Huge negative equity on apartments.

jackal

apache wrote: »

Gosh theres a huge divide here among renters and buyers - a bit bitter!
ok i bought in 2007. If i could do it all again i would. (Lol i must be thick!). I paid k225 (loaned, whatever) for a 2 bed apartment. Still love it! Started a great job at end of 2006 where i was on silly money. Massive wage cuts since but well able still to afford it. Mortgage is e900. To rent same place is e1000. TRS extended and in last budget brought mortgage down again. Would be paying less but i'm in fixed rate.

Got sick. ( didn't factor that) Job still pays me but going on half pay soon. Bank has reduced my mortgage drastically so still ok.

Would a landlord let me rent at next to nothing? Think not!

Next yous will be telling me to get rid of my private health insurance and be waiting months for operations!

Banks are working well with those in difficulty. I will pay every cent i owe when i am fit to return to work. (Spread over remainder of loan or at end) I just didn't factor in illness.

Would not like to be renting when i reach my 60s. Didn't get a silly mortgage out. Very doable.

So with what i pay per month still cheaper than renting. When i have it all paid off i will have no living expenses. Why would i want to rent for rest of life? Can think of nothing more soul destroying!

Anyway haters gonna hate

Listen, thats not a huge amount of money and fair play to you for being happy with what you bought.

Just out of interest, would you still love your 2 bed apartment with a spouse and 3 kids? What if you are still in negative equity when/if that time comes? Is an apartment (Irish style apartment) a place to live for the forseeable future? There was a program on RTE about it recently and it did not paint a brilliant picture of long-term apartment living.

When you rent an apartment, yes, you may pay €100+ more a month than a mortgage would cost. But you dont pay management fees. Or pay for maintenance. Or mortgage protection insurance. But you can also move out and move on when your circumstances change, or if any of the following happen:

• Your apartment block fails a fire inspection and needs to be torn down.
• Your apartment block was built with pyrite and the builder is long gone.
• Half your block is given over to social housing and they make shíte of the place.
• You have noisy neighbours.
• You have a leaky roof.
• Your management fees double.
• You realise that the place has no storage and does not suit your lifestyle as you mature.
• You want a garden instead of a balcony.
• You want to park a car but didn't buy a space
• Your wife/husband wants to park a car but you only bought one space
• The lifts stop working and nobody is paying their maintenance fees, so you have to use the stairs.
• etc..

stevedublin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why is that absurd?

People buy shares to INVEST in the hope of making a PROFIT.
People buy homes to LIVE IN.
The two are DIFFERENT.

apache

MadsL wrote: »

apache wrote: »

Gosh theres a huge divide here among renters and buyers - a bit bitter!
ok i bought in 2007. If i could do it all again i would. (Lol i must be thick!). I paid k225 (loaned, whatever) for a 2 bed apartment. Still love it! Started a great job at end of 2006 where i was on silly money. Massive wage cuts since but well able still to afford it. Mortgage is e900. To rent same place is e1000. TRS extended and in last budget brought mortgage down again. Would be paying less but i'm in fixed rate.

Got sick. ( didn't factor that) Job still pays me but going on half pay soon. Bank has reduced my mortgage drastically so still ok.

Would a landlord let me rent at next to nothing? Think not!

Next yous will be telling me to get rid of my private health insurance and be waiting months for operations!

Banks are working well with those in difficulty. I will pay every cent i owe when i am fit to return to work. (Spread over remainder of loan or at end) I just didn't factor in illness.

Would not like to be renting when i reach my 60s. Didn't get a silly mortgage out. Very doable.

So with what i pay per month still cheaper than renting. When i have it all paid off i will have no living expenses. Why would i want to rent for rest of life? Can think of nothing more soul destroying!

Anyway haters gonna hate

You are really struggling with what would have happened financially if you had rented rather than bought. Try doing the maths, I'll be back shortly with how much better of you would be had you rented. Not trying to be smug, just that you seem not to want to work it out mathematically.

lol ah leave it out mads i'm happy. Thats all that matters. Have a decent job that pays me while out sick. Gone through proper channels that has helped me out a lot.
I'd be up **** creek if i was renting. Once you have a job the social won't help you. If i wasn't employed it would be different with rent relief etc.

