Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Unmoderated

  1. On 02/08/2019 at 21:23, Meerkat said:

    Iron logic. Is there a course where they teach you to use Somalia as an instructive example to instil it into the people that less of state intervention in economic matters must and will result in a failed state/society? You are not the first deep state fan here to use this specific example.

    I'm not a fan of a deep state, nor am I a fan of no state. Are you a fan of no state? 

    The central path is the golden one. 

  2. 1 hour ago, Locke said:

    I suppose they still have an overbearing State, but they are in many ways far freer.

    Far freer? 

    in some areas they have more freedoms, but not so in others. Highest % of population incarcerated in any developed nation. Freedom to get shot at in a public place and no healthcare to cover you assuming you're not killed on the spot. 

    US is a great place but you're comparing apples with oranges. 

    Somalia doesn't seem to have an overbearing state. What do you think about moving there?


  3. 2 hours ago, zugzwang said:

    The biggest monthly gain ever recorded thanks to sales in London and the South East. ?

    I've heard that foreign buyers in London are at their highest in years thanks to a fall in prices and a fall in the pound (and a great place to launder some money) but of course these fellas are most likely not using a Halifax mortgage.... so unless it's starting to push up prices again it looks like 'noise'.

  4. 3 hours ago, rantnrave said:

    Halifax is producing data on its share of the market. What's not to say that their share of a stable market is decreasing significantly?

    Don't quote me on this, but a fair while back, someone posted on HPC that Nationwide and Halifax each have less than ten percent of the mortgage market each. So, these monthly surveys are based on sample sizes of less than 6,000? Correct?

    I'm now torn since coming up to remortgage. I'm currently with Nationwide but their houses are not performing so well. Maybe I should remortage with Halifax instead since they seem to be doing much better. 

  5. On 27/01/2019 at 09:06, LetsBuild said:

    I would have thought this ban will make rents fall, if the landlord tries to bang up the rents then the tennant will have the freedom to just move somewhere else which at the moment they can’t because of the huge cost of fees. On a macro scale we will see more transfers and the landlords offering low value will be forced to adjust down or have a string of voids and go bust. Sort of like letting capitalism do its job for once!

    I agree. Lowering removal costs makes tenants less 'sticky' and more likely to move if someone does increase the rents. Previously people would probably be happy to pay an extra £50/month rather than £600 now for agency fees plus the whole hassle of moving. 

    Supply an demand aside it removes some of the financial friction in moving. 

  6. 1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

    I voted for Blair in 1997 believing that he represented a material challenge to the neoliberal consensus of Thatcher and Major. Obviously not, and I didn't vote for him again.

    Is it not the case that Tory voters were similarly blindsided by Cameron and Osborne in 2010, and again 2015?

    Same here re 1997 vote.

    I was also a bit surprised at what the Tories did, or rather didn't do, on housing and the economy. They could have built a lot of houses very quickly and removed the props for them which would have increased the supply and increase affordability by bringing prices down. The whole thing could have been blamed on Labour. 

    The increase in building so many more houses would have been a benefit to the govt tax receipts through stamp duty and other taxes, plus the VAT element on all the crap people tend to buy when moving into a new place, etc etc. Instead they decided not to address the real problem and come up with HTB which sort of got more houses built since developers could make a mint out of them but didn't do much to impact prices. 

  7. 21 hours ago, 24gray24 said:

    All you say is misleading. 

    1. It's a falsehood to claim you've already paid it. A flat out falsehood. When you get a mortgage you have not paid the drop. You've just promised to pay in the future. 

    2. Another flat out falsehood.  


    The reality is if you buy now and prices drop - you're going to be paying an inflated price. 

    The Unmoderateds of this world don't want you to wait 2 years until the prices have dropped to much lower levels. 

    This is the top of the market.  Buy at the bottom of the market. Its simple: Just wait. They'll be talking recession in another month. 

    You've not paid the drop? You never pay the drop!

    When you take out a mortgage you've not paid anything. 

    When you buy the house you've paid for the house (with the funds provided by the mortgage). If the house drops in price the mortgage doesn't increase does it? You've already agreed the cost of the house. That doesn't change if prices move. Perhaps one day you'll grasp basic finance. 

