Rent's not dead money, this is

Salvelinus

niallo27 wrote: »

We have saved 24 grand, we have being living together for 6 years going out 8, looking to buy a house 3 and a half times our salary which has dropped over a 100 grand since last year, but when i come on here i feel like a fool for even dreaming of buying, i think the big drop has come, i know they will continue to drop but not a the huge rate of the past year, anyone not think im mad for buying

At least you have a deposit together, I think the main factors would be; job security, ability to pay a higher interest rate and looking at the purchase as a long term asset not an atm.

niallo27

Salvelinus wrote: »

At least you have a deposit together, I think the main factors would be; job security, ability to pay a higher interest rate and looking at the purchase as a long term asset not an atm.

Job security is good both guaranteed till mid 2011, we have being stress tested by our bank and at 6% we are looking at 33% percent of our income, but we can get a low fixed rate for 2 years so in 2 years we should be on more money, and finally yes we want to start a family, we have though long and hard about it and we want to take the next step, i know when Ea's say all this bull**** about rent is dead money, they are only looking for a sale but at present with prices this low, i know they will fall more is it really that bad of a time to buy

Salvelinus

niallo27 wrote: »

Job security is good both guaranteed till mid 2011, we have being stress tested by our bank and at 6% we are looking at 33% percent of our income, but we can get a low fixed rate for 2 years so in 2 years we should be on more money, and finally yes we want to start a family, we have though long and hard about it and we want to take the next step, i know when Ea's say all this bull**** about rent is dead money, they are only looking for a sale but at present with prices this low, i know they will fall more is it really that bad of a time to buy

Not trying to be smart arsed but if I knew that i wouldn't be on boards, try www.propertypin.com or look at older posts, at least you can get an idea of what you should be asking yourself.

ntlbell

niallo27 wrote: »

ntlbell you should really remove the picture of Michael own with united legend over it, you might as well have a picture of gary glitter with music icon written over it, listen we all know they were foolish but why get off on seeing them suffer now.

Lets talk about the present though, who is better off the people who bought the house who are paying 800 a month mortgage now(based on 35 year mortgage) or the people renting next door for who knows 700, 750.
There must be some argument for dead money there

lolwot wtf has gary gliter got to do with anything

ntlbell

L_gaucho wrote: »

I did , a current account, savings account. Point is , I felt they were offering me money I hadn't asked for, encouraging me to go into debt.
My credit card limit automatically increased without request to €5000:eek: even though the max I ever spent in one month was 1500€..

if your credit limit was increased without you requesting it you should get in touch with your creditors as banks are not allowed to this without a request from you and a spot on your credit history to state you requested an increase

gurramok

Kipperhell wrote: »

Actually I suggest you re-read it along with others here. The end result was due to them breaking up the article has said they broke up due to financial pressure but that does not eliminate that event from causes of their current situation. If you can blame them for getting the mortgage along with the banks giving it you can certainly say that breaking up made matters worse and is a factor of their situation

Do you suggest they should of stayed together to make a go of it despite being in severe negative equity?

You know, financial strain can be a cause of a relationship breakup, it happens.

Kipperhell wrote: »

So what, any idea the financial strain and pressure from having a child. Do you blame the child or do you think maybe the relationship should be strong enough? No right to be high and mighty about what you saw was going to happen to the property market as so many tend to be here.

No. What i'm saying its ridiculous and short-sighted for couples to be taking out dual income mortgages.

What happens as you know is that they have a child or two, that means one parent out of the workforce for a period of time.

Add in the double whack of one parent losing a job and the strain financially(as a result of taking out a jumbo mortgage) is dependent on the working partner. It can wreck relationships, you know that, its undeniable.

Of course, it all depends on the size of the mortgage. A 150k mortgage is manageable in the above situation(do the maths), a 405k one is not.

Leave out the blame game for their situation and concentrate on the real people suffering for this one time.