Scanlas The 2nd

not yet wrote: »

cournioni wrote: »

No attitude here, it's just called living in the real world. You take out a loan, for X amount, you have to pay it back. If you can not see the risk in taking a loan then it is nobodies fault but your own.

That absolutely does apply to unsecured bondholders. Bondholders should also be aware of the risk when they are investing, especially those that invest in other lending institutions.

I'm not saying don't loan or don't invest, what I am saying is be cautious, don't go in over your head and never ever get greedy.

So can I take it you believe that someone who bought a home in 2003-2007 was greedy, because thats what I'm taking from your post.

I, and others bought apartments during this period, not to make money,not to invest, not to be greedy but simply to have a home. The Banks and estate agents at the time fooled people into thinking if you don't buy now you will not be able to afford it in 5 years, oh and the government at the time were part of this cable of nasty greed induced basdtars.

How would you like it if you lent half a million to your friend and he didn't pay you back. How would you like it if he said I'm not going to pay you back because I know someone else who didn't pay back their loan so I won't. How would you like it if your friend said it's not my fault I can't pay you back, I was told I could never afford a house in the future if you didn't give me this loan.

I suppose you'd tell him not to worry about it. Don't pay it back, those are good excuses.

Listen if you borrow half a million you have to pay it back. Don't borrow it if you won't pay it back.

Zulu

Monty Burnz wrote: »

How the hell did you work that out??

ECB +1%.

And I said that the house I rented was 'worth' 700k.

And I said my circumstances were different. Do we need to repeat everything?

Monty Burnz

stevedublin wrote: »

People buy shares to INVEST in the hope of making a PROFIT.
People buy homes to LIVE IN.
The two are DIFFERENT.

Yes they are different, thanks for making that amazingly perceptive observation. But they are also similar; people bought assets that lost value. We hear a lot of people demanding that people who bought one type of asset are bailed out, but those people don't seem too keen to bail out the people who bought the other type of asset.

How odd.

Monty Burnz

Zulu wrote: »

ECB +1%.
And I said my circumstances were different. Do we need to repeat everything?

What was ECB + 1% back in 2004? And what were the typical variable rates for the main lenders back in 2004?

I think you will find you got your sums spectacularly wrong.

apache

jackal wrote: »

apache wrote: »

Gosh theres a huge divide here among renters and buyers - a bit bitter!
ok i bought in 2007. If i could do it all again i would. (Lol i must be thick!). I paid k225 (loaned, whatever) for a 2 bed apartment. Still love it! Started a great job at end of 2006 where i was on silly money. Massive wage cuts since but well able still to afford it. Mortgage is e900. To rent same place is e1000. TRS extended and in last budget brought mortgage down again. Would be paying less but i'm in fixed rate.

Got sick. ( didn't factor that) Job still pays me but going on half pay soon. Bank has reduced my mortgage drastically so still ok.

Would a landlord let me rent at next to nothing? Think not!

Next yous will be telling me to get rid of my private health insurance and be waiting months for operations!

Banks are working well with those in difficulty. I will pay every cent i owe when i am fit to return to work. (Spread over remainder of loan or at end) I just didn't factor in illness.

Would not like to be renting when i reach my 60s. Didn't get a silly mortgage out. Very doable.

So with what i pay per month still cheaper than renting. When i have it all paid off i will have no living expenses. Why would i want to rent for rest of life? Can think of nothing more soul destroying!

Anyway haters gonna hate

Listen, thats not a huge amount of money and fair play to you for being happy with what you bought.

Just out of interest, would you still love your 2 bed apartment with a spouse and 3 kids? What if you are still in negative equity when/if that time comes? Is an apartment (Irish style apartment) a place to live for the forseeable future? There was a program on RTE about it recently and it did not paint a brilliant picture of long-term apartment living.

When you rent an apartment, yes, you may pay €100+ more a month than a mortgage would cost. But you dont pay management fees. Or pay for maintenance. Or mortgage protection insurance. But you can also move out and move on when your circumstances change, or if any of the following happen:

• Your apartment block fails a fire inspection and needs to be torn down.
• Your apartment block was built with pyrite and the builder is long gone.
• Half your block is given over to social housing and they make shíte of the place.
• You have noisy neighbours.
• You have a leaky roof.
• Your management fees double.
• You realise that the place has no storage and does not suit your lifestyle as you mature.
• You want a garden instead of a balcony.
• You want to park a car but didn't buy a space
• Your wife/husband wants to park a car but you only bought one space
• The lifts stop working and nobody is paying their maintenance fees, so you have to use the stairs.
• etc..

