Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Tiger Woods?

Members
  • Posts

    6,111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tiger Woods?

  1. You've got to be joking! On no account would I pay a back dated increase in rent, though if it was reasonable would certainly agree to pay it pro rata from the date of notificiation. This is something that should have been sorted out by the agent before the end of the contract, not three months after. Would you pay if they happened to mention it to 12 months after the date? Then why would you pay it after three months? A sudden bill for £150 could cause significant hardship for some. I'm sure the owners wouldn't be impressed about all those expensive fees they pay the agent for this level of service - I suspect the agent is trying to hide his mistake from the owner without eating into his profits.
  2. I would personaly pay it and if you think it is too much of an increase just start looking for another place. It probably is not worth the arguement if it is mentioned in the contract.

    You've got to be joking! On no account would I pay a back dated increase in rent, though if it was reasonable would certainly agree to pay it pro rata from the date of notificiation. This is something that should have been sorted out by the agent before the end of the contract, not three months after. Would you pay if they happened to mention it to 12 months after the date? Then why would you pay it after three months? A sudden bill for £150 could cause significant hardship for some. I'm sure the owners wouldn't be impressed about all those expensive fees they pay the agent for this level of service - I suspect the agent is trying to hide his mistake from the owner without eating into his profits.

  3. Gold seems to be priced in dollars.

    Do we have to take fx considerations between gbp and usd into consideration, or is it priced to gbp independently?

    Any serious deviation in the gbp to us price would lead to immediate arbitrage opportunities. If the GBP dropped relative to the dollar whilst gold held at a constant value, would mean an increase in the value of your gold wrt to the GBP, and conversely.

  4. My recollection is that single purchases under £5000 need not be reported. Annual purchases over £10000 from the same dealer have to be reported.

    You could consider bullionvault.com or the Perth mint scheme as alternative ways of holding assigned gold.

  5. Good companies are being dragged down with the shite. Companies that have absolutely nothing to do with the credit bubble, leverage, PE buyouts, etc etc are being hammered. There is going to be a big round of layoffs, scaling-back of investment and a spread of ultra-cautiousness as a result - as even well-planned well capitalised companies who have done nothing wrong are taken to the cleaners.

    The money men and central bankers have so polluted the system that they are infecting everything in their path. They are not the creators of wealth, they are the destroyers of wealth, they create nothing, they improve nothing, they dilute everything, they tar everything with the same brush.

    Spot on

  6. Just be aware that if a bank gets into trouble (as some may in the coming months), you're only guaranteed to recoup the first 30K of your investment.

    That's why many people stash their STR funds across a few accounts. Try Icesave, etc.

    Needless to say, if you have a partner on a lower tax threshold than you, put it in their name.

    Also the government bonds linked to RPI look good at 15K a pop (tax free!).

    Hope this helps... ;)

    There is no guarantee to recoup £30000 from a bank account. The FSCS will attempt to pay 100% of the first £2000 and 90% of the next £29170 IF they can do so with their funds. The FSCS is not funded by the treasury, but is funded by subscriptions from member institutions. As they say on their site, there are scenarios where one or more institutions fail where the compensation for the first £31170 will not be able to amount to the figures given in the previous sentence. My feeling is that the FSCS is great for a small fund going bust, but won't help you if Barclays comes crashing down.

    As to the OP concerns - never put your eggs all in one basket, especially in times such as these.

  7. Whether you need to worry or not depends how much dosh of yours they have. All "Johns" are insured by the government up to 30K ish.

    This is not quite true. The FSCS is an independent body set up by the government funded by levies. From their website http://www.fscs.org.uk/consumer/key_facts/..._of_the_scheme/

    "The FSA's proposals for reviewing the funding of the FSCS will increase the financial capacity of FSCS. But it is still possible to conceive of a default (or a combination of defaults) so big as to be beyond FSCS's ability to pay compensation up to our limits. The FSA's proposals significantly reduce the probability of this happening, but they cannot completely eliminate it."

    That is, the FSCS protection is not worth the electrons it is written on in the case of a serious financial blowup in which a major bank or two collapsed.

  8. I see the gold price goes down more than the dollar get stronger, so in real terms gold have been falling the whole week, not much, but around 0,6% in my currency. If I am right, that means we are having some deflation. I think the difference now, between 1929-1932 is that we are not on a gold standard. And that means there wont be a shortage of money to bail out, if they just catch it in time, and no run on banks because of insurance on the accounts, and it seems there is control so far.