And then add in that all across this land there are couples in negative equity stuck in apts they bought as starter homes and you can only count the misery they are suffering as a result, it ain't pretty.

niallo27

ntlbell wrote: »

lolwot wtf has gary gliter got to do with anything

I'm just saying that calling Owen a united legend is on the same par as calling Gary glitter a music icon, but thats football and another topic, you just lose all credibility by having that picture there

ntlbell

niallo27 wrote: »

I'm just saying that calling Owen a united legend is on the same par as calling Gary glitter a music icon, but thats football and another topic, you just lose all credibility by having that picture there

I think the irony of the picture and statement is lost on you.

Gary glitter is a music icon.

Owen is _not_ a united legend as he hasn't even played a competitive game for them

now, who's losing credibility?

and wtf has it got to do with dead money!!

niallo27

ntlbell wrote: »

I think the irony of the picture and statement is lost on you.

Gary glitter is a music icon.

Owen is _not_ a united legend as he hasn't even played a competitive game for them

now, who's losing credibility?

and wtf has it got to do with dead money!!

exactly it has nothing to do with rent being dead money, but on one has mentioned rent since this thread started just kept going on about what happened in the last few years, people are obsessed on here on wallowing in peoples pain and stupidity during the boom.

As for the picture of Owen i really don't know what your trying to say with it, the irony is not lost on me, i was commenting on the irony of it

ntlbell

niallo27 wrote: »

exactly it has nothing to do with rent being dead money, but on one has mentioned rent since this thread started just kept going on about what happened in the last few years, people are obsessed on here on wallowing in peoples pain and stupidity during the boom.

As for the picture of Owen i really don't know what your trying to say with it, the irony is not lost on me, i was commenting on the irony of it

not trying to say anything lolwot

lets move on!

niallo27

ntlbell wrote: »

not trying to say anything lolwot

lets move on!

Ya lets move on, read my posts above id like to know what you think, your obviously an intelligent man, I'd like to know what you think of rent being dead money in present times

McSandwich

niallo27 wrote: »

Job security is good both guaranteed till mid 2011, we have being stress tested by our bank and at 6% we are looking at 33% percent of our income, but we can get a low fixed rate for 2 years so in 2 years we should be on more money, and finally yes we want to start a family, we have though long and hard about it and we want to take the next step, i know when Ea's say all this bull**** about rent is dead money, they are only looking for a sale but at present with prices this low, i know they will fall more is it really that bad of a time to buy

Have a look at this:

http://people.hofstra.edu/Jean-paul_Rodrigue/blogs.html#Bubbles

Can't remember who but I heard a respected commentator recently who reckoned that we could be at the "bull trap" stage - so a long way to go... food for thought.

bladebrew

does anyone know where the house was??,i know it was the end of the boom times,but i cant imagine paying 405k for a house anywhere near drogheda!
and were banks even looking at their wages, €1800 a month is an insane amount to be paying on a mortgage,
it makes scary reading,

Senna

D3PO wrote: »

Any bank lending 100% based off of of the combined earning power of a couple should face some financial loss as a result of this kind of scenario.

Although the 100% mortgages are gone, 2 persons wages are still used by all banks for calculating affordability.

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

for every question that is asked about the current mess nearly everyone finds themselves in the banks have played some part in it.

Banks are business, there to make money for their shareholders. They have no civic responsibility and the only reason they didn't lend more money out was because they feared not being repaid. The consequences to the public was irreverent.
On the other hand, the central bank is responsible (to a point) they could have set lending regulations had FF allowed them, 80% LTV max, 3.5 times main & 1 time second earner etc, and the banks would have had to follow them. In 2001 the CB reported that the housing market was at unsustainable levels, in 2003 they reported that personal debt was expanding at 25% per year and was 3 times a sustainable amount. But after each of these reports (and the many other reports) FF and Ahern basically shrugged off concerns of irresponsible lending and just gave more fuel to the fire.
There is no point blaming banks, the people elected to run this country were responsible and they knew only too well what they were allowing to happen. Banks, developers, EA's, Mortgage brokers etc were all just along for the ride.

dan_d

The thing is that we can all talk forever about how mortgages should or shouldn't be calculated, but the point is that the only way for most people to have been able to afford a house in the last few years was to get a mortgage based on both incomes. Or else rent, for a very long period of time. It's a vicious circle, as this drove prices even higher. I know Europeans rent for years, but the culture is just not the same in this country and definitely not as well regulated as it is on the continent.
We are all certainly all to blame, but as I said before, somebody in power should have stepped in when things started to go really mad and introduced a few regulations to slow down the madness. Doesn't matter who - the Gov, the financial regulator, whoever. The banks are equally to blame, but they are just going to keep flinging money around until someone forcibly stops them. And nobody did. Equally of course, we could as a nation have simply refused to take what they were offering - but that was never going to happen!
With any luck we've all learned something from this, but I'm pretty sure we haven't figured out how to solve the mess that we currently find ourselves in. Hindsight is 20/20 vision.