I not really a kid person so no chance of that its a 2 story apartment and much same size as a house. Seperate kitchen, living room, 2 bathrooms, 2 bedrooms, 2 store rooms. So lots of space for 2 people.

15 mins from city centre on QBC corrider. We have new directors in management company. Costs have come down and block insurance covers all the problems you mentioned.

Car park space came free with it. You can rent extra spaces if you want but i have no need.

Oh i chose an apartment that only has one set of neighbours and they are grand. I don't use the lift anyway as i am on ground and first floor.

I really thought long and hard about it and i'm still happy 5 years later.

I know what you mean though - i'm sure others have come across these problems.

Edit - sorry can't quote properly on phone. Making a balls of it.

MadsL

apache wrote: »

Gosh theres a huge divide here among renters and buyers - a bit bitter!
ok i bought in 2007. If i could do it all again i would. (Lol i must be thick!). I paid k225 (loaned, whatever) for a 2 bed apartment. Still love it! Started a great job at end of 2006 where i was on silly money. Massive wage cuts since but well able still to afford it. Mortgage is e900. To rent same place is e1000. TRS extended and in last budget brought mortgage down again. Would be paying less but i'm in fixed rate.

Got sick. ( didn't factor that) Job still pays me but going on half pay soon. Bank has reduced my mortgage drastically so still ok.

Would a landlord let me rent at next to nothing? Think not!

Next yous will be telling me to get rid of my private health insurance and be waiting months for operations!

Banks are working well with those in difficulty. I will pay every cent i owe when i am fit to return to work. (Spread over remainder of loan or at end) I just didn't factor in illness.

Would not like to be renting when i reach my 60s. Didn't get a silly mortgage out. Very doable.

So with what i pay per month still cheaper than renting. When i have it all paid off i will have no living expenses. Why would i want to rent for rest of life? Can think of nothing more soul destroying!

Anyway haters gonna hate

OK - looks like you got a 35 year mortgage in order to be paying €900 a month. That means you have paid from 2007 to now a total of a whopping €3,530.97 off your principal, and still owe €208,674.33 on the apartment, which is probably worth less than €100k.

So as of today you are down 43k in interest payments and 108k in NE. Selling up today would mean you would have spent €151k over those five years on your apartment.

Had you rented you would have spent €54k on rent at €900 a month (probably a nicer place than the one you bought) and now be able to buy the apartment for less than 100k. Assuming the renter saved the 100k - oh look, free apartment. But more realistically putting €900 a month into a 100k mortgage gets it at:
€605 a month pays it off at 20 years. An optional payment of 300 on top gets it paid off in just 12 years.

Total cost of your apartment = €418k
Total cost of renters apartment = €126k+(54k in rent) = €180k

So. Are you getting why rent isn't dead money yet???

I'm sure you will continue to live in your apartment and be happy, just try not to paint those who chose to rent in falling markets as sad losers who will end up in sad bedsits. We have actually pulled out calculators at one point or another and will not be renting forever. In fact I just bought a house in January.

Zulu

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What was ECB + 1% back in 2004? And what were the typical variable rates for the main lenders back in 2004?

I think you will find you got your sums spectacularly wrong.

Sigh, indeed you are absolutely correct. My own tracker was taken out 5 years ago in 2007. So my point about purchasing being cheaper for me must be completely wrong (irregardless of the actual facts) and that fact that renting would have been €500 per month more expensive must also be completely and utterly wrong (despite the real world), ergo your the assertion that we were all "greedy" "fools" who "deserve everything we get" is correct. Q.E.D.

Good man, you win 7 internets, and you've proven your right to your smugness. Kudos.

stevedublin

MadsL wrote: »

A house is not an asset until you own it outright, until then it is liability.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes they are different, thanks for making that amazingly perceptive observation. But they are also similar; people bought assets that lost value. We hear a lot of people demanding that people who bought one type of asset are bailed out, but those people don't seem too keen to bail out the people who bought the other type of asset.

How odd.

So if I were to buy property would it be an asset or liability? Your side of the argument seem to be falling over yourselves with contradictory arguments.

