Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Do you personally know anyone who.
Options
Comments
-
So you might be paying more per month renting instead of paying a mortgage, but you are also taking on a lot less exposure to risk.
What risk, sure? If things go wrong, just claim that nobody could have predicted the existence of economic cycles, and that if you have to live in rented accommodation your children will grow up deformed or as murderous druggies. The government will be along to bail you out in no time with money that's supposed to be paying for hospitals and schools.0 -
Monty Burnz wrote: »What risk, sure? If things go wrong, just claim that nobody could have predicted the existence of economic cycles, and that if you have to live in rented accommodation your children will grow up deformed or as murderous druggies. The government will be along to bail you out in no time with money that's supposed to be paying for hospitals and schools.
Ah yes - I forgot about the alternative reality called "Sindo Ireland" where banks should just give people money instead of lending it, after all they have loads of it, don't they?0 -
Monty Burnz wrote: »The people who can now pick up a house or (especially) an apartment for peanuts? Yes, it must be galling...0
-
DublinWriter wrote: »...especially when the banks aren't lending.0
-
I know a tacher who bought a holiday home abroad and an investment property here. She is now in difficulties. Also have a cousin in the Gardai who bought a couple of investment properties during the boom, ...he said at the time it was to suppliment his income when he retires at 50, and all his friends were at it too. Crazy stuff.
He can kiss goodbye his dream of retiring at 50.
Well he'll retire from the Gardai but he'll go straight from there to Tesco, stacking shelves by day and Abrakebabra, chopping onions by night :pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
Monty Burnz wrote: »For the umpteenth time, I'll explain the nonsense of 'rent is dead money'; you either rent a property, or you rent money to 'buy' property. The rent you pay for the property is commonly called 'rent'. The rent you pay for the money to buy property is called 'interest'. Mortgage interest is dead money, no?
Yes it is, but all you've proved to me is that mortgage interest is dead money, not that rent isn't...
Accepting your logic that mortgage interest is "dead money", I think we can consider it a form of "rent" paid to the bank for the money paid for the house that you live in. You're "saving" a tiny (but increasing) amount every month, which is your equity in the property.
You could argue that I could rent a house and save the money. Sure I could, and I could save the rest, and in 25 years' time I could have enough to buy a house outright to live in.
However the point that you're missing is that if I take out a mortgage, the interest portion (dead money) declines every month, to the point where in 20 years' time most of my monthly payment is now equity (savings) which buy the actual house.
At the end of 25 years, the guy renting and I have both had a roof over our heads, but I now own a house; he owns nothing.
And sure, I've paid a load of mortgage interest and it's dead money, but now I have a home to live in, rent free for the rest of my days, while he's still paying rent to a landlord. Now every month that I'm not paying rent or a mortgage, I am in a sense making back my dead money, while he's still paying his out.
I don't see what part of this you don't understand. Yes, there are separate and perfectly valid arguments about flexibility, but when you reach the stage of your life when you're not going to be moving to London or Toronto, those arguments hold no weight.Monty Burnz wrote: »And of course if rent is lower than the mortgage on the same property, things get very interesting.
Well yes, but most of us are not foolish enough to buy in those circumstances! My mortgage (for a house) is only twice the rent I had been paying (for a room).Monty Burnz wrote: »The funniest thing though is that we are still hearing the same idiotic rationalisations for buying at all costs that has trapped so many into bubble-priced shoe boxes. Some people will never learn.
Would you agree though, that buying a house for a reasonable price (say about the rental level or slightly higher) is a sensible move for someone who is not planning on moving location?0 -
Would you agree though, that buying a house for a reasonable price (say about the rental level or slightly higher) is a sensible move for someone who is not planning on moving location?
Although not aimed at me, I agree to an extent.
The point is that Irish people don't seem to make a rational comparison between renting and buying. It's buy at all costs.
Personally I think that people should rent until they are absolutely sure that they are settled - kids at school, very secure jobs (public sector maybe) where they can be reasonably sure that they will neither lose their income nor be forced to re-locate. And obviously they should borrow well within their means so they can be confident of making the repayments, even if there are a few lean years down the line.
