in a structure for someone to live in, and raise a family if they choose. It will normally last longer than an individuals life span, it is an investment. It meets the economists definition of a productive utilisation of capital. Property has been used as an investment since time immemorial. Unlike a tulip bulb a building will probably last longer than you.

    Throughout the ages property values have kept pace with inflation and are likely to continue to do so. And will until there is a fall in population growth. But I guess demographic trends are not your strong point. From time to time investment bubbles form, as happened to property recently. How long will the bubble take to deflate and how much will it deflate. Who knows. We'll only know when the low point was after the event. For all your wisdom we could be at the bottom now. Whatever! What I can predict with absolute certainty is that property will eventually revert to the long term trend. With all investments timing is key. I guess people were thinking much the same as you in 1991.

    The original comment was that buying a house deprived another human being of a home in which to raise a family. Please explain to me how that is the case.

     

    They are very good aren't they. I'm not surprised you keep them to read again. Have you thought about compiling them into a book. Have a word with "Wish I could afford one" he'll give you some tips on how to publish.

    His book is very good by the way.

  12. 10 hours ago, durhamborn said:

    The rich want what they have always wanted.For the working middle to pay tax to hand to the welfare class so they dont hang them off a gibbet at the crossroads and take back their grouse moors and estates (mostly stolen common land).The welfare class then spend the stolen money from the working middle on goods and services the rich own (food mostly from farms paying rent to the rich and common stocks).So they get to keep their stolen land by keeping the welfare class happy and also increase their wealth.

     

    I think that's rather a pessimistic view.

    I can only speak for myself and from what I observe of people around me. I grew up under the shadow of the "A" bomb, then the "H" bomb, the world was going to end in nuclear conflagration two minutes after the button was pressed and mutually assured destruction (MAD) would occur. It didn't happen.

    Then we had years of industrial dispute after industrial dispute, culminating in the 3 day week with electricity rationed and only available every other day in the retail shop I worked in after leaving school. Then deregulation, the big bang, sale of council houses, the common market. More recently the great financial crash, the lowest interest rates in history, the 1%, Brexit, the so called islamic state, the invasion of the west by the arab hordes and so on and on and on. All doom and gloom.

    Throughout all this, the sun rose in the east every day, night turned to day, spring to summer. I sit here on my computer reading the news how Trump is going to change the world we know for the worst or better, depending on your viewpoint. Every day since I've been born I've always had a full belly, clothes to wear, somewhere to live, I've been educated, found employment, raised my children, gone on holiday. Medical treatment is available if needed. And I look around, everyone else seems to be living the same life, I see the occasional beggar usually the same person in the same spot, most people seem well nourished, properly dressed with somewhere to live, most with their own transport, new houses being built, roads being maintained. When I go overseas I see much the same. OK I haven't visited the Middle East, Africa or South America and I'm sure that they don't have the same advantages we have in the developed west and the bits of the Far East I've visited. 

    If I bother to look I'm sure I can find statistics to show that there are world wide improvements in child mortality, standards of education, health care, housing and so on.

    The standard of living for most people I see is much higher than my parents had, their standard of living was higher than their parents had. Why all the pessimism?

  13. On ‎15‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 0:55 PM, Venger said:

    I don't see how he has any special ability to answer any of Si1's questions/concerns/theories about why Si1's landlord wants to take out the agent.

    You know a lot about landlording and landlords yourself, sleepers.  Any of your clients reacting to S24 and other measures to try and save costs?  Such as cutting out the agent.

     

    Concrete Jungle, on 06 Dec 2008 - 3:34 PM, said:snapback.png

    I would not want to deprive another human being of a home in which they can raise a family.

     

     

    DementedTuna, on 06 Dec 2008 - 3:40 PM, said:snapback.png

    Agreed, it's one of the most antisocial investments you can make.

    Why not put the money into a set of companies that all pay out a reasonable dividend each year? End result is pretty much the same as BTL, with much less hassle, the ability to sell up at a moment's notice, and in a way that helps to provide employment for your fellow human beings rather than helping to artifically inflate the price of their shelter far beyond their means?

    I think BTL'ers must have some sort of sociopathic tendencies, it's the only explanation.

     

     

    sleepwello'nights, on 06 Dec 2008 - 4:00 PM, said:snapback.png

    What a nonsensical response. How does it deprive anyone of a home. The house still exists and someone can still live in it. It hasn't disappeared or been taken out of use. All it means is that someone can rent it. There are advantages to renting as you will see if you read posts on this site. Indeed lots of people prefer to rent because it gives them more mobility, its less expensive than buying, the worries of maintenance are someone else's responsibility, and so on.

