Why the PH hatred for PCP?
Discussion
jimPH said:
In that case the op failed to read the agreement before signing. Most PCP users find that it works very well for them.
jimPH said:
I thought your contempt was for the product? It seems from that its actually for the people who use the product?It is interesting though that when a newbie comes on to the forum asking for advice and opinions, theres just some people who cant help themselves but make sneering comments based on assumptions - although i see some of the particularly sneering ones have been removed.
Edited by Deep Thought on Friday 25th January 19:36
jimPH said:
Lol talk about reinforcing the stereotype.Gordon_Roslin said:
Wow, well if one person got lucky due to house prices rising (due to circumstances completely beyond your control) then yes 110% mortgages must have been a good thing. I'm convinced by that sample of one. Well done.
How ironic that you actually wrote 'don't mess with things you understand', oh the intellect. If prices had crashed, what would you have done then? Please share your teachings with us for our betterment.
In 2001 I paid a little under £200k for a lovely flat. 80% mortgage but self declared income that frankly was a fantasy. I was advised against it, that it was sensible to buy a much cheaper 80s starter home and save for a nicer place. I sold in 2007 for just under £700k. The 80s starter home would perhaps have doubled in value over that period.How ironic that you actually wrote 'don't mess with things you understand', oh the intellect. If prices had crashed, what would you have done then? Please share your teachings with us for our betterment.
Was I clever? No. Fortunate? Massively.
PCP is great, I love it, mainly as it allows me to buy cars I would not otherwise be able to justify. I will never spend wealth on a car, income yes, accumulated wealth never. I don’t see the difference between putting money aside each month in car fund or using PCP.
Sure PCP will cost a little more, but everything has a cost, it’s not that huge. I think the interest on my current PCP is about £3k, you know what I am happy with that. When rates go up I will evaluate the situation at that time.
Deep Thought said:
He'd have kept on paying his mortgage? What difference would it have made?
Do you know what happens if someone comes to the end of a fixed mortgage deal in negative equity? Do you think ... they just go on paying what they paid before, or move to a different fixed deal? A bit of googling be your friend here, if you are seriously suggesting that if someone is in negative equity at the end of a fixed mortgage period then 'they just keep paying their mortgage and it makes no difference'. Good heavens is this really what we're debating now?Car-Matt said:
As I suspected...a hard of thinking one here.......blanket statements do not work except to demonstrate retarded thinking.....I bought in a rising market so was very happy.
As I said financial instruments suitability depends on timing, circumstance and risk. What works for one may not work for another, it may work today and not tomorrow........INFORMED choices.
Loads of my mates made a bomb on houses with 110% mortgages so they were great for us.......loads of others got stung.......
Ok so I'm the 'hard of thinking one' when you're the person stating things like 'people shouldn't get involved in things they understand'.As I said financial instruments suitability depends on timing, circumstance and risk. What works for one may not work for another, it may work today and not tomorrow........INFORMED choices.
Loads of my mates made a bomb on houses with 110% mortgages so they were great for us.......loads of others got stung.......
You've now put up not one but two pompous posts where you seem to suggest that, being the financial genius that you clearly are, you 'knew' the housing market was going to rise and therefore it was an ingenious decision to take on a >100% mortgage (which put you in the position of literally needing a rise in house prices just to avoid negative equity when your initial mortgage period ended') - literally one of the stupidest things anyone could do, whether you happened to get away with it or not.
You are your mates may have 'made a bomb on houses' - much like pretty much everyone who has bought a house over the past 20 or so years. But it could easily have gone the other way and then, rather than taking credit for things as you seem to be, you'd no doubt be blaming everyone else/market conditions/things beyond your control (rightly). It's not a question of 'timing, circumstance and risk' - if the market bombs, there's trouble. Especially if if you're taking on debt of over 100% of the value of the asset.
If 110% was so great, why didn't you go the whole hog and take on 125%?
Gordon_Roslin said:
Deep Thought said:
He'd have kept on paying his mortgage? What difference would it have made?
Do you know what happens if someone comes to the end of a fixed mortgage deal in negative equity? Do you think ... they just go on paying what they paid before, or move to a different fixed deal? A bit of googling be your friend here, if you are seriously suggesting that if someone is in negative equity at the end of a fixed mortgage period then 'they just keep paying their mortgage and it makes no difference'. Good heavens is this really what we're debating now?Gordon_Roslin said:
Ok so I'm the 'hard of thinking one' when you're the person stating things like 'people shouldn't get involved in things they understand'.