Kipperhell

gurramok wrote: »

Do you suggest they should of stayed together to make a go of it despite being in severe negative equity?

You know, financial strain can be a cause of a relationship breakup, it happens.

I am saying when people break up there is financial hangover above and beyond that of simply being in negative equity and one of the couple losing their job. The fact they are in negative equity is only a factor along with the fact they broke up to get into their CURRENT situation.

gurramok wrote: »

No. What i'm saying its ridiculous and short-sighted for couples to be taking out dual income mortgages.

What happens as you know is that they have a child or two, that means one parent out of the workforce for a period of time.

Add in the double whack of one parent losing a job and the strain financially(as a result of taking out a jumbo mortgage) is dependent on the working partner. It can wreck relationships, you know that, its undeniable.

I agree with you but what I am pointing out is the only example they could find for the article was not straight forward one and had the additional factor of a break up to get where they are. One of them losing their job was equivalent to having a baby and if they broke up over money they would have broken up under the similar situation of having a child. So the house price market had little to do with their break up as it couldn't handle the strain.

You are playing the blame game saying the couples were short sighted. You also blamed the banks and political powers for not stepping in. I am just saying the article is misleading and terribly bias shoe horning an "example" of what they wanted to talk about that has little or no evidence. Effectively not very good journalism which really makes the article an opinion piece. It is no different from the one that riled people up with the stories of people loosing out due to property price increases. If it is bad journalism it remains so whether it agrees with your point of view or not.

mrgaa1

Senna wrote: »

There is no point blaming banks, the people elected to run this country were responsible and they knew only too well what they were allowing to happen. Banks, developers, EA's, Mortgage brokers etc were all just along for the ride.

Also I would add those who thought houses were ATM's - the speculators. And there were thousands and thousands of them. The developer wanted to build, the bank lent the money, the speculator bought quick and often, people bought the house, the speculator sold at huge profit and moved onto the next scheme. The cycle continued until the speculator couldn't get anymore money.
Also I believe we are entering a levelling out period. The UK seems to be there and we won't be far behind. If NAMA works properly we will have a steadying of the ship and as history has taught us once the housing markets start levelling out the rest of the economy, by and large, follows suit. Lets see what happens in the next 3 months or so and perhaps, just perhaps, the bargains will be snapped up.

Salvelinus

mrgaa1 wrote: »

Also I would add those who thought houses were ATM's - the speculators. And there were thousands and thousands of them. The developer wanted to build, the bank lent the money, the speculator bought quick and often, people bought the house, the speculator sold at huge profit and moved onto the next scheme. The cycle continued until the speculator couldn't get anymore money.
Also I believe we are entering a levelling out period. The UK seems to be there and we won't be far behind. If NAMA works properly we will have a steadying of the ship and as history has taught us once the housing markets start levelling out the rest of the economy, by and large, follows suit. Lets see what happens in the next 3 months or so and perhaps, just perhaps, the bargains will be snapped up.

Problem is we're levelling out at the 80's level, the UK didn't have a pyramid scheme for the last decade.

Rej

Ive read over the previous posts.. a lot of sense there.

But you cannot remove personal responsibility from it all. In April 2006 myself & my now hubby bought a house for 180k in Longford over 35 years. At the time the house was valued at 210k, but due to the market being swamped with new houses we were able to negotiate the price down (with family contacts it has to be said).

The bank had pre-approved us for 300k, based on our two incomes, but there was no way in hell that I was willing to draw down that amount for a house in the midlands.

Heres another scenario, a mate of mine works in dublin city center and his wife works locally. Around the same time as we moved into our house they bought a penthouse appt in LONGFORD for 190k... Now where is the sense in that!