    Extending your argument housing associations, local housing authorities, are depriving other human beings of a home in which they can raise a family.

    No wonder your angry. Nah! you can't be that stupid you must just be trying to provoke a response, mustn't you?

     

    sleepwello'nights, on 06 Dec 2008 - 4:37 PM, said:snapback.png

    Another stupid response. When a house is built it is an investment in a structure for someone to live in, and raise a family if they choose. It will normally last longer than an individuals life span, it is an investment. It meets the economists definition of a productive utilisation of capital. Property has been used as an investment since time immemorial. Unlike a tulip bulb a building will probably last longer than you.

    Throughout the ages property values have kept pace with inflation and are likely to continue to do so. And will until there is a fall in population growth. But I guess demographic trends are not your strong point. From time to time investment bubbles form, as happened to property recently. How long will the bubble take to deflate and how much will it deflate. Who knows. We'll only know when the low point was after the event. For all your wisdom we could be at the bottom now. Whatever! What I can predict with absolute certainty is that property will eventually revert to the long term trend. With all investments timing is key. I guess people were thinking much the same as you in 1991.

    The original comment was that buying a house deprived another human being of a home in which to raise a family. Please explain to me how that is the case.

     

    More recently, and after Section 24 shock on so many BTLers....  

    Maybe some landlords/BTLers are more stuck than others, for income tax (S24), CGT (mewed to buy more), in the foreverHPI.

    sleepwello'nights, on 06 Aug 2015 - 7:50 PM, said:snapback.png

    Still sleeping very well thank you. I did look at your response to the post I made a week or so ago, you're so wrong on so many levels, but hey. I know the aca exams are difficult, what with the secret ticks and use of colour pens. I'm curious why such a numerate high flying qualified accountant would leave the lucrative world of financial services. I did consider berating you for being elitist and boastful but you know that already. What soul searching made you leave?

     

    I've been having a good laugh at the puerile jibes your gang have been making, the posts give a good insight into your characters. Carry on. You might all grow up one day in the distant future maybe.

     

    Despite your derision I still stand by the results of my investment decision. It has been one, not the only one, or the best one, but one of my most successful.

     

    If you want some numbers to reflect on, let me give you a brief outline of the decision one of my clients is pondering. I'll use Venger's semi literate style so the example I'm advising on isn't to verbose.

     

    Two new builds purchased 2005 Each £150k, 20% deposit, £120k loan. Let immediately, self managed, rental income £750 per month, tracker mortgage BOE base + 0.25 initially. Minimal maintenance costs, mortgage installments £500 per month. 

     

    Second mortgage (MEW) of £30k taken on each property in 2006. Effectively they have cost the buyer nothing. Although to be fair there is the capital risk of £150k loan on each, which can be repaid from their other resources if necessary. Financial crisis hits and BOE base rate plummets taking installments down to £200 per month. Rental income increased to current level of £900. Still self managed, over period of ownership void periods total 2 months. Maintenance still minimal. Current market price £240k. Properties in retired wife's name, she is a standard rate taxpayer with only income small occupational pension  £3000 per annum and state pension.  Letting income has been declared and any income tax due paid on time.

     

    Decision is whether to sell now and release £180k gain less 18% CGT, which can be legitimately avoided but I won't tell you how (I only give that tax avoidance advice to paying clients) or continue letting. This was a similar decision to mine last year, I sold and lost out on the HPI this year. Nevertheless it was still a successful investment. 

     

    Hope things go okay Si1.

    Cool, you've saved all my posts and posted a selection. Thanks.

  14. 9 hours ago, Si1 said:

    I have received a perfectly (on the surface) pleasant letter from my landlord, indicating that at the end of my annual contract to rent my family house from an agency, he will end the involvement of the agency and rent to me direct.

    He has asked for name/contact details as he says the agency has not passed these onto him yet.

    Is this legal whilst still within the original tenancy contract with the agency?

    Also what might his motivations be? To up the rent to cover his s24 costs, perhaps against the agency's advice? Genuinely to save agency fees and complication?

    How should I play this?

    (a reasonable street in Bramley, West Leeds, married, 2 young kids)

    Why not ask Damocles, he is very knowledgeable about land law.