This means that people with unpredictable careers or incomes should be looking to rent rather than buy, no matter how settled they are.You could argue that I could rent a house and save the money. Sure I could, and I could save the rest, and in 25 years' time I could have enough to buy a house outright to live in.
And this is what people in Europe often do.0 -
DublinWriter wrote: »Dude.
In all seriousness, are you arguing that Western Europe will experience continual negative economic growth year on year for the next twenty-five years?!?
I mean, come on. Even David McWilliams would call you a pessimist.
You seriously think that a house bought for 700K in 2006/2007 will be worth less in 2036??!
Look Pal,
You're the very bloke who, back in 2006, knew everything. Anyone who mentioned a bubble or a crash or anything of that nature was a fool in your eyes. And now you're still waffling out your gems of economic wisdom.0 -
You could argue that I could rent a house and save the money. Sure I could, and I could save the rest, and in 25 years' time I could have enough to buy a house outright to live in.
However the point that you're missing is that if I take out a mortgage, the interest portion (dead money) declines every month, to the point where in 20 years' time most of my monthly payment is now equity (savings) which buy the actual house.
At the end of 25 years, the guy renting and I have both had a roof over our heads, but I now own a house; he owns nothing.And sure, I've paid a load of mortgage interest and it's dead money, but now I have a home to live in, rent free for the rest of my days, while he's still paying rent to a landlord. Now every month that I'm not paying rent or a mortgage, I am in a sense making back my dead money, while he's still paying his out.I don't see what part of this you don't understand. Yes, there are separate and perfectly valid arguments about flexibility, but when you reach the stage of your life when you're not going to be moving to London or Toronto, those arguments hold no weight.
The flexibility argument is very much a side issue as far as I'm concerned.Well yes, but most of us are not foolish enough to buy in those circumstances! My mortgage (for a house) is only twice the rent I had been paying (for a room).Would you agree though, that buying a house for a reasonable price (say about the rental level or slightly higher) is a sensible move for someone who is not planning on moving location?
But she probably figured that rent is dead money - not realising that she's paying 2100 per month on interest alone!0 -
There can be times when renting makes more sense from a financial point of view, and times when borrowing to buy makes sense.
In the bubble years, with 40 year terms and long interest only periods, it made no sense to buy.
If you end up paying over a million euro for a 200,000 house, there's no real way to justify it (financially).0 -
Advertisement
-
jackiebaron wrote: »Look Pal,
You're the very bloke who, back in 2006, knew everything. Anyone who mentioned a bubble or a crash or anything of that nature was a fool in your eyes. And now you're still waffling out your gems of economic wisdom.
I never claimed to know it all, but what I've always stated was that property *IN THE LONG TERM* is a good investment, i.e. after the life of a 25 year mortgage.
Got that? IN THE LONG TERM.
What we're seeing here is a repeat of what happened in the UK in the early 90's. People bought residential property for what was silly-money in the late 80's, there followed a currency crises causing interest rates to sky-rocket resulting in many people having to default on their mortgages. Prices did eventually return and exceed the 'boom' late 1980's prices by the turn of the millennium.0 -
DublinWriter wrote: »Now factor in DIRT.
Huh? Paid €230 for the house in 2003. House is currently valued at €210.
Told you - I don't pay *any* interest on my mortgage because I was lucky enough to get an offset mortgage before they pulled the plug on them in this country.
Yeah...I'm beginning to understand just how much of an emotive subject this is for those who rent or still live with their parents.
Oh, here we go again. Everyone's a sucker for not buying. Well, listen to me, Stiglitz. I own three properties. 2 outright and one mortgage in Amsterdam....and they're a pain in the bollocks. I can't just bog off over the horizon on "walkabout".0 -
DublinWriter wrote: »What we're seeing here is a repeat of what happened in the UK in the early 90's.
We don't know that.
Property is still losing value. We don't know when it will bottom out. When it does, we don't know if it will stay low, or start climbing, and if it climbs, how fast.0 -
DublinWriter wrote: »Look 'chum', don't take it all so personally, play the ball not the man.