    How many other Undermoderateds are there in this world? Goldman Sachs is full of us all telling people not to wait two years because we all now that's going to the bottom. Best time to buy. It's been two years off for the last 15 years. Some people could have cleared their mortgage in that time. 

  8. 21 hours ago, localhero1983 said:

    Like I said before, being financially balanced will become the new black.

    We have all pointed to someone before that lives close to us or we know in some way and made the point "He/she is a millionaire you know" as if it is exciting. Well being one of the old style millionaires will be the same as being just in the black by a few £10,000, just being in the black by pennies will be impressive enough, we will be the people who never followed the pack and dug deep and who were never taken in by the illusion.

    Whenever anyone buys a new car I always ask them how much it was (very politely of course) and then tease it out whether or not they paid cash for it. It is amazing how many people are on the leasing/renting treadmill. Cheap credit can make it worthwhile but if rates ever go up it would kill it. As for me though I'd never want to be in a position where if I lost my job I'd suffer another cost of surrendering the car early and then losing yet more money and behind carless. 

  9. 1 hour ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

    Not "obliged", as such, but you have to live somewhere.

    The degree to which you are driven to accept a rental increase varies on:

    1. your circumstances and
    2. the local rental market.

    If you are a single person the barriers to exit from a rental arrangement at the time of transaction (usually each year) are significantly lower than if you have a family. Hard to argue that the landlord is into going to take into consideration whether or not you have young children in the family - for instance - when negotiating the rent. 

    And when renting you are exposed - including financial exposure - to local events. Like the end of the Crossrail lines being defined as at your local town.

    Never thought it would be me saying this but....

    .... don't feed the trolls. 

  10. 19 hours ago, Captain Kirk said:
    1. I know what my rent is for sure.
    2. It's not a risk because you are not obliged to pay it.
    3. Not my risk. Any expense, including alternative accommodation, will have to be paid for by the landlord.
    4. An inconvenience, not a risk. There would have to be a good reason for you having to move given you can't be evicted within the fixed term.


    1. The financial risks of renting are not limited to knowing what your rent is. 
    2. You're not obliged to pay that rental increase but, firstly it is an unknown and secondly if you don't want to pay it you'd have to move which would incur other costs
    3. Good luck with that mate. Lol, you're right in theory but reality is vastly different, and ultimately the risk is counter party risk which causes an unforeseen financial impact on you. What if the landlord is insolvent? How is he going to reimburse you?
    4. Erm, you absolutely can be evicted within the fixed term. https://www.thetenantsvoice.co.uk/advice_from_us/grounds-for-eviction/#valid_grounds_for_a_possession_order


    You are consistently wrong and insist you're right. 

    As tenacious as I am I'm giving up on you. 


  11. 3 hours ago, BorrowToLeech said:

    Blair was and is a Tory, and everyone voting for Corbyn is aware of that.

    Nah, he was Labour it said so on his badge. Agreed that he had some characteristics of the Tories, but look at the public sector spending for instance. Very un-Tory-like. 

    House prices to the moon under Blair and Brown. Brown also removed the indexation of inflation from RPI (includes housing) to CPI (excludes housing) to the BOE with its new found freedom to manage inflation had an inflation scope that excluded housing. 

    Corbynomics is imho extremely myopic, but granted he is far more of a leftist than Blair. 

    Remember the pledge to scrap student fees and loans? Downgraded to an aspiration. At least they're aspiring to do it I suppose but then they wouldn't need to had Blair's Labour pushed anyone able to read and write (and in some cases not) through to uni. 

  12. 4 hours ago, Locke said:

    Nope, they'll be scrapped before they sell them to you.

    If BTL scumlords could do this to their homes, they would as well.

    Not sure they would. One company doesn't own all the cars and therefore there is no single control of the market, unlike say Cartier destroying watches to preserve prestige. 

    PCPs also place the risk of lower market values on the customer so the dealership would still stand to make money since the PCP mug has already footed the bill. There's even 'gap' insurance for this. 