  15. On ‎08‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 1:14 PM, Bhoy said:

    £30,000 is what I earn a year. We're talking of an estate that houses quiet a few drug users and dealers and has the occasional violent murder. It's a small market town in Oxfordshire. I remember in disbelief in 2006 when houses on the worst estate were £160,000. Now we're talking £250,000 plus.

    Nothing to do, a few pubs, probably 3 worth visiting on a night out. Locals are w#nkers, people that have been here generations are inbreeds, people that have moved here since the '60s are the result of slum clearances but state that they're the Birmingham/London overspill. The local populous are f#cking idiots basically - I'm one too, because I've stayed here thinking they'll be a housing crash.

    Is it Blackbird Leys?

  16. 4 hours ago, zugzwang said:

    Only ten? The Japanese have endured twenty-five years of Keynesian fixes and are no closer to recovery than they were in 1992. If anything they're in an even bigger hole. The crisis is may be less acute today but it many ways it's more profound.

    I spent a few weeks in Japan last year. Naturally the pound had fallen to its lowers level against the yen before rising after I had returned from my trip!, from what I saw most people were well fed and dressed. I didn't see any beggars on the streets, unlike Italy and Spain when, again I visited last year. Is the Japanese experience of Keynesian fixes so bad?

  17. 4 hours ago, Wayward said:

    hi thanks....so these are houses you are talking about not flats? I just don't see the need to sell a house as a long lease?? Unless you wanted to create a contrived income stream.

    Well its a future income stream. I wouldn't use the term contrived, I'm sure if you researched it more you would find more reasons why a landowner would like or need to create a passive future income.

  18. 4 hours ago, Wayward said:

    Leasehold is necessary for flats...but I have no idea what the justification is for selling houses leasehold other than as a scam.

    It has been in existence for many, many years. The difference in the example publicised in the recent article is the escalation clauses. Ground rents for leasehold houses were typically a few pounds a year. The amounts may have given the freeholder a reasonable income in the past but after the inflation of the post war years they are now negligible. Of course freeholders may have other ways to increase the running yield. For example the lease may oblige the leaseholder to insure the property using an insurer chosen by the freeholder, the premiums may well be higher than obtainable elsewhere because the freeholder receives commission from the insurance broker.  

    Is ground rent a scam? Not always, envisage the situation where a land owner allows someone to build a house on land he owns in exchange for payment of ground rent. Would that be unreasonable. I would certainly consider it if it meant I could build a house in a location that was desirable for me.

  19. On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 9:52 AM, houseface2000 said:

    Seriously try santander, my friend went from application to offer in 7 days 5 x joint salary ! Its mostly automated and they have a application to offer time frame of 10 days. Talk to a broker

    Equally I know several people whose applications were rejected even though their income was comfortably within the lenders acceptance criteria and no blemishes on their credit records.  A situation I'm currently aware of is where a house has been substantially extended and modernised and the lenders we've approached insist on regarding the building costs that we want to incorporate into a mortgage as evidence that the mortgagor is a spendaholic. 

    In this specific case the borrowers income is comfortably within the lenders criteria and the LTV is under 75%. 

  20. 8 hours ago, TiredOfMagnolia said:

    Financial sensibility has never been my strong point, but why buy when even the cheapest 3 bed semis around here are 600k? I have a war chest of 7 figures for when I decide that housing represents good value, until then I will not be passing over money I have worked my backside off for someone else to fund their retirement based on an overvalued asset. 

    And I take it your 7 figure war chest is excluding the pence.

  21. 8 hours ago, TiredOfMagnolia said:

    Financial sensibility has never been my strong point, but why buy when even the cheapest 3 bed semis around here are 600k? I have a war chest of 7 figures for when I decide that housing represents good value, until then I will not be passing over money I have worked my backside off for someone else to fund their retirement based on an overvalued asset. 

    Your money, your choice. If you can afford it, and it seems you can, why not.

  22. On ‎19‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 2:47 PM, TiredOfMagnolia said:

    Hi all,

    I have been renting for the last 8 years, never been lucky with property or any other investments to be honest. I pay £3750 a month for rent, however, I do not begrudge this, it's a fantastic property and the garden is like a park, so I conceptualise it that I am spending about £100 a night to stay here (5 beds).

    Strikes me your rationalization is not financially sensible. Your paying nearly £50k a year on rent. Why not buy somewhere smaller to live in and overpay the mortgage or rent somewhere smaller and build up a war chest for when the predicted (on here) crash occurs. Alternatively by the self published book by "Wish I could afford one" and look forward to FIRE.

×
×
  • 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.