Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Selling up

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Selling up

  1. First: If it's money to buy a house, general inflation doesn't matter if house prices aren't rising. Inflation can be running at 20%; as long as houses are getting cheaper, your deposit is gaining in house-buying value. Second: If you're worried about inflation that includes houses, it takes time for inflation to build up a head of steam. It took years for Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe to go from 5% to several thousand%. Having your wealth in cash means you can move quickly in any direction: IE you can buy a house / gold / shares / foreign currency if and when it becomes necessary. So cash is a good place to be even if you're worried about future inflation.
  2. I've noticed this too. I live in Deptford, an arsehole of a district in Zone 2 South East London. Ugly, noisy, dirty... [no, the area, not me!] ... but fine for me 'cause it's cheap by London standards and very convenient for the West End where I have a lot of meetings. My recent girlfriend lived out in Acton... pretty, quiet, clean [no, the area] ... saying she felt safe there; but it's expensive and took bloody ages to get into the centre. Had we not split up for other reasons I'm sure we would have had difficulty agreeing on a place to live.
  3. There's already a thread about this article: <a href="http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=140449">Nearly a Quarter of Couples Live Apart Because They Can't Afford to Buy a Home Together</a><br>
  4. This article is seriously rubbish. ...which is clearly crap, because they could always rent together. Meaningless comparison. You can meaningfully compare non-cohabitors' rent with cohabitors' rent You can meaningfully compare non-cohabitors' mortgage payments with cohabitors' mortgage payments. But you can't meaningly compare non-cohabitors' rent or mortgage payments with cohabitors' mortgage payments. [edit: OK, before someone objects. You can compare whatever you like. As a child, my big brother wondered aloud which was better: buses or buckets. But by comparing dissimilar things you can't interpret your findings. Say the cohabitors' mortgage is less that the non-cohabitors' rent. Does that mean that the smarter move is to rent a place jointly with your partner or to buy a property? You can't tell from the figures, and I suspect that is the disingenuous aim of the exercise: to make it look like buying together is the only alternative to renting separately.] ...makes no sense at all since again it is positing only two options: Choose to live separately or buy together. It fails to acknowledge that even couples who can't afford to buy can rent together. Weird weird article.
  5. An interesting question but a I predict that few will cheerfully admit to being so materialistic as to put money before love. I recently went on a few dates with a girl who (I gathered) earned a bit more than me and spent a LOT more than me. Her attitude to money was "money is to enjoy", mine is "money is to save". One resulting difference: I hope to buy a house outright in the next 5-10 years. Her net wealth, I gathered, is more or less zero. I did see it as a significant problem. Could I really link my welfare to someone whose attitude to money alarmed me? Not the same question as the poll, of course...
  6. Apparently an increase in the number of sellers is a bullish sign. You heard it here first...
  7. That's a bit of a weird conclusion. Property's not like gold where you buy and sell it instantly at the spot price with small transaction costs. If she decided now to sell, the amount she would have gained/lost would depend on what specific offer from a particular buyer she chose to accept, minus substantial transaction costs. It doesn't make sense to claim that a [edit: particular] house is worth 1% less this month than last month just because that's the average change in price of a substantial sample of houses sold UK-wide over that period.
  8. You can opt out at: Royal Mail Door-to-Door opt out
  9. Can someone define 'chav' please. It keeps popping up on this thread and I get that it's supposed to be bad but I don't really have much of an idea what a 'chav' is meant to be.
  10. That's more or less an admission that the claims (that most Live Aid money went to buy arms) are correct isn't it?
  11. Raises an interesting question: Would I prefer that my tax is being spent providing crack for a tenant or paying a landlord an inflated rent? Since crack smoking implies landlord missing rent implies lower yield on his investment implies potential house price fall I guess self-interest should make me hope that the tenants are smoking my tax pounds!
  12. Interesting and depressing comments after a rubbish article in the Guardian: This benefit cut will hit the poorest So it seems to me that: In every area the council sets a cap for LHA (housing allowance) for each type of property. Every landlord markets his property at that price, no matter how poor the property, and is guaranteed a tenant. Therefore the landlord has a guaranteed fixd income irrespective of what the market might dictate. Therefore prices will stay at whatever level produces a respectable yield: property investment is more like buying gilts than selling a service. Thoughts?
  13. There is more than one reason for the decline of geographically defined communities. Take your pick out of: Increasing car ownership leading to increased mobility. The tendency of the modern capitalist model to demand mobility of labour (how many children now live within walking distance of their parents?) The internet allowing the creation of non-geographical communities (hint: this is one) The death of religious observance leading to the irrelevance of parish churches etc etc I see no conspiracy; merely the natural result of a constellation of forces.
  14. OK. So it's possible to formulate this as a generalisation: If taking on debt (thereby accepting the obligation to pay it back with interest) frees one from a greater obligation (for instance, the obligation to pay rent or to pay heating bills on an inefficient property) then taking on the debt is the prudent course; you are merely accepting a lesser obligation in exchange for a greater one. Edit: obviously this requires that you have done your sums to work out which obligation is less!
  15. Or perhaps the types which remain most overpriced, and therefore arguably the worst sort to buy or invest in! Edit: I've added a comment to the article:
  16. That's how it looks to me too. Not the best idea ever.
  17. Except that a circle jerk can be predicted to have a positive outcome. Don't see how this version can.
  18. It can't. But as Timm rightly points out it, currency can fall against non-currency stuff. Which is what we call inflation.
  19. Sounds reasonable but in fact if you look at the possible scenarios, your statement is logically meaningless: Suppose as you say, a bid below reserve is excluded unless there are no bidders above reserve. Picture the possible permutations: 1. There is a higher bidder above reserve = you don't win 2. There is a higher bidder but you are both below reserve = your bid is 'included' but you don't win 3. You (below reserve) are the highest bidder = your bid will be the one to be considered. (Note that in the Scottish system inviting bids does not oblige the vendor to accept any one of them, even the highest.) Clearly these are the same outcomes as if you claimed that 'all bids at any level are included'.
  • 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.