  13. Just now, Captain Kirk said:

    No, I don't agree. I added 3 to my reasons why of something is a financial risk, and renting isn't because it doesn't match my criteria for risk (1 or 2) and 3.

    So now the criteria for a financial risk has moved from what the wider populace deem that definition to be to your three tests for what is a financial risk? While the risks are not specific to renting (though some are) they still exist in the rented sector. 

    "The things you know you have to pay for, or have agreed to pay for, just aren't risks." That's the point. With renting you do not know what you might have to pay for. Not for sure. 

    Risk of rent increases? If the landlord whacks up your rent and you either pay it, or move, that's not a financial risk?

    Does the boiler failing and rendering the property uninhabitable because landlord is crap and you having to find alternative accommodation at additional expense count?

    Unexpectedly having to move inside a fixed term tenancy agreement


  14. 3 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

    Yeah, it's not like I was joking or anything.

    The things you know you have to pay for, or have agreed to pay for, just aren't risks.

    With risk, you don't know for sure how much you are going to have to pay. You hope it's one thing but it could be something a lot worse.  For example, you could be a guarantor for a friend or family member for a loan and risk having to pay some or all of it + penalties. Another example could be where interest rates go up on a credit card debt or mortgage dedt. The reason these things are a risk is because 1) you don't know whether you will need to pay it and/or 2) you don't know how much you will have to pay.

    Sorry it's hard to get a tone or sarcasm over text on the internet. 

    So you're agreeing now. Renting is not risk free?

  15. 1 hour ago, Si1 said:

    It may well be a quarterly cycle in some or all cases for all I know :)

    I have the insight of working in a company with a large sales arm. The saying in that team goes "you're only as good as your next quarter".

    I'm not sure of the comp plans at a dealership but if they look anything like ours they go something like, 

    • fraction of the OTE % for first 50% of target sales
    • next 50% of target to 100% = the balance commission % to make 100% OTE commissions
    • over 100% into accelerators like 2 times commission etc

    no matter how a salesperson is doing they would wan to sell more, even if they're at 100% since they would make the same money as the first 100% of target on the next 50% of target sales. They tend to be incentivised based on revenue and not always margin though I suspect that differs when selling a physical item instead of a binary code. 

  16. 1 hour ago, hotblack42 said:

    These are all risks, but speaking as a landlord of a house is first class property and tenant of a first class property, and a trained risk manager, I feel compelled to bring risk scoring (impact 1-5 x likelihood 1-5) into play.

    My landlord is a global property development and management company.  They own property all over London and more property in New York than Trump.
    My tenant works in lettings so her track record as a tenant is important.

    Quick score of your list from my POV (1 lowest, 25 highest)
    1.  very unlikely x major impact = 4
    2.  unlikely x minor impact = 4
    3.  unlikely x minor impact = 4 (15 months in & not a whisper, rent is fair relative to local market, inflation rise would be unwelcome but no big deal)
    4. very unlikely x severe impact = 5 (really zero, they have maintained the block to a high standard for decades as confirmed by neighbours)
    5. very unlikely x severe impact = 5
    6. possible x major = 12 (have to concede this one as its possible they will wish to redevelop the site are some point)

    Your identified risks are real, but need to be assessed per property / landlord.

    Indeed, but that is not the point. The point is silly b0110x thinks there's no financial risk whatsoever with renting. 

    I'm just making an example of him since it's a slow week. 

  17. 1 hour ago, Captain Kirk said:

    You could go on

    • feeling inadequate at parties
    • falling out of a badly maintained 1st floor window
    • landlord not seeing you and accidentally running you over with his new range rover.

    Basically, renting and buying have their pros and cons and you are confusing those with risk. If you try and quantify and assign some monetary value to them then good luck with that.

    Counter party risk is the landlord's risk. Deductions from deposit are you paying for damage. It's not a risk. Rent increases are not allowed or are a matter of the contract and so you'd know about them. Plus you can move if you don't agree. You are not obliged to pay them.

    And why is fraud specific to renting? Some house buyers have had their whole housing equity stolen via email scams.

    Termination of tenancy is also something you agree on and is part of the contract.