Can people not just be allowed to buy their own home in peace without all this messing? Is that so hard to ask?

Next thing people won't be able to buy food for themselves without all sorts of messing and arguments about assets and liabilities.

Zulu

MadsL wrote: »

Total cost of renters apartment = €126k+(54k in rent) = €180k
So. Are you getting why rent isn't dead money yet???
.

The renter is buying in cash is it? Or are they going to have to avail of the current mortgage criteria? and variable/fixed rates??

MadsL

Zulu wrote: »

Sigh, indeed you are absolutely correct. My own tracker was taken out 5 years ago in 2007. So my point about purchasing being cheaper for me must be completely wrong (irregardless of the actual facts) and that fact that renting would have been €500 per month more expensive must also be completely and utterly wrong (despite the real world), ergo your the assertion that we were all "greedy" "fools" who "deserve everything we get" is correct. Q.E.D.

Good man, you win 7 internets, and you've proven your right to your smugness. Kudos.

Care to put up the maths?

No-one is trying to prove a point out of smugness, just mathematically defending the position against this bizarre notion that not buying a house means you live out your retirement sitting in a bedsit 'crying chair' cursing that you didn't buy into the 'property ladder'.

Monty Burnz

Zulu wrote: »

Sigh, indeed you are absolutely correct. My own tracker was taken out 5 years ago in 2007. So my point about purchasing being cheaper for me must be completely wrong (irregardless of the actual facts) and that fact that renting would have been €500 per month more expensive must also be completely and utterly wrong (despite the real world), ergo your the assertion that we were all "greedy" "fools" who "deserve everything we get" is correct. Q.E.D.

You were not making a point about it being cheaper for you - you were claiming I was losing €500 per month rather than saving €2500 per month by not buying. And of course I never made the assertion you stuck on at the end there.

Zulu wrote: »

Good man, you win 7 internets, and you've proven your right to your smugness. Kudos.

This is the loser's constant bleat - 'you are so smug, he is so smug, they are so smug'. I would suggest that smugness is in the eye of the beholder - and property losers like yourself are desperate for any sort of vindication you can find, however illusory.

Zulu

MadsL wrote: »

Care to put up the maths?

The one's I already did? Or are you asking me to assume Monty Burnz numbers? The later is probably a terrible idea considering they'd rather overlook my salient point.

Monty Burnz

stevedublin wrote: »

So if I were to buy property would it be an asset or liability? Your side of the argument seem to be falling over yourselves with contradictory arguments.

For you, the property is an asset, the loan is a liability. I can't really be held accountable for points other people make, can I?

stevedublin wrote: »

Can people not just be allowed to buy their own home in peace without all this messing? Is that so hard to ask?

No, I think it is a good thing if people buy their homes. As long as they can afford the home they buy, and don't try to take a free ride on other taxpayers.

stevedublin wrote: »

Next thing people won't be able to buy food for themselves without all sorts of messing and arguments about assets and liabilities.

I don't think this is a real danger.

MadsL

Zulu wrote: »

The renter is buying in cash is it? Or are they going to have to avail of the current mortgage criteria? and variable/fixed rates??

100k mortage over 12 years at 4%.

Even at 8% over 20 years the renter only pays €200k for the apartment.

The 2007 buyer is probably still subject to variable rates.

(Incidentally some legislation around interest rates would help; here in the US a 30 year fixed rate mortgage is the norm)

apache

Mads (not quoting your post as making a mess)
Yep. 35 years.
Thats not really realistic. In the boom to rent here was e1,300. If i wasn't in a fixed term it would be cheaper for me especially last few years. Out of that soon but anyway rates will prob go up as they are and i know that. But still either way like most people i get paid weekly (in my case every 2 weeks) and thats what i have to play around with. I would have nothing to play around with if i paid those rental prices. You are seeing things from an overall view point not like a normal person with monthly incomings and outgoings.

This was my first choice to live. Have a core group of friends and family here. I don't need the added expense of a car either. Love the area and the gaff

you must agree my repayments are manageable but if i stayed here (which i wanted to do) for next 30 years i would be paying much more in rent. Can you not see that?

I never had a holier than thou approach about renters - just got sick of it. I could only afford to rent in kips. Now i have a nice home and pay less per month.

Thats all i'm saying.

