Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by wooboos

  1. No, I haven't given the area much attention to be honest. I really like being able to just walk into town, or being in town, but of course finding a family house (garden, parking etc) in such a location is hard. Denne road area looks promising but it's a small area. I don't know anything about Roffey....one to avoid?
  2. Sorry about that me old! Having said that we'll need another six months or so of deposit saving to be able to buy here, so maybe we're talking different timescales. All said and done it's a thriving town with lots going for it, and just about commutable to London so prices are probably as 'low' as they'll get, I agree. The only saving grace is that mortgage rates are so low that if you have enough of a deposit, buying is only marginally more expensive than renting (we're paying £825 PCM at the moment in Carfax) We're looking at exactly the same sort of property as you, we liked some of the streets around Denne Road...few minutes to both town and countryside, 10-15 min walk to station (aka building site!), seemed to be the only area where you can get proper houses with parking and gardens and yet be almost in the town. (Madeira Avenue doesn't count due parking!) You're way ahead of us in terms of viewings, as we haven't started looking properly yet. We've only been here a month so far so very new to area and still working out what is where. Haven't bought a house since 2005 so not looking forward to the prospect much....good luck with your search....see you in the Black Jug or Piries if you fancy an ale. Woobs
  3. Sorry, the price range above should read £250k - £325k. And I'll work out how to edit posts one of these days too.
  4. Hello all, I've just moved to Horsham, fantastic town. We're renting in the centre of town but looking to buy in the next year-ish. I know this is sad, but I was looking at the Horsham listings on RM and noticed many SSTC properties being relisted as available (thanks property bee). In fact, so many so that I went back and counted them all. See what you make of this: Search area Horsham only, any property, £350k-£325k. Results returned: 124 available and SSTC properties. Available only properties were 57. Therefore there were 124-57 = 67 SSTC properties. Of those 67 SSTC properties I counted 55 have become available again, infering collapsed sales, the vast vast majority of those got changed in early October. So either there's been a huge turnaround (for the worse) in buyer sentiment suddenly at the beginning of October or Rightmove had some sort of clear-up or something of that nature. The Zoopla indecies, for what they're worth, all show healthily negative too, as another poster has pointed out.
  5. Interesting one. I'm up north at the moment, have never paid a holding deposit here. I've just agreed (verbally - no referencing or contract yet) to rent a place in the south, and was told about this deposit. However I have not been asked to pay it yet. In principle I guess it's fair enough as the EA wants some kind of financial commitment from the tenant for them to have the confidence to stop marketing the place and arranging viewings etc. It strikes me as a little odd that they want the money before even agreeing a tenancy in principle. I can only assume that EAs have been dicked around by potential tenants in the past, who agree to rent a place and then change their mind at the last minute, thereby putting the EA/landlord back at square one, and the holding deposit mitiagtes this risk. To be honest I'd imagine that EAs won't have any interest in screwing you too much, for the sake of another £50/£100 rent PCM if someone else comes along with a better offer. It will make very little difference to their income from the deal, which is their ultimate interest. When I 'phone tomorrow I expect to be put in a similar position to the OP; except that we have agreed, verbally, the details and price of the tenancy. Do I want to pay £500 plus referencing costs to someone I've never seen before with nothing in writing as to how I might get it back if it goes pear-shaped - not really - not in this market, and it is a tenants' market. I hope you negotiated hard. We achieved 17% off the asking rent. I appreciate that the London market maybe different however.
  6. Did you manage to find anything? I've had a dig around this afternoon and can only offer this: "It is worthwhile therefore to examine the very long term, which can smooth out the effects of cycles in business activity or inflation rates. We can compare market returns since 1900; the average annual nominal return for equities, gilts and cash, was 11.5%, 6.0% and 5.1%, respectively." - A quote of a quote, from Money Saving Expert, source apparently Standard Life! Own research: since 1900 average annual inflation 4.5% Source: arithmetic mean of annual RPI from ‘Consumer Price Inflation Since 1750’ (ISSN 0013-0400, Economic Trends No. 604, pp 38-46) by Jim O’Donoghue, Louise Goulding, and Grahame Allen, which estimates historic British inflation back to 1750. If you take the equities value above, 11.5%, and subtract the mean inflation of 4.5%, you get 7% real growth which, perhaps coincidentally, is the middle value used by IFAs when predicting growth (FSA appears to allow 5%, 7%, 9% growth values when preparing projections for consumers). Anyone found anything else?