    No, I am not confusing these with financial risk - you seem to equate financial risk with falling out of a window? Up there with balancing your possessions when moving house.

    Now you don't consider paying for damage a financial risk when earlier your basis for asserting renting was risk free was because you knew exactly what you'd be paying (which was also debunked by others). 

    Fraud is not specific to renting. Good lord you fail to see the point time and time again. You're saying it is risk free, and then when a risk is identified flip it by stating that it's not a specific to renting risk. Move the goalposts, you do not have an argument. 

    • counter party risk = financial cost of being unexpectedly evicted and having to move home and pay a new deposit, new fees and different rent.
    • deductions from deposit at end of tenancy = unlimited
    • rent increases = unlimited over the longer term
    • house becomes uninhabitable or falls into a state of disrepair = 1st costs, you need to move
    • fraud = your deposit and first rent all paid to some dodgy scammer

    It does not require a specific value to be assigned to be defined as a risk. 

    Any more straws to clutch or are you going to beam your silly **** out of here?

    • termination of tenancy
  18. 3 minutes ago, Si1 said:

    There are, called preregistered cars. Basically, car manufacturers make more money from the lifetime running costs of the cars than from selling the cars themselves. So they have annual targets of car sales and are prepared to sell cars at a loss up front in order to make up the numbers.


    I know that if you walk into a dealership on the last day of their quarter or financial year you can get a very very good discount. 

  19. 3 minutes ago, Si1 said:

    Should have gone through a car broker. Just sayin.

    Drive the deal has been one recommended to me before but I don't think I'd ever buy brand new. 

    I just look forward to the day when the wheels come off (or people wise up) to PCP and leases etc and there's a glut of big posh cars that dealers are stuck with that get sold off cheap in the end. 

    I can dream on I guess. 

  20. 4 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

    I can say what I like. It's a free farm and I'm a free pig.

    Well again that's not quite true. There are some things you cannot say, even on here. Captain Wrong? 

    You can of course keep making comparisons of the financial risks of renting and owning and with those comparisons attempt to prove your non-point that renting is risk free because owning a property carries more financial risks. But we're talking about renting alone now and it is not risk free (financially) because:

    • counter party risk
    • deductions from deposit at end of tenancy
    • rent increases
    • house becomes uninhabitable or falls into a state of disrepair
    • fraud
    • termination of tenancy

    It makes you look silly, and it distracts from the point you've made that you can't seem to get your head around. I'm only trying to help you out here. 

    Just as well you're only in charge of a star ship that hasn't yet been built, in a time that hasn't occurred and in a universe that isn't real. 


  21. 1 hour ago, Si1 said:

    My missus has previously worked in accounts for a sizeable BMW and mini dealership in North Yorkshire - she said ALL, and I mean ALL, new car sales were on finance. No exceptions.

    I can well believe that. Some friends of mine recently went into a Honda dealership to buy a CR-V. Once they informed the salesman they wanted to buy cash they literally had no clue how to proceed with the deal. 

    Friends left empty handed and bought something else in the end. 

    As long as there is cheap and easy credit this malarkey will continue. 

  22. 14 hours ago, nothernsoul said:

    On a similar note, loads of colleagues,  on more money than me, who have CHOSEN to take out the maximum mortgage to live somewhere trendy, moaning that they can barely make it to payday. No thought that maybe they could have taken out a slightly smaller mortgage, gone on a less expensive holiday, made do with the same car. Problem is, i fear that these people are in the majority now and when economy hits the fan they will be treated as victims at the expense of everybody else. 

    I am astounded by the prevalence of this. I changed jobs a few years ago and work as an accountant in the Tech sector. Some sales guys (and even back office mediocre people) are on much much higher salaries than I and have no money. Then I get the odd joke about my old car (still runs, still returns 50mpg and paid me back with the mileage allowance at my old place) while these guys roll about in brand new Audis, BMWs etc and pay people to come in and perform the most minor of maintenance tasks on their home. 

    If there is a good recession coming I feel for the small time handy man but I'll be waiting to buy a tasty car handed back when the lease payments can't be honoured. 

  • 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.