translation 'someone who bought a house to make money but instead lost money on it, will realise they lost money on it'
Doh! Thats why they'd be less likely to sell, because they cant!
Another "statement of the bleedin obvious", eg buying at the bottom is better than buying at the top. Someone once said 'foretelling is easy, except for the future' or something like that. Your mythical market bottom buyer may be catching a falling knife (as per the Chicken Littles)
Tw
:-) he probably can't afford a tent and is trying to talk the prices down....
regards...
Not one where the lender never requires the capital to be repaid.
ah yes, still one of the wealthiest economies on earth...
you don't know what the hell you are on about.... why don't you tell 'us' the 'effects' instead of hoping others will 'imagine' it for you....? what exactly are these 'strains' that are 'evident in the economy'?
no use copying your 'answers' from the scribblers of the fossil press...most of them don't have any more of a clue than yourself.
No, the point was if they bought it for 200k, it went up to 500k last year, then down to 400k, then they might realise that owning for the last year was not a good idea.
Doh! Not everyone whose house price falls ends up in negative equity. Prices could fall by 50% now and I'd wager that the majority of people wouldn't be in negative equity (because they bought several years ago, or put down a big deposit).
So what? You asked who'd be BTL'ing in a falling market. If the answer was so bleeding obvious then why ask?
ie, it has two potential 'paybacks'....
take that though further.... to an extent one perceived advantage hedges against a potential loss (but possible gain) in the other....
no use lenders 'demanding' repayments if the borrower cannot (or will not) pay.
why would a lender want repayment if the borrower was reliable and providing a satisfactory income stream?
"Andy Pandy" wrote
That's not a problem. Repay when you sell. [With interest rates staying down at 0%, there's not much reason for prices to have dropped!]
Just how satisfactory is the income stream from a loan charged at 0.00% interest?
And they'd aso likely realise that not being psychic and knowing what house prices would do in the future, that would be a 'so what'.
[real story]I bought some shares at $25, they went to $65, fell to $58 where I sold them. Obviously, for the time between $65 and $58 'owning them wasnt a good idea', but so what, no one knew what the peak will be, maybe they would have gone to $100 or $500 (I wish). FWIW they bottomed at $48 and are now on their way back up again. I should *obviously* have bought back in at $48, in fact *not* owning them from $48 onwards was "a bad idea".Operating on hindsight isnt much use, which is what your post appears to boil down to.
Doh! Thats why I gave a precise figure of price bought & price now. I agree with your guesstimate, but what does it mean? So what? What should our mythical housebuyer do *now* ??? Should they sell, buy, rent, or just share a tent with Crowley?
Because it doesnt appear clear to me at least, what you are proposing. Do you want people to sell the instant the market value of their house dips? Or when it hits a pre-arranged point? and when should they buy back in? Do you have a neat formula? Does it involve a time machine and hindsight?
In message , Andy Pandy writes
With most interest only loans, if there came a time for it to be repaid, you can reborrow with another interest only loan.
In message , Tim writes
If by 'Interest rates' you mean the interest actually paid by personal borrowers then if that rate is NIL then base rates would be negative and savings would suffer a negative rate of interest, as happened in Switzerland some time ago. This would completely disincentivise savers and that would mean lenders wouldn't have enough dosh to lend and therefore the amount lent would decrease. Demand for borrowing would exceed supply and then lending interest rates would increase.
If interest rates were in this situation then we are likely to be in a negative inflation scenario, so that would mean that asset values (including house prices) were decreasing as would be the money supply. Therefore, fixed levels of debt would become larger, in real terms, when measured against the net worth of the underlying assets.
Therefore, I think the country would be in very deep poo poo indeed if there was such a level of non reducing debt as you describe paying 0% interest.
If thats the best you can manage then why bother you dribbling old fraud ?
;) LOL !
If you don't know what 'strains' are evident in the UK economy then perhaps you should try taking your fat head out of your skanky arse you senile old windbag.
And if you lack the ability to 'imagine' the effects of 6% interest rates in the UK then perhaps you should try reading "Economics for dummies" dummy.
just fine in a deflationary context.
ie, no response...
ie, no response...
you really won't get a pass on empty bluff you know... well..you should know
Says mad sad Abelard whose days are filled with endless postings containing nowt but 'empty bluff' boring the arse off anyone who makes the mistake of reading his vacuous posturing drivel.
It seems that everyone sees you for the fraudulent old windbag you are save yourself you dribbling old fool. Don't you have any self-insight whatsoever ?
ie....still no response....
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.