Jump to content

Recommended Posts

sambobia, your argument only works if people see value in buying a house as opposed to renting it, which for any rational person means they must expect significant capital gains to make it worth their while. Sadly not everyone is sensible but there are many of us who actually can afford to buy in the area who would rather rent and save the vast difference.


Your high demand, limited supply argument falls apart in light of the recent downturn - prices fell significantly despite high demand, limited supply and low interest rates. Funny, so many people in this country told me that could never happen.


I am always sceptical of arguments that say basic laws of affordability don't apply.

chantelle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> sambobia, your argument only works if people see

> value in buying a house as opposed to renting it,

> which for any rational person means they must

> expect significant capital gains to make it worth

> their while.


Is this the only reason for buying a house?


I don't think so.

I suspect that for a lot of people (especially those with young kids) the cost of owning a house outweighs the risk that your landlord refuses to renew your 12 month lease or simply kicks you out on 3 months' (or less) notice. That was certainly the main reason we bought rather than continued renting. If we end up with capital gains, great. But frankly, if we sell at a price that means it's cost us about the same as it would have done to rent a similar place, then it will have been more than worth it.


I can't believe the number of people on here who seem to be quite seriously hoping for a major crash in house prices though, in order to "make it more affordable" (for them). Given that a major crash in house prices tends to go hand in hand with a serious recession, the consequences are likely to be significant numbers of homeless families, significant rises in unemployment, and massive increases in government spending. Which inevitably lead to higher taxes. Seems a high price to pay so that you can buy that nice 3 bed you have your eye on. Provided you're not one of the casualties of unemployment of course...

We were lucky to be buying in the 70's and 80's - but then high inflation helped - a crippling mortgage and mortgage repayments one year was a breeze to handle a few years later - when salaries soared with inflation but the underlying debt remained the same - even high interest rates were high on what became a comparatively low sum.


However, with low inflation and current low interest rates quite a small interest rate hike may mean a very substantial increase in real mortgage payment costs. If interest rates are at 3%, a rise to 4% reflects a 33% rise in actual mortgage interest charges.

Clearly the past gains on housing have served as a huge prop to the market, even though it is currently not generating them and has even put quite a few people into negative equity. So that makes ?500k seem "affordable" to families who would never meet lender criteria on their income if they were borrowing for the first time.
Expectation of capital gains is not the single reason to buy a house. Assuming you expect at some point to pay off the mortgage, once its paid off you have the asset regardless of whether prices have changed over time. Hence consideration of the relative monthly cost of buying versus renting should only be a short term consideration. Long term owning a property makes more financial sense - unless you believe that the savings on rental differentials will be greater than the value of the asset at the end of the period. This is unlikely as rental payments are subject to inflation, as are capital values, while mortgage repayments are not.

This is from today's CityWire:-

Would you be mad to buy a house right now?

By Tony Bonsignore | 14:45:55 | 18 March 2010

The true state of the housing market remains frustratingly difficult to gauge.


On the one hand many indices seem to be showing prices rises in much of the country, and activity appears to have rebounded somewhat after last year?s collapse - notwithstanding the recent post-stamp duty holiday lull.


On the other hand, however, much anecdotal evidence suggests that prices are still falling in many regions and property types, and that the only thing stopping prices plummeting further is a lack of supply.


The key factor here has been the record cut in interest rates. This in turn has allowed millions of over-indebted homeowners to stay in their properties when they might otherwise have been forced to move.


Hence they are holding out for the price they want, rather than the price they can get.


But this puts many prospective buyers in something of a dilemma.


On the one hand prices don?t seem to have fallen as far as many expected, despite all the economic fundamentals. The government and the Bank of England, for their part, seem to be doing everything in their power to inflate prices once more.


Is it finally time, many wonder, to bite the bullet and accept that prices will always head north in this country - even if they are artificially manipulated?


Buy now, in other words, and stop hanging around waiting for a crash that may never happen.


Others, however, believe the property market is still living in a fantasy world, and that it is only wafer-thin interest rates holding the tattered pieces together.


Once these go up - as they inevitably will - the situation will rapidly become a lot worse for millions of home-owing Brits, it is argued.


Anyone buying a house better make sure they can deal with a sharp hike in rates some time soon, they warn.


One such warning today came from a relatively unlikely source: shadow business secretary Ken Clarke. In an interview with the Evening Standard the Tory ?big beast? fired a warning shot to potential buyers.


?These are artificially low interest rates,? Clarke told the paper, ?they obviously can't stay as low as this.


?Anybody buying a house now must realise the rates are unnaturally low and will go up in future years. In working out whether you can afford a house, you have to work out if you can afford a quite perceptible increase in interest rates, regardless of who the government is.?


So what do you think, then, is Ken right? Have people got too used to a low interest rate environment? Are potential buyers factoring in the potential impact of a steep and rapid rise in interest rates? Is such a scenario likely, or even possible?


In short, is now a crazy time to buy a house?

chantelle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Your high demand, limited supply argument falls

> apart in light of the recent downturn - prices

> fell significantly despite high demand, limited

> supply and low interest rates.


Not really...There is a degree of short term volatility in property prices. ED property prices fell sharply in 2007 but have since recovered.


But don't confuse this with the underlying fundamentals. Supply is largely fixed. It cannot adjust, much, to rising prices. Demand in ED -- for all the reasons outlined above -- is high and likely to remain so.


Rising interest rates may curtail demand somewhat. Prices may fall. But set this against a fixed housing stock, an expanding, increasingly affluent population, and a taxation system which favours buying over renting etc. This is what drives the market.

chantelle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> you're right, it is by no means the only reason.

> But when the difference between a mortgage and

> rent payments is as much as 40%, those reasons

> need to matter an awful lot.


Unless you are talking interest only then part of that mortgage payment will be capital repayment which is paying down your debt on the property, so its reducing your debt.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...