Is this the most retarded headline in the history of property porn?
"House prices, affordability recovering"
Written by Eugene Brink and posted just now on Property24, it goes on to explain:
"Although the growth in SA house prices is not stellar, it has exhibited some recovery signs since 2009 and affordability is on a good path again."
So there you have it, folks. The more expensive a house gets, the more affordable it becomes.
A few years ago I might have been cross enough to write to Eugene (not that he can read), but I now believe that South Africans are not only financially illiterate but generally illiterate too. This article will be hailed by a small group of specuvestors, bewailed by a small group of permabears, and ignored by the other 40 million people in the country who can't afford a house or are about to have their current one foreclosed on.
BC, what is terrible is not only the shit quality of writing, but also of sub editing. Often articles dont make sense because they have been chopped up to fit with almost no regard to what was written. Examples of this stellar professionalism can be found in most publications, on any given day.
Maybe what they are trying to say is that anyone who bought property 10 years or more ago, wouldn't for a hope be able to afford it today should they have to bond it at 100%.
Conspiracy Theory time:
Quite possibly, the banks are holding onto foreclosed stock to trickle supply, at times like these of weak demand to maintain the uber high prices (nothing new there).
So what's stopping them from targeting those baby boomers who by now have tried to retire and realized their pensions just won't cut it. Yet have serious equity in terms of sitting on a 3.5 bar house?
These people (and this might just fall into BC's "Stupid Saffa Theory") are too dumb or too proud to scale down, even though their kids are long gone