You've now put up not one but two pompous posts where you seem to suggest that, being the financial genius that you clearly are, you 'knew' the housing market was going to rise and therefore it was an ingenious decision to take on a >100% mortgage (which put you in the position of literally needing a rise in house prices just to avoid negative equity when your initial mortgage period ended') - literally one of the stupidest things anyone could do, whether you happened to get away with it or not.
You are your mates may have 'made a bomb on houses' - much like pretty much everyone who has bought a house over the past 20 or so years. But it could easily have gone the other way and then, rather than taking credit for things as you seem to be, you'd no doubt be blaming everyone else/market conditions/things beyond your control (rightly). It's not a question of 'timing, circumstance and risk' - if the market bombs, there's trouble. Especially if if you're taking on debt of over 100% of the value of the asset.
If 110% was so great, why didn't you go the whole hog and take on 125%?
What relevance does this have to PCP Gordon ?You've now put up not one but two pompous posts where you seem to suggest that, being the financial genius that you clearly are, you 'knew' the housing market was going to rise and therefore it was an ingenious decision to take on a >100% mortgage (which put you in the position of literally needing a rise in house prices just to avoid negative equity when your initial mortgage period ended') - literally one of the stupidest things anyone could do, whether you happened to get away with it or not.
You are your mates may have 'made a bomb on houses' - much like pretty much everyone who has bought a house over the past 20 or so years. But it could easily have gone the other way and then, rather than taking credit for things as you seem to be, you'd no doubt be blaming everyone else/market conditions/things beyond your control (rightly). It's not a question of 'timing, circumstance and risk' - if the market bombs, there's trouble. Especially if if you're taking on debt of over 100% of the value of the asset.
If 110% was so great, why didn't you go the whole hog and take on 125%?
Gordon_Roslin said:
Deep Thought said:
He'd have kept on paying his mortgage? What difference would it have made?
Do you know what happens if someone comes to the end of a fixed mortgage deal in negative equity? Do you think ... they just go on paying what they paid before, or move to a different fixed deal? A bit of googling be your friend here, if you are seriously suggesting that if someone is in negative equity at the end of a fixed mortgage period then 'they just keep paying their mortgage and it makes no difference'. Good heavens is this really what we're debating now?I'm surprised you didnt know that? Not difficult.
Brooking10 said:
Gordon_Roslin said:
Ok so I'm the 'hard of thinking one' when you're the person stating things like 'people shouldn't get involved in things they understand'.
You've now put up not one but two pompous posts where you seem to suggest that, being the financial genius that you clearly are, you 'knew' the housing market was going to rise and therefore it was an ingenious decision to take on a >100% mortgage (which put you in the position of literally needing a rise in house prices just to avoid negative equity when your initial mortgage period ended') - literally one of the stupidest things anyone could do, whether you happened to get away with it or not.
You are your mates may have 'made a bomb on houses' - much like pretty much everyone who has bought a house over the past 20 or so years. But it could easily have gone the other way and then, rather than taking credit for things as you seem to be, you'd no doubt be blaming everyone else/market conditions/things beyond your control (rightly). It's not a question of 'timing, circumstance and risk' - if the market bombs, there's trouble. Especially if if you're taking on debt of over 100% of the value of the asset.
If 110% was so great, why didn't you go the whole hog and take on 125%?
What relevance does this have to PCP Gordon ?You've now put up not one but two pompous posts where you seem to suggest that, being the financial genius that you clearly are, you 'knew' the housing market was going to rise and therefore it was an ingenious decision to take on a >100% mortgage (which put you in the position of literally needing a rise in house prices just to avoid negative equity when your initial mortgage period ended') - literally one of the stupidest things anyone could do, whether you happened to get away with it or not.
You are your mates may have 'made a bomb on houses' - much like pretty much everyone who has bought a house over the past 20 or so years. But it could easily have gone the other way and then, rather than taking credit for things as you seem to be, you'd no doubt be blaming everyone else/market conditions/things beyond your control (rightly). It's not a question of 'timing, circumstance and risk' - if the market bombs, there's trouble. Especially if if you're taking on debt of over 100% of the value of the asset.
If 110% was so great, why didn't you go the whole hog and take on 125%?
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff