- Joined
- 29 May 2008
- Posts
- 677
- Reactions
- 0
Err what? Noooo. That 205k is now tied up into the house, it's not like homeowner get's that money cash in hand. You want to realise your 10k discount there, you need to sell the house and be in the same position as the renter while assuming the cost of selling is $0.
hello,
"house prices to keep falling"
thankyou
robots
I understand this, but the article is picking and choosing where it wants to make assumptions based on PCM and perfectly rational investors/savers and when it wants to make assumptions based on 'real world' empirical evidence.
Like sure, it is realistic to assume that there will be transaction costs on liquidation of the asset, 10% of asset value is fair? on a 205k house that only puts the homeowner a touch over 10k behind the renter after 30years based on this guys calcs but this is all the while assuming ZERO capital growth over 30years. Is this realistic aswell?
need to compare apples with apples
Isn't it more (or at least, just as) silly to assume that the homeowner will be able to hold the whole thirty years if there is a large chunk of capital contraction through price destruction? More likely at this point they will be forced to sell at a loss if they want to retain mobility or have other equity issues or whatever.
I mean ok sure, it is probably safe to assume some capital growth on RE between buy 0y and sell 30y but what about the inbetween when homeowner has 3rd kid on the way and is still paying bubble prices on a deflated home waiting for inflation to take his pain away?
Meanwhile the renter can just up to the cheaper suburb no worries no loss.
Not many home owners stay in the same house for 30 yrs I think it is about 5 to 7 so you have the extra cost buying, selling, Legal's etc. each shift.
Dont you guys get tired of talking around in circles all the time.
Dont you guys get tired of talking around in circles all the time.
I think Robots has said one useful thing ever, and i cant remember what it was so it cant have been that poignant
same can be said for renters
other than furniture removal costs which are common to both scenarios, what else does a renter have to pay?
(might even cost you nothing to move if you get your mates on board!)
Disconnection and reconnection costs for phone line, internet, gas, water, electricity. Doing this every 12 months is not cheap, and its getting more expensive each year. (not that I have to worry about that anymore
Hello,
I can think of at least one useful thing Robots has said. He has mentioned this quite a few times on various threads, and also in a PM to me.
"embrace your job because as life travels on you soon realise THIS is where you will make most of your money,
what comes along with property and shares is a bonus"
Even if you don't agree with his posts, I am sure the majority of the forum find him entertaining.
Originally Posted by Glen48
Not many home owners stay in the same house for 30 yrs I think it is about 5 to 7 so you have the extra cost buying, selling, Legal's etc. each shift.
same can be said for renters
actually, i dont even agree with this.
my observation has been that people whom hold down a job are actually slaves to a bank or two. they work all week to pay bills, never really getting any further ahead. indeed, they get further into debt.
if they instead embraced learning about property and shares, with the same fervour they slave and stress, they would find a better outcome.
it is well explained in the penny dreadful, 'rich dad, poor dad'.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?