  7. I put the same figures into my spreadsheet and came up with the same numbers, so we're half way there. I calculated a pot size of £491,576. Problem is, you can't just strip out inflation as you have done IMHO, although if you can prove me wrong I'll be very happy! I think you've reasoned along the lines of "3% inflation per year, therefore 3% payrise per year, therefore 3% more going into pension pot per year, therefore they all cancel out" Thing is, although the first three parts are true, inflation has a huge effect on the purchasing power of your pot every year. You need to take 3% off the total pot value each year, which in later years becomes large! If you have the inclilnation, try re-running the spreadsheet, one year at a time, increase salary, increase contribution, and decrease pot size (think purchasing power) by whatever level of inflation you assume. Using your figures above, inflation 3%, salary increase 3% therefore contribution increase 3%, I get an income of £22,614. Do you think an annuity rate of 8% is realistic? I was banking on more like 5-5.5%.
  8. I'm in an almost carbon-copy situation. I hadn't seen the landlord-pays-pension argument until you pointed it out. Thanks for putting a smile on my face! I won't mention it to my landlord though, as the property I'm renting is his pension sadly.
  9. Do you have any money in a bank account? Using your logic I could argue that it's not your cash it's your bank managers, so get it out quick before he runs off with it.
  10. You are quite right. I hadn't realised that the state pension swallowed up all of your personal allowance. Somebody else picked me up on it too. Ta!
  11. Nobody should face the prospect of retiring in poverty. I wasn't arguing that it should happen, but that it will, unless we plan decades ahead. Not wishing to start an argument here, but if you are going to be abusive, at least get your facts straight first, for your own dignity.
  12. I completely agree with your concerns there, but remember they only apply to a final salary scheme pension. With a defined contribution, you have your own "pot" of money and there's no chance of it paying someone who's in retirement. It's yours and yours alone. But I agree with you. If I was in a FS pension, and I'm not, I'd spend my working life concerned that if the company folded the day before I retired, and took the pension fund with it, I'd get nothing but state bailout as the fund would protect its existing retirees. To my mind that's a hell of a risk, and ironically the stress would probably kill me before I got close to retirement!
  13. My understanding is that a pension assumes net positive growth over a long period of time, i.e. a working lifetime of 30 years or more. Over that working lifetime there will be several economic cycles when at some stage it will look as if the world is about to end. I don't know of any thirty year period where stockmarket returns haven't been positive. It's no guarantee that it won't happen, but it makes it look like a safe bet.
  14. Point taken. Good post. You say "the only real benefit" being the 25% tax-free sum and employer contributions. I agree but if an employer matches your contributions, as many do, that's a huge benefit in my opinion. You're money is doubled straight away and you can enjoy years of compounded growth. Someone who wasn't taking advantage of employer contributions would be a very brave man indeed. It is effectively like saying "no" to deferred salary. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
  15. With respect, for the sake of your quality of life in retirement, and that of your partner and any dependents, I urge you to rethink. Your numerical example is 'numberwang' because it doesn't reflect reality. You'd need 25% gross going in over 40 years to acheive around 65% final income. No offence intended.
  16. Orbital: Your understanding of taxt relief is correct. This is partially true but it's not right to conclude that the 20% gain when you pay into the pension is wiped out by the 20% basic rate tax you pay when you retire. If this were the case, no basic rate payer in their right mind would pay into a pension, as there would be no benefit for having to lock the money away until you retire. The 20% gain when you pay is compounded over 30 years or whatever, this is what makes it worthwhile. Also, bear in mind that you gain 20% on all of your contribution but won't pay tax at 20% of all of it, just like now, you don't pay 20%, if that's your marginal rate, on ALL of your income. So basic rate tax payers stand to gain, but higher rate payers stand to gain more.