Monty Burnz

Zulu wrote: »

The one's I already did? Or are you asking me to assume Monty Burnz numbers? The later is probably a terrible idea considering they'd rather overlook my salient point.

You didn't do any maths - you said 'ECB+1%', without reference to the ECB rate, why you are assuming ECB+1%, how much the mortgage is for, what the mortgage term is...

You were caught out.

jackal

apache wrote: »

I not really a kid person so no chance of that its a 2 story apartment and much same size as a house. Seperate kitchen, living room, 2 bathrooms, 2 bedrooms, 2 store rooms. So lots of space for 2 people.

15 mins from city centre on QBC corrider. We have new directors in management company. Costs have come down and block insurance covers all the problems you mentioned.

Car park space came free with it. You can rent extra spaces if you want but i have no need.

Oh i chose an apartment that only has one set of neighbours and they are grand. I don't use the lift anyway as i am on ground and first floor.

I really thought long and hard about it and i'm still happy 5 years later.

I know what you mean though - i'm sure others have come across these problems.

Edit - sorry can't quote properly on phone. Making a balls of it.

Apartment living seems to suit you fine so, fair enough and glad to hear that you were not seeing it as a stepping stone to riches!

Zulu

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You were not making a point about it being cheaper for you

Yes, I was.

you were claiming I was losing €500 per month rather than saving €2500 per month by not buying.

No, i was comparing. I was pointing out that if I were to continue renting I'd have been -500 per month.

This is the loser's constant bleat - 'you are so smug, he is so smug, they are so smug'. I would suggest that smugness is in the eye of the beholder - and property losers like yourself are desperate for any sort of vindication you can find, however illusory.

Perhaps it is, but consider this: I don't consider myself a "property loser". I'm not "desperate for any sort of vindication". My mortgage works for me. With that in mind, reread what I've underlined and ask yourself, does it sound just a little smug?

I'm making a (just about) profit on my asset. My mortgage type (which will never be gotten again) is covered by the rental income. When my mortgage period completed I'll have an income from that asset. Rent, for me, was dead money. Buying for me, even at the height of the market, wasn't a terrible investment. Therefore, maybe we're not all "greedy" "fools" who "deserve everything we get".

Clearly people here are sensitive about renting. Thats a shame, theres nothing wrong with renting. But it's really sad that people can't acknowledge that some people made mistakes; some people are suffering. It's really sad that some people have no compassion. It's really sad that some people like to gloat over other misfortunes.

Zulu

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You didn't do any maths - you said 'ECB+1%', ...
You were caught out.

I talking from experience & you want to point score irregardless of that. Theres no "conversation" here. :rolleyes:

Gloat if you must, I'm ok jack, I got away with it. Afterall it's says more about you.

MadsL

apache wrote: »

Mads (not quoting your post as making a mess)
Yep. 35 years.
Thats not really realistic. In the boom to rent here was e1,300.

Fine, adjust my figures:
Total cost of your apartment = €418k
Total cost of renters apartment = €126k+(78k in rent) = €206k
(I'd also point out the renter is a fool for not negotiating a rent drop in 2010)

If i wasn't in a fixed term it would be cheaper for me especially last few years. Out of that soon but anyway rates will prob go up as they are and i know that. But still either way like most people i get paid weekly (in my case every 2 weeks) and thats what i have to play around with. I would have nothing to play around with if i paid those rental prices. You are seeing things from an overall view point not like a normal person with monthly incomings and outgoings.

Maths is maths, regardless of your outgoings. You chose to defer those outgoings by taking out a 35 year mortgage. Remember when mortgages used to be 20-25 years long.

This was my first choice to live. Have a core group of friends and family here. I don't need the added expense of a car either. Love the area and the gaff

you must agree my repayments are manageable but if i stayed here (which i wanted to do) for next 30 years i would be paying much more in rent. Can you not see that?

Err, not really. 30years*12*€900=€324k - still less than you are paying for your gaff. Admittedly you probably will have an apartment worth 100k at current rates at the end of it but the renter is €94k better off, which assuming they are a shrewd saver will be multiplied by whatever return they can get in the stock market or pension scheme. You on the other hand have an illiquid asset dependant on a probably 20 year stagnant market.

I never had a holier than thou approach about renters - just got sick of it. I could only afford to rent in kips. Now i have a nice home and pay less per month.

Thats all i'm saying.

Am I getting any closer to helping you understand how you pay more in the long term?

Monty Burnz

Zulu wrote: »

Perhaps it is, but consider this: I don't consider myself a "property loser". I'm not "desperate for any sort of vindication". My mortgage works for me. With that in mind, reread what I've underlined and ask yourself, does it sound just a little smug?

You seem surprised that you get a negative reaction for calling me smug. I don't know, I'm funny that way.

Perhaps if you learned to stick to facts and avoid personal attacks, you might get an easier ride?

stevedublin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

No, I think it is a good thing if people buy their homes. As long as they can afford the home they buy, and don't try to take a free ride on other taxpayers.

Okay, I agree with this.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't think this is a real danger.

You never know!

Zulu

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You seem surprised...

I'm not surprised at all Monty, your presumptuous & inaccurate post highlighted clearly to everyone your smugness. Again.

apache

No mads. Now go back to your drawing board and add up all the years i will live mortgage free instead of renting when i'm middle aged. You are not getting it at all!
its cheaper for me! And has been for past 5 years. You are obsessed by interest which means nothing when my mortgage is cheaper than it would cost me to rent. Thats all i care about.

Anyway i'll leave ya to it because you can't see it.

apache

Zulu wrote: »

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You were not making a point about it being cheaper for you

Yes, I was.

you were claiming I was losing €500 per month rather than saving €2500 per month by not buying.

No, i was comparing. I was pointing out that if I were to continue renting I'd have been -500 per month.

This is the loser's constant bleat - 'you are so smug, he is so smug, they are so smug'. I would suggest that smugness is in the eye of the beholder - and property losers like yourself are desperate for any sort of vindication you can find, however illusory.

Perhaps it is, but consider this: I don't consider myself a "property loser". I'm not "desperate for any sort of vindication". My mortgage works for me. With that in mind, reread what I've underlined and ask yourself, does it sound just a little smug?

I'm making a (just about) profit on my asset. My mortgage type (which will never be gotten again) is covered by the rental income. When my mortgage period completed I'll have an income from that asset. Rent, for me, was dead money. Buying for me, even at the height of the market, wasn't a terrible investment. Therefore, maybe we're not all "greedy" "fools" who "deserve everything we get".

Clearly people here are sensitive about renting. Thats a shame, theres nothing wrong with renting. But it's really sad that people can't acknowledge that some people made mistakes; some people are suffering. It's really sad that some people have no compassion. It's really sad that some people like to gloat over other misfortunes.

I don't know why you bother zulu. It makes financial sense to you and me. Maybe we are the lucky few? Doubt it though. Plenty of people happy with their investment.
let them on i say. They don't see sense at all.
Nobody here looking for handouts and with it being cheaper than renting we are not the fools.

MadsL

apache wrote: »

No mads. Now go back to your drawing board and add up all the years i will live mortgage free instead of renting when i'm middle aged. You are not getting it at all!

Oh dear. What do you suppose the renter will do on retirement. That's right, pay cash for a house - perhaps in some sunny climate with a low tax rate.

Cash. The cheapest way to buy a house.

its cheaper for me! And has been for past 5 years. You are obsessed by interest which means nothing when my mortgage is cheaper than it would cost me to rent. Thats all i care about.

Anyway i'll leave ya to it because you can't see it.

Seriously? Put your numbers into this and discover how much you actually pay for a house (it is not monthly mortgage payment vs monthly rent)

I worry about you if this is your attitude to the biggest financial purchase of your life. Try to read up a bit. I hope you can renegotiate that horrendous loan in future.

Monty Burnz

Zulu wrote: »

I'm not surprised at all Monty, your presumptuous & inaccurate post highlighted clearly to everyone your smugness. Again.

My inaccurate post, where you claimed that I was losing €500 per month by renting?

If you are looking for smug, have a look in the mirror. Keep lashing out if it makes you feel better. I just find you sad.

Monty Burnz

apache wrote: »

I don't know why you bother zulu. It makes financial sense to you and me. Maybe we are the lucky few? Doubt it though. Plenty of people happy with their investment.
let them on i say. They don't see sense at all.
Nobody here looking for handouts and with it being cheaper than renting we are not the fools.

Most expensive 'bargain' in history? Penny wise, pound foolish.