I never claimed to know it all, but what I've always stated was that property *IN THE LONG TERM* is a good investment, i.e. after the life of a 25 year mortgage.
Got that? IN THE LONG TERM.
What we're seeing here is a repeat of what happened in the UK in the early 90's. People bought residential property for what was silly-money in the late 80's, there followed a currency crises causing interest rates to sky-rocket resulting in many people having to default on their mortgages. Prices did eventually return and exceed the 'boom' late 1980's prices by the turn of the millennium.
Others have cited examples where prices havent returned to pre bubble levels - like Japan.
Are we closer to Newcastle or Nagasaki???0 -
DublinWriter wrote: »...especially when the banks aren't lending.
Most buyers now are either local council or cash buyers. My folks have enough cash in the bank to buy two fairly decent apartments. There is still a lot of "old" money in the country.0 -
DublinWriter wrote: »Look 'chum', don't take it all so personally, play the ball not the man.
I never claimed to know it all, but what I've always stated was that property *IN THE LONG TERM* is a good investment, i.e. after the life of a 25 year mortgage.
Tell that to the Japanese. You are still convinced that property will be back to 2007/2008 levels in a matter of years. We could be waiting 30-40 years before that happens, where pretty much any other investment will kick its ass. Bonds, cash, equities and most commodities. The best long term investment in the world over the last 80 years is stocks. NOTHING will beat that not even property.
Got that? IN THE LONG TERM.DublinWriter wrote: »
What we're seeing here is a repeat of what happened in the UK in the early 90's. People bought residential property for what was silly-money in the late 80's, there followed a currency crises causing interest rates to sky-rocket resulting in many people having to default on their mortgages. Prices did eventually return and exceed the 'boom' late 1980's prices by the turn of the millennium.
And the current situation is similar how? Did the UK have the IMF knocking on the door? Apples and Oranges. Again have a look at what happened in Japan. It is a far more comparable situation. I think you only want to see and hear what you want.0 -
DublinWriter wrote: »Now factor in DIRT.
Factor in CGT on a sale of a property and of course the interest you pay to a bank for a mortgage on an asset that is losing value every day...DublinWriter wrote: »Huh? Paid €230 for the house in 2003. House is currently valued at €210.
So 8 years in you have lost at least 20k in value of the asset and lost countless thousands in interest payments. Do the math, if you rented and saved the difference in a cash account that pays a fairly decent rate, you would be way way up rather than 20k down. Also dont forget CGT?
If you put that 230k in any other class of investment you would be up, well up on the initial investment.
By the way you mentioned 280k on a sale of a property.DublinWriter wrote: »Told you - I don't pay *any* interest on my mortgage because I was lucky enough to get an offset mortgage before they pulled the plug on them in this country.
But you are still losing money on the capital and the asset. You "think" you are saving money one way but you are being ****ed in the ass twice for reasons already explained.DublinWriter wrote: »Yeah...I'm beginning to understand just how much of an emotive subject this is for those who rent or still live with their parents.
Ah yes we are all losers who live with mam and dad (even though I live in Sydney). You in the other hand are laughing all the way to the bank with your depreciating asset and thousands upon thousands of lost interest on your capital. Well if the opposite to you is a loser I love being one!!0 -
If you put that 230k in any other class of investment you would be up, well up on the initial investment.
Irish bank shares for example.
Or I could buy gold now.
You in the other hand are laughing all the way to the bank with your depreciating asset and thousands upon thousands of lost interest on your capital.
I agree with as the owner of 2 negative equity properties there is no guarantee that property will recover its value (though in very long term (post my death) a boom is inevitable if we remain capitalist).
If you look at the price of property adjusted for inflation in Ireland a home bought in 1976 did not appreciate in value until 1995.0 -
DublinWriter wrote: »Look 'chum', don't take it all so personally, play the ball not the man.
I never claimed to know it all, but what I've always stated was that property *IN THE LONG TERM* is a good investment, i.e. after the life of a 25 year mortgage.
Got that? IN THE LONG TERM.
