On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:59:05 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> No, I'm renting 70% of it *from* somebody else.
>>
>> So yeah, you probably can't do anything with that 70%, but if you're
>> paying for the 30% to own it, then you should be able to make changes,
>> but that's something you'll want to ask the seller (or have your
>> solicitor ask the seller).
> 
> According to the guy I just spoke to, I can basically do whatever I want
> with the property. The company I'm renting from is just a finance
> company; they don't care what I do with the property so long as I don't
> devalue it.

That sounds like a good deal, then. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:56:33 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>  From what I've seen, renting is drastically more expensive. If I want
> to borrow £100k, that's £600/month. If I want to rent somewhere, prices
> start at £800/month or so.

Which, if you think about it, makes sense - the landlord is responsible 
for fixing everything, so the rent has to include something to offset the 
costs of repairs and other work to be done on the property.

If you buy, you're responsible for budgeting for things like that, 
because as the property owner, you're responsible for taking care of them.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:57:51 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Then again, my sister is a professional London accountant, and a damned
> good one. What can I say?

Ask her for advice? ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/indices-nationwide-national-inflation.php
>>
>
> Looks like it's approximately following the curve to me

The curve is just the trend-line of the underlying data (the blue bit) - 
the Y axis is inflation-adjusted house prices,  so if house prices only 
went up with inflation the graph would be flat. Who knows what will 
happen over the next 2 or 3 decades though - the main thing is if you 
own a house it doesn't matter too much because it's something most 
people need.

> Yeah, but you can say that about most things just because of inflation.
> There was a time where you could buy an entire house - even a giant
> mansion - for less than £1,000, because that was a huge sum of money
> back then. ;-)

Not as huge as it is today though, that's the point. 40 years ago a 
young couple with decent jobs had an annual salary about what a small 
house costs. Today a young couple with decent jobs are earning about a 
factor of 5 lower than what a small house costs.

>  From what I've seen, renting is drastically more expensive. If I want
> to borrow £100k, that's £600/month. If I want to rent somewhere, prices
> start at £800/month or so.

£800/month to rent a place that costs only £100k seems very steep to me. 
The house I rented for £700/month would have sold for about £180k 
(costing me about £1000/month in mortgage).

If I decided to buy that house rather than continue renting, 20 years 
later I would have saved £350/month (assuming £50/month for repairs and 
maintenance, which is probably an underestimate) then I'd have about 
£120K cash. So it comes down to whether the house is worth more or less 
than £120k, if it's going to be worth more than £120k you're better off 
getting a mortgage - which I think you can almost guarantee it will be. 
Even if you do nothing to the house in 20 years it will surely be worth 
more than that.

> You forget that for the last 10 years, my salary has remained almost
> totally static.

That's not normal though...

Post a reply to this message

> Not as huge as it is today though, that's the point. 40 years ago a
> young couple with decent jobs had an annual salary about what a small
> house costs. Today a young couple with decent jobs are earning about a
> factor of 5 lower than what a small house costs.

This is what amuses me about the number of new houses being built right 
now. You can build as many houses as you like, but if nobody can afford 
them, what's the point?

>> From what I've seen, renting is drastically more expensive. If I want
>> to borrow £100k, that's £600/month. If I want to rent somewhere, prices
>> start at £800/month or so.
>
> £800/month to rent a place that costs only £100k seems very steep to me.
> The house I rented for £700/month would have sold for about £180k
> (costing me about £1000/month in mortgage).

Why do you think I'm not renting? ;-)

>> You forget that for the last 10 years, my salary has remained almost
>> totally static.
>
> That's not normal though...

It is if you work for a failing company.

Post a reply to this message

> This is what amuses me about the number of new houses being built right
> now. You can build as many houses as you like, but if nobody can afford
> them, what's the point?

All new-builds I've seen get sold out before they even finish the road, 
it certainly doesn't appear that "nobody can afford them".

>>> You forget that for the last 10 years, my salary has remained almost
>>> totally static.
>>
>> That's not normal though...
>
> It is if you work for a failing company.

People tend to move jobs then and get a pay rise.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-04-12 17:56, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> (This based on the fact that I work for a tiny company, and the
> financial director has made it her mission in life to never spend any
> money on anything, ever, no matter how necessary it is...)

That's her job.  By definition.

All first line managers, in all companies:  Madly trying to get more 
staff to do what is asked of them.

All second line managers and above, in all companies:  Madly trying to 
reduce costs and get people to do more with less.

Case in point, my employer just published their results for 2012.  They 
made "only" $10G in profits, so for 2013, they need to cut costs even 
more.  My boss is fighting to prevent our 3-days-a-week contractor's 
contract from being cancelled as a cost cutting measure.  Apparently the 
two new customer contracts that were just signed totally close to .8 FTE 
more work for our team of 4 is not enough justification to keep the 
contractor.  If she fails, we'll be down to 3 with 1.4 FTE more work to 
do, and that makes perfect sense to the higher ups.
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>> (This based on the fact that I work for a tiny company, and the
>> financial director has made it her mission in life to never spend any
>> money on anything, ever, no matter how necessary it is...)
>
> That's her job.  By definition.

If you're working somewhere where the financial director can't agree to 
spend money on things that are absolutely necessary then it's time to 
move jobs.

> All first line managers, in all companies:  Madly trying to get more
> staff to do what is asked of them.
>
> All second line managers and above, in all companies:  Madly trying to
> reduce costs and get people to do more with less.

I've never heard "reduce costs" mentioned in 2 out of the 3 companies 
I've worked for. The other one is exactly as you say though, and I left. 
IME it comes down to how much profit the company is making, the more 
money they make the less managers of all levels are worried about budget 
and "reducing costs".

Post a reply to this message

On 15/04/2013 02:52 PM, scott wrote:
>>> (This based on the fact that I work for a tiny company, and the
>>> financial director has made it her mission in life to never spend any
>>> money on anything, ever, no matter how necessary it is...)
>>
>> That's her job. By definition.
>
> If you're working somewhere where the financial director can't agree to
> spend money on things that are absolutely necessary then it's time to
> move jobs.

The idea is to reduce *unnecessary* costs.

There are times when *spending* money can actually result in drastic 
savings. Real managers understand that. People who just run companies as 
a hobby so that they can feel all important and stuff...

Post a reply to this message

> The idea is to reduce *unnecessary* costs.

Things aren't black and white though, it's quite rare a company is 
paying anything significant for absolutely no benefit. How about things 
like pay rises, pension schemes, a receptionist, IT staff, a christmas 
party - necessary?

> There are times when *spending* money can actually result in drastic
> savings. Real managers understand that.

My earlier point was that if a real manager is working for a healthy 
profitable company they are likely to get the money easily to do such 
projects/schemes that benefit the company in the longer term. However in 
a failing company the cash is likely not there to do such schemes, no 
matter how good the manager is. Or rather the manager would need to 
spend a disproportionate amount of time convincing senior management 
that they should get rid of the receptionist and use the money for X 
instead.

Post a reply to this message