Zulu

apache wrote: »

I don't know why you bother zulu. It makes financial sense to you and me. Maybe we are the lucky few? Doubt it though. Plenty of people happy with their investment.
let them on i say. They don't see sense at all.
Nobody here looking for handouts and with it being cheaper than renting we are not the fools.

I just feel for the poor people who've been stung bad, and have to read this gloating etc.. It smacks of the similar shite that used to happen vis-a-vis snobbery about buying. Same shit, different day. It just makes me sad that we Irish seem to always fall for the same things - begrudgery & revelling in others misfortune.

I wish we could, as a society, grow the fuck up.

/rant.

Zulu

Monty Burnz wrote: »

My inaccurate post, where you claimed that I was losing €500 per month by renting?

As I said already, you've misunderstood me. I said I was losing €500 per month.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I just find you sad.

You win. Good man.

MadsL

apache wrote: »

I don't know why you bother zulu. It makes financial sense to you and me.

Regardless of the actual maths??????????????

Maybe we are the lucky few? Doubt it though. Plenty of people happy with their investment.

You don't have an investment. You are buying a house for four times its current value!!!

let them on i say. They don't see sense at all.

I've really tried to help you understand the financial reality of your position, can you at least read the maths I posted.

Nobody here looking for handouts and with it being cheaper than renting we are not the fools.

Oh dear god...:(
2+2=5

Zulu

Monty Burnz wrote: »

My inaccurate post, where you claimed that I was losing €500 per month by renting?.

I think this is the post that was causing you trouble, what I said was "Depending on circumstances you may have been paying a €500 premium for renting. It worked out more expensive for me to rent. So where's your asset in that circumstance?".

apache

Jesus zulu we have it all wrong! We could have had a house in a sunny climate with the imaginary money we would have saved renting.....them renters are brillo pads for being able to save so much money when their overheads are higher!

Begrudgers them renters or people who are begrudging leaving the country - no other reason.
Just smile and nod

Zulu

I know, I'm dreading the day my mortgage is paid and I've a rental income to supplement my pension.

Monty Burnz

Zulu wrote: »

I know, I'm dreading the day my mortgage is paid and I've a rental income to supplement my pension.

Yes, I found those smug, gloating people very annoying too.

Monty Burnz

Zulu wrote: »

I think this is the post that was causing you trouble, what I said was "Depending on circumstances you may have been paying a €500 premium for renting. It worked out more expensive for me to rent. So where's your asset in that circumstance?".

Oh, the post where you said:

Zulu wrote: »

A mortgage on €400K worked out for €1K per month. Depending on circumstances you may have been paying a €500 premium for renting. It worked out more expensive for me to rent. So where's your asset in that circumstance?

So when you said 'you', you meant 'me'? I can see my mistake now...

Zulu

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, I found those smug, gloating people very annoying too.

So your issue is with me investing my own money, which I work hard for, into an assent, that will provide for my future?

How sad. Begrudgery at it's best.

books4sale

apache wrote: »

No mads. Now go back to your drawing board and add up all the years i will live mortgage free instead of renting when i'm middle aged. You are not getting it at all!

Anyway i'll leave ya to it because you can't see it.

You have it all planned out.

What makes anyone so sure that they will live to 'X' age.

What if you pay off your mortgage and soon after 'pop your clogs', in essence you have just wasted the vast majority of your adult life chained to the one location all because it made 'financial sense'. What a sad way to live life.

Live your life as if its your first and last time on this planet not becuase it makes financial sense. Chaining yourself to money is the root to all unhappiness in life, in the long run it won't matter what you have or haven't as you can't take it with you.

Monty Burnz

Zulu wrote: »

So your issue is with me investing my own money, which I work hard for, into an assent, that will provide for my future?

How sad. Begrudgery at it's best.

Invest away - but why be so smug about it? Just because some people will never have the opportunity to buy that you had does not make them second-class citizens.

apache

books4sale wrote: »

apache wrote: »

No mads. Now go back to your drawing board and add up all the years i will live mortgage free instead of renting when i'm middle aged. You are not getting it at all!

Anyway i'll leave ya to it because you can't see it.

You have it all planned out.

What makes anyone so sure that they will live to 'X' age.

What if you pay off your mortgage and soon after 'pop your clogs', in essence you have just wasted the vast majority of your adult life chained to the one location all because it made 'financial sense'. What a sad way to live life.