What we're seeing here is a repeat of what happened in the UK in the early 90's. People bought residential property for what was silly-money in the late 80's, there followed a currency crises causing interest rates to sky-rocket resulting in many people having to default on their mortgages. Prices did eventually return and exceed the 'boom' late 1980's prices by the turn of the millennium.
And if you look at Japan, prices there are still less than half what they were 20 years ago.
0 -
DublinWriter wrote: »Told you - I don't pay *any* interest on my mortgage because I was lucky enough to get an offset mortgage before they pulled the plug on them in this country.
You still think your mortgage is interest free?
Do you understand that the money you have on deposit (earning sh!t interest, if any) could be invested elsewhere (ie, the stock market) and could (would over time) make a far higher return? Do you get this? Do you understand this basic fact?0 -
Advertisement
-
Oh.My.God.
You still think your mortgage is interest free?
Do you understand that the money you have on deposit (earning sh!t interest, if any) could be invested elsewhere (ie, the stock market) and could (would over time) make a far higher return? Do you get this? Do you understand this basic fact?
I fairness to him, I agree with him about keeping the equivalent of the mortgage amount in an offset account.
By not paying lets say 5.5% variable interest on his loan and not having to pay DIRT, he's effectively earning almost 8% on his lump sum, risk free.
That would be reasonably hard to beat in the stock market and certainly wouldn't be risk free.
Everyone is quick to point out property has fallen 50-60% and may take an awful long time to recover. However, those of you who point out that the stock market only goes up in the long term sound like the people who said the exact same thing about property 5 years ago. It is worth noting that the ISEQ was at 10800 a few years ago and is now around 2500. It will take years to recover, if ever.
So, anyway, he is correct to say his mortgage is effectively interest free if he has an equivalent lump sum in the offset account, and this will result in the loan being paid off 7 or 8 years early.0 -
Tell that to the Japanese. You are still convinced that property will be back to 2007/2008 levels in a matter of years. We could be waiting 30-40 years before that happens, where pretty much any other investment will kick its ass. Bonds, cash, equities and most commodities. The best long term investment in the world over the last 80 years is stocks. NOTHING will beat that not even property.
Got that? IN THE LONG TERM.
And the current situation is similar how? Did the UK have the IMF knocking on the door? Apples and Oranges. Again have a look at what happened in Japan. It is a far more comparable situation. I think you only want to see and hear what you want.
While I agree on your views regarding property, where you are getting stocks as the best long term investment, I really dont know.0 -
Past performance is no guarantee of future return.0
-
earlyevening wrote: »I fairness to him, I agree with him about keeping the equivalent of the mortgage amount in an offset account.
By not paying lets say 5.5% variable interest on his loan and not having to pay DIRT, he's effectively earning almost 8% on his lump sum, risk free.
That would be reasonably hard to beat in the stock market and certainly wouldn't be risk free.
He gets a measure of security in his property that he wouldn't get on the markets. He does NOT get a better financial return as he has been claiming, at least historically, since 1929, shares have outperformed every other form of investment, including bricks and mortar.0 -
While I agree on your views regarding property, where you are getting stocks as the best long term investment, I really dont know.
I suppose the reason is so: with stocks and shares you are effectively investing in the hard work of other human beings. You are buying bits of companies with people working in them striving to be productive. With a house, you are investing in an inanimate object, that is affected (value wise) completely passively. The investment itself is not productive in the way the employees of a strong, profitable company are.
I have no beef with property ownership at all. I see it as one way, but not the only way-Irish people need to finally start understanding that. I own a flat in Berlin and have a relatively small outstanding mortgage on a house in Dublin and I inherited some commercial property from may father. Being a landlord is a pain in the b0llocks most of the time-another huge advantage the stock market has over direct investment in property: no tenants deciding not to pay rent but to stay on anyway and/or damaging your property etc. Risk free it is not (not related directly to DublinWriter-I know he's just an owner occupier).
