cupidstunt Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) Must be TTRTR !!!!! http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages/mor...page_id=58&ct=5 Private tenants would be better off over a typical mortgage period than their homeowning peers in five of Britain's 12 regions, according to Abbey's annual Rent vs Buy report released today. Edited June 12, 2006 by cupidstunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Its time to buy Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Surveys funded by commercial companies should be read with caution If everyone purchased Abbey would sell more financial products If everyone rented Abbey gets nothing out of it This is the same warning about medicial efficacy of drugs. Proffesionals always take Commercially funded tests (even if they are independent)with a pinch of salt as they maybe biased Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starship fighter Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 in the metro this morning they had spun this story to read that it was great news that it was generally cheaper to buy than rent, ansd it illustrated that now was still a good time to buy! clearly. i rent my house for £525 a month. if i bought it it would cost me £700 plus per month (if i was to pay any of the principle off - in fact IO would still be more expensive than rent!) and this would rise to almost £900 a month if interest rates rose by 1%. the lack of respect that the VI's in the housing market have for the people of this country beggars belief... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cupidstunt Posted June 12, 2006 Author Share Posted June 12, 2006 in the metro this morning they had spun this story to read that it was great news that it was generally cheaper to buy than rent, ansd it illustrated that now was still a good time to buy! Quite - which is why I posted the opposite of TTRTR's thread. Two different papers two different opinions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Quite - which is why I posted the opposite of TTRTR's thread. Two different papers two different opinions! Just crying VI is not enough. Why haven't any of you guys the gumption to sit down with a calculator and do the maths? I' did that on th efigures they put out last year and then toasted them on the dog and bone.. My figures suggest the picture is VERY different. Can you be bothered to work it out? If you can't / would rather I did it for you, please complain to webmaster that I am STILL unable to see more than a couple of inches of this site (width-wise). Apparently my "style sheets aren't enabled". Not that webmaster will help me solve this .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time to raise the rents. Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Quite - which is why I posted the opposite of TTRTR's thread. Two different papers two different opinions! You just show yourself to be a mental VI to take that position. Here is the 3rd and 4th paragraphs from the story you've linked as good for tenants: But while those living Wales, the North, East Anglia, Greater London and the South West would be richer if they opted to rent, they will be paying for their landlord's future and not their own. The study does not take into account the benefits of owning a mortgage-free home at the end of the 25-year period that buyers enjoy. It instead compares the costs of average properties with a 5.5% fixed rate mortgage plus maintenance and inflation to the cost of inflation-linked rent over the same period. You and your bear buddies are really off your rockers if you think this is a good news story for renters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Just crying VI is not enough. Why haven't any of you guys the gumption to sit down with a calculator and do the maths? I' did that on th efigures they put out last year and then toasted them on the dog and bone.. My figures suggest the picture is VERY different. Can you be bothered to work it out? If you can't / would rather I did it for you, please complain to webmaster that I am STILL unable to see more than a couple of inches of this site (width-wise). Apparently my "style sheets aren't enabled". Not that webmaster will help me solve this .... Well we could debunk the report, but we can't see the actual press release: http://www.aboutabbey.com/csgs/Satellite?c...AI_newsListMenu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-FTBer Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 You just show yourself to be a mental VI to take that position. Here is the 3rd and 4th paragraphs from the story you've linked as good for tenants: You and your bear buddies are really off your rockers if you think this is a good news story for renters. Ah, but I'm not paying for my landlady's future, I'm saving for mine. She paid £155K for the flat I rent. She gets £625 a month in rent. She pays £150 pcm ground rent and communal maintennance and gardening. So she is getting £475 a month after costs. A yield of ~3.7%. Last years maintennance which she had to pay: Bolier repair x 2 New shower New blinds x2 (3.5 metre high custom made) New cooker If she has a mortgage then she is probably losing money already. If not then she is getting a very poor return on capital invested. How exactly am I providing for her future? Especially as HBOS/Halifax/Nationwide/ODPM/LR all show prices falling in my area? And I expect that since she overpaid in 2003 for the flat, that she will not be able to sell for any more than she paid then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 It's basically very simple. Rent is dead money - FACT You can either rent a property from a landlord OR rent money from a bank to pay for it. Either way it will cost you money. Your decision will depend upon lifestyle, cashflow considerations and investment attitude. If you believe that rent is dead money but interest paid to a bank is not, then your bank will love you (and you must be a bit daft to be honest) After all if property is such a great investment why don't the banks just cut out the middle man and invest in BTL directly? They wouldn't be that stupid, they would rather you took the risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cupidstunt Posted June 12, 2006 Author Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) We've debated this topic numerous times. http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...topic=30663&hl= I STR'd in November, and as I've pointed out before KNOW my Landlord is subsidising my rent by around £1,300 per year. They are also in negitive equity due to it being a newbuild.I've also stated before that my two BTL'S yield just over 3% net - which is why I'm selling them! Sorry from my point of view the figures don't add up. Edited June 12, 2006 by cupidstunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.