    You should read the fscs site carefully. If a number of banks went to the wall, the full insurance 100% of first £2000, 90% of the next £29700 would not necessarily be able to be paid out. The fscs is only there to deal with small numbers of institutions failing.

  9. The same trick won't work now. We import too many goods. As soon the pound goes down the cost of imported items (eg: food, oil, etc) shoots up and there is undeniable inflation for all to see and the MPC must put up interest rates. The 70's devaluation worked because the UK was much more insular and a net exporter. Also much of industry was nationalised and effectively could help itself out of the taxpayer's wallet to meet wage bills.

    But what if the MPC's remit is changed?

  10. Not sure where you would stand legally, but it sounds to me like he wants you to rent the house but also wants to use it as a storage shed. This landlord is taking the mick. I agree with the previous poster - do you really want to rent from someone like this? This is the sort of guy who is going to cause you trouble come "getting your deposit back time". It would want to be an exceptional property at an exceptionally low price, otherwise my advice would be:

    Run!

  11. I heard the other day that if you counted from 1 to 1 trillion, it would take 30,000 years.

    don't know if it's true though...... i haven't tried it yet.

    True, provided that you don't sleep and can say each number at the rate of 1 per second. Try saying nine hundred and eight seven billion, six hundred and fifty four million, three hundred and twenty one thousand seven hundred and eighty eight in a second, repeatedly and see if you think it is still possible. :unsure:

  12. Firstly newbie here, hello all,

    Here is my own personal experience of this "great home owning democracy".

    In 2001, after years of struggling to save a deposit and having the embarrasment of moving back home at the age of 27 for 2 years, I managed to buy a house. Well a house is a bit of an overstatement. It was a 1 bedroom starter home (i.e. very small) in one of the cheapest parts of oxfordshire. I had a reasonable job, but needed a 4xsalary mortgage to buy it, cost £78,500.

    At the time I was terrified of a price crash, I knew then the houses were overpriced, I knew some people who got bankrupted in the last crash and history seemed to be repeating itself. Yet the prices were still rising.

    In 2004 I sold the house for £120,000 (53% increase in 3 years), I partly sold because I was convinced prices were about to crash and partly to move to the north to live with my girlfriend. I didn't buy at that time, I thought I'd wait for prices to go down first.

    3 years later, we're still renting, I could use the profit I made on the house (plus additional savings & interest) as a big deposit towards buying a house, but there's so much uncertainty, and I'm terrified of paying £150,000 for something that's going to be worth £100,000 in 3 years.

    Lastly, my old next door neighbour just sold his 1 bedroom house for £152,500. In some ways I'm gutted by losing money by "chickening out" 3 years ago, but my money's in the bank, it could have gone the other way if prices had been allowed to drop.

    £152,500 for a 1 bedroom house? it's doubled in price in 6 years. What sort of income multiplier must these people be on to afford it? The world's gone mad. It's not even a great area to live, 100 metres from a pylon, I had a car stolen and another vandalised 3 times (in 3 years).

    Prices can't keep rising, I don't believe they'll stagnate ( it could take 10-15 years to make them affordable). There's only one way they'll go, how fast and when though, is the real question.

    I'm from the same area. Couldn't agree more. Very hard to call the top of te market when it is driven by the insane. Anyhow, gratz on buying in 2001. As a junior fellow at the university, I was already priced out by then...

  13. In this thread (BTL friends in anecdotals) a couple are widely ridiculed for moving to a cheaper house, and then using some of the proceeds as a deposit against two buy to let flats. Apparently this is part of their pension plan, but initially the rental income falls short of their expenses by £200 per month.

    I'm not saying I'd do it, but here is why I don't agree that they are muppets.

    Make up figures that might fit a scenario like this. Lets say that they plan to retire in 10 years. The flats cost £150K each, and bring in an initial monthly income of £575 each. They put in a 10% deposit, and have a large 10 year fixed BTL interest only mortgage at 6%.