Live your life as if its your first and last time on this planet not becuase it makes financial sense. Chaining yourself to money is the root to all unhappiness in life, in the long run it won't matter what you have or haven't as you can't take it with you.

You mean spend whatever time i have left paying more than i am each month? No thanks! I want to enjoy my life even if i pop it - albeit in my nicely furnished surroundings

MadsL

apache wrote: »

You mean spend whatever time i have left paying more than i am each month? No thanks! I want to enjoy my life even if i pop it - albeit in my nicely furnished surroundings

Are you just going to put your fingers in your ears and go LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA every time someone explains basic maths to you as well.

Good luck to ya paying four times the current market value of your apartment, wanna buy my car for four times what I paid for it? You can pay over 10 years it will be cheaper for you that way....

Zulu

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Invest away - but why be so smug about it?

I'm smug? I thought I was a property looser, desperately seeking validation?

Just because some people will never have the opportunity to buy that you had does not make them second-class citizens.

I never, for a second, implied that. You my friend are far too defensive & presumptions.

Monty Burnz

Zulu wrote: »

I'm smug? I thought I was a property looser, desperately seeking validation?

No, I think you are a loser. That does not mean that you can't be smug, does it?

Zulu wrote: »

I never, for a second, implied that. You my friend are far too defensive & presumptions.

Of course you did, same as I am revelling in other people's misfortune.

cyrusdvirus

There is smugness on this thread from both sides.

I don't know who is right, or who is wrong.

here's what i DO know.

When I bought my house (4 bed, semi-D) in 2009 prices in my area were still falling.

The property ladder had been exposed as a property Jacobs ladder, and only good for making your money disappear.

HOWEVER, I AM DAMN HAPPY WITH MY HOUSE

I always wanted a 4 bed, and i wanted to live in this area.

Do i owe more than this house is worth? Probably. Now. 10 years time? More than likely not.
Does is matter to me? No, because i'm not selling.

Negative equity is only something that comes into affect if the owner is selling. Considering the last time i leave this house will either be in a box, an urn or on a stretcher, it won't affect me.

If someone is happy with their purchase then, madsl, you can pull all the figures in the world out, and all you'll do is come across as mean spirited and petty.

Same as, SteveDublin, if someone is happier having the flexibility that renting offers them, you and your arguments just come across as spiteful.

Monty Burnz

gatecrash wrote: »

HOWEVER, I AM DAMN HAPPY WITH MY HOUSE

I always wanted a 4 bed, and i wanted to live in this area.

Congrats, and I'm glad it's working out for you. Different approaches will work for different people.

MadsL

gatecrash wrote: »

If someone is happy with their purchase then, madsl, you can pull all the figures in the world out, and all you'll do is come across as mean spirited and petty..

I agree - if someone is happy in their house then fair play. However if they try to cod me that paying a massively inflated amount for their house is cheaper and that renting means being doomed to a sad existance, then forgive me if I take out a calculator and attempt to make the scales fall from their eyes. Is it meanspirited to point out when someone is being utterly delusional?

None so blind as those who will not see.

@Zulu you said

I'm making a (just about) profit on my asset. My mortgage type (which will never be gotten again) is covered by the rental income. When my mortgage period completed I'll have an income from that asset. Rent, for me, was dead money. Buying for me, even at the height of the market, wasn't a terrible investment. Therefore, maybe we're not all "greedy" "fools" who "deserve everything we get".

Could youi post the basis for your calculation that rent was dead money and that you are financially at this moment in time ahead of the renter.

For this calculation ignore the fact that you are renting out the property. Investment property is not what this thread is about.

cyrusdvirus

MadsL wrote: »

I agree - if someone is happy in their house then fair play. However if they try to cod me that paying a massively inflated amount for their house is cheaper and that renting means being doomed to a sad existance, then forgive me if I take out a calculator and attempt to make the scales fall from their eyes. Is it meanspirited to point out when someone is being utterly delusional?

In a way, yes.

Apache explained his/her personal circumstances before you broke down the figures on their purchase. They explained that a landlord would probably not have accepted a reduced set of payments. And no one would expect one to. They also explained that the bank were at least lending a sympathetic ear to the situation.

you didn't seem to take that on board when breaking down the figures and facts.