Many continentals view property ownership as a pure millstone. They want to spend their wages on holidays and enjoying life while they are in their prime. The mere thought of taking a loan for hundreds of thousands of Euro makes many of them weak at the knees!0 -
The DIRT thing is a red herring tbh as he would not just stick it in a savings account if he wanted to maximise his return. He'd invest it (over a medium to long period) in a diverse portfolio of shares. There'd be no DIRT to pay on that, so he's saving at móst the interest on his mortgage and 5.5% seems very high to me as someone with a tracker. He would have been much better advised to take out a tracker and invest the cash in shares (diversity being key!). He'd then be paying a much more attractive rate on his mortgage that would be guaranteed to remain within a set range of the ECB rate.
He gets a measure of security in his property that he wouldn't get on the markets. He does NOT get a better financial return as he has been claiming, at least historically, since 1929, shares have outperformed every other form of investment, including bricks and mortar.
..just re read my post and google off set mortgages. They were only offered by NIB and first active in this country.0 -
The DIRT thing is a red herring tbh as he would not just stick it in a savings account if he wanted to maximise his return. He'd invest it (over a medium to long period) in a diverse portfolio of shares. There'd be no DIRT to pay on that...0
-
DublinWriter wrote: »Breaking news...you pay tax on monies made from shares.
For anyone not being an owner occupier of course, an inescapable CGT liability would be triggered on the sale of any investment property (assuming a capital gain was made!). You can't sell "a bit" of a house each year to keep the CG below the threshold.
So, less of the sarcasm and the "breaking (incorrect) news" please0 -
I have no beef with property ownership at all. I see it as one way, but not the only way-Irish people need to finally start understanding that. I own a flat in Berlin and have a relatively small outstanding mortgage on a house in Dublin and I inherited some commercial property from may father. Being a landlord is a pain in the b0llocks most of the time-another huge advantage the stock market has over direct investment in property: no tenants deciding not to pay rent but to stay on anyway and/or damaging your property etc. Risk free it is not (not related directly to DublinWriter-I know he's just an owner occupier).
Many continentals view property ownership as a pure millstone. They want to spend their wages on holidays and enjoying life while they are in their prime. The mere thought of taking a loan for hundreds of thousands of Euro makes many of them weak at the knees!
This is,more than anything else,the aspect of this Property Ownership thing that keeps me awake all day.....Why,at this point in our history,do such a vast percentage of our population continue to crave the Mortgage,almost to the exclusion of any possible alternative ?
I would immediately concede that successive Governments have conspired to make Renting a very high-risk area,with minimal protections or recourse available for either Landlord or Tenant in the event of tenants moonlight flits or dastardly landlords.
Surely,with one of the best educated broadminded young populations in Europe,we should have been questioning the accepted Get-Into-Debt logic which has now effectively emasculated several generations of Irish...?Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Advertisement
-
So, less of the sarcasm and the "breaking (incorrect) news" please
There is an inherent risk with shares, obviously. There's no risk with deposit - it's the old chestnut of the risk/reward ratio.
I took out my own private pension with Eagle Star (got suckered by the radio ads in 1998 when I went out on my own). The first 15 years of the pension the contributions were put into equities, with contributions going into less risky vehicles as the pension matures.
By 2008 my pension was worth less than the actual contributions - and we're talking about a fund managed by professional fund managers here. To put it bluntly, I would have been better off stuffing my money under the mattress.
To be fair, things have swung around a little, but my own fund is only worth around 115% of the total contributions.
I think bonds are a better long term bet than shares and I do self-manage a small fund with Rabodirect with a lot more success than the Eagle Star fund managers (total beginner's luck on my part).
If anything, I think the obsession in this country is with property. While I still think it's a good 25-year investment (especially in the light of a recent baby boom and ERSI projections for the Dublin area), I think our obsession with property has been at the expense of maintaining a balanced portfolio, i.e. putting all our eggs in the one basket.
I also find it amusing the way people drag up the old chestnut of Japan when trying to make the graph support the argument. Japan is an Eastern Asiatic economic superpower with no natural resources of its own and with business and social cultures completely alien to western Europe.
I always prefer to use our nearest neighbour as an indicator of what will happen here in ten years' time. It's uncanny how our own economic history mirrors what has happened in the UK by a ten year lag.0
Advertisement