    Here are those figures again:

    purchase price £300000

    deposit £30000

    BTL mortgage IO £270000

    10y fixed IR 6%

    monthly payments £1350

    initial monthly rent £1150

    To work out if they win or lose requires some guesswork about what will happen over 10 years to rent inflation and to house price inflation. (For simplicity I have deliberately left income and capital gains tax out of the equation)

    First, for the bears:

    Lets pick some bearish numbers out of a hat and say that house prices and rents both grow below inflation over the next 10 years:

    HPI 2%

    inflation 2.5%

    rent inflation 2%

    heres how their investment stacks up over 10 years:

    mortgage rental

    year value payments income

    0 300000 16200 13800

    1 306000 16200 14076

    2 312120 16200 14358

    3 318362 16200 14645

    4 324730 16200 14938

    5 331224 16200 15236

    6 337849 16200 15541

    7 344606 16200 15852

    8 351498 16200 16169

    9 358528 16200 16492

    10 365698 16200 16822

    total ----- 178200 167928

    At the end of 10 years their net profit if they choose to sell their flats and paying off their mortgage is £55427.

    If they choose to keep their flats, they have a small monthly income to supplement their main pension.

    If they had left the initial 30K deposit in a bank account earning 5% per year, they would have £48867

    So... A SMALL WIN EVEN FOR THE BEARS, at Christmas they can comfortbaly afford to take their grandchildren to Blackpool to see the illuminations.

    Next, for the bulls:

    No-one thinks house prices will go on increasing by 10% per year for ever. BUt lets say they outperform inflation by a modest 1% year on year over the next 10 years, and with ongoing house price squeeze, rent outperforms inflation by 2% year on year.

    HPI 4%

    inflation 3%

    rent inflation 5%

    mortgage rental

    year value payments income

    0 300000 16200 13800

    1 312000 16200 14490

    2 324480 16200 15215

    3 337459 16200 15975

    4 350958 16200 16774

    5 364996 16200 17613

    6 379596 16200 18493

    7 394780 16200 19418

    8 410571 16200 20389

    9 426994 16200 21408

    10 444073 16200 22479

    total ------ 178200 196054

    At the end of 10 years their net profit if they choose to sell their flats and paying off their mortgage is £161927.

    If they choose to keep their flats, they have a monthly income of £523 to supplement their main pension.

    If they had left the initial 30K deposit in a bank account earning 5% per year, they would have £48867. However being bulls, they might have found riskier, higher interest funds yielding 8% per year... but even so, they would only have £64768

    So... A CONVINCING WIN for the bulls, at Christmas they'll be taking their grandchildren skiing in Val d'Isere.

    You forgot CGT, which changes the picture significantly. The 30k could be in an ISA with no tax. Wipe 60k off the bull figures and 22k off the bear earnings. In the latter case, they lose money.

  14. I just feel sorry for all the people who took the opportunity cost and direct financial cost of training to be a HIPS inspector. The idea, if implemented properly so that they were of the quality that banks would accept for mortgages etc., would save a lot of money for people who are continually gazumped and weed out time wasting sellers. Instead we have been presented with high farce. Depressing. So depressing. How is it that people like Ruth Kelly (Harriet Harman also springs to mind) can end up in significant positions of power in this country when I wouldn't trust either of them to walk my dog? I find it hard to distinguish much of what comes out of this government from what comes out of student union politics i.e. completely ineffectual, gormless, hot air filled, neurotic twaddle.

  15. heres a good one for anyone wanting to give it a try

    http://www.888.com/?sr=366306〈=en&flag=0000

    (Its a sponsored link, any money I get will go on beer, thanks :) )

    a £100 deposit is needed to get a £100 deposit. You then need to turn over £2000 (20* bonus) to take out the bonus.

    If you play correct blackjack strategy (its very simple - table at www.wizardofodds.com) the house should have <1% edge.

    So in £2000 of £1 bets (keep them small to keep the variation down) you should expect to lose under £20

    This leaves you with 180 to cash out.

    Of course, it doesnt always work, but the odds are very much on your side. You'd need to be very unlucky to lose on this offer - maybe a mathematician can give us the odds?

    Very approximately, you can estimate the variation of your returns on this strategy by using a binomial distribution. Assuming 1% house advantage and assuming you place 2000 £1 bets your profit would, with 95% sureity lie between £35 and £125. The chance of actually making a loss would be about 0.03%

    If, instead you made 1000 £2 bets your profit would, with 95% sureity lie between £16 and £143. Your cahnce of making a loss would be about 0.6%.

    For 400 £5 bets your profit would, with 95% sureity lie between -£20 and £180. Your chance of making a loss would be about 6%.

    Clearly, patience is a virtue :-)

×
×
  • 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.