  17. I'm sorry you're angry; it wasn't my intention to wind people up. It is possible that you don't like the thought of putting away 25% of your income, which manifests itself into anger directed at the person who tells you this. Remember this is gross, not net. Get your employer to match your contributions and I reckon you can get away with 10% employer + 10% employee contributions. If you are not convinced plug some figures into a pensions calculator (many on the web) and get a feel for the numbers. Don't do this until after Christmas though so as not to spoil it. You will be horrified at the results, as I was, but it will give you a better idea of what to expect and hopefully you can make sound financial decision based on this. "Anyone who relies solely on the Basic State Pension and makes no other provision will retire in abject poverty…"
  18. Listen to VMR above. The Guardian article shows a reporter who has scared himself to death because it has now sunk in that he has inadequate pension provision and he's too old to anything meaninful about it. And he now blames the government. The truth of the matter is that you need about 25% of your gross income to go into a pension pot. You need to start this when you start work, say early twenties. When you retire you will have enough of a pot to buy an income that will maintain you in the same standard of living as pre-retirement, assuming mortgage paid off. This need to be drummed into people at school, or by parents. Problem is most parents don't know this either until it's too late. Pay as much as you can afford into a pension from as early an age as possible. The point made above that pensions are of no use to basic rate tax payers is patently incorrect. It is true that higher rate payers benefit more. If you're in your twenties and don't understand pensions, make it your New Year's resolution to do so, and in 40 years time when you retire you can pat yourself on the back. The inertia that people have to understand what will pay for the food on their table for the final 20 odd years of their life is incredible. By not forcing yourself to think about it won't make the problem go away.
  19. Thanks for the replies. Si1: I take your point about price being set at the margins. This appears to be the accepted standpoint amoung economists, at least for a pure free-market. Moo: I agree with you that if someone is forced to sell, for whatever reason, then they have no option to but accept the consequences of any negative equity, and that the banks won't lose any sleep in allowing/forcing that to happen. Umaguma: I agree that the market has no sympathy. Your handle reminds me of the only Floyd album I don't own! If I may make the point another way. At the moment market transactions are 720,000 per year. Of those, 45,000 are repossessions, representing just over 6% of all transactions. These unfortunate people have no option but to accept whatever they can achieve, however they only account for 6% of transactions at the moment. The remaining 94% choose to sell (re-locating due job, need bigger house for children etc.). When they realise that they can't sell at a level that will pay their mortgage off, viewed nationally, they simply won't. No transactions (or very few) means no market to measure with any statistical accuracy. Perhaps it will get so bad that the market will start to be dominated by these distressed sellers (certainly not true at the moment) in percentage terms but for actual quantity of stock on the market, I don't believe there will be enough of it for the likes of you and I to just walk into an EA and buy >=~50% off peak. Just like there is/was a sticking point between £250k and £275k due stamp duty hike, I think on the way down there will be a sticking point when the average man on the street has to buy his way out of his home. I agree that market sentiment could allow that to happen, but do we really believe it'll get that bad?
  20. Availability of credit aside, I am of the opinion that the peak-to-trough fall in house prices is ultimately limited by the ability of sellers to sell, this being limited by the amount of equity they have. Very few vendors will be willing (or able!) to "buy" themselves out of their house in order to get a sale, hence there will be no mainstream market in this territory. Clearly there will be a niche market for very distressed vendors who are forced to accept whatever they can, but I am not considering them here. Clearly there are extremes of equity, from mortgage paid off to negative equity, but there must be a median level; one that we can put a number to. This can be compared to the average house price and hence we can obtain a picture of the national average percentage of equity. I believe this then broadly sets the limit of national peak-to-trough correction. I have struggled to come up with a reliable source of information for average mortgage size but these are the numbers I did find (I'm afraid I can't remember the source): As of April 2007 (let's assume market peak): Average house price: £180,000 Average (median) mortgage size: £125,000 Therefore average equity: £55,000 or 30% Based on the above numbers and reasoning I think the market correction will be of the order of 30-35% allowing for the usual slight overcorrection. Does anyone else see any merit to this approach and, if so, can we find a better source of information for average mortgage size at market peak (say August 2007)? Regards.
  21. I agree, the London Road Estate has little appeal except good access to M2. I don't know what rents you achieve in Wincheap but a recently SSTC place on Zealand Road was interesting (link below). It sold based on an asking price of £100k, having been reduced from £125k on the 11th December. A quick Hometrack search for the street reveals much higher prices in the recent past; perhaps as high as £180k, although I don't know how comparable these places are. The details hint at part-ownership, which possibly explains the low price. Either that or the place is falling down / very distressed vendor. Regards. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sa...&radius=0.0
  22. Someone is trying to sell a couple of student-lets on the London Road Estate (see link below). If you believe the figures, both yield over 7%, and that's at asking price. If you can get them a bit cheaper then the higher yield supports your argument even more strongly. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sa...minPrice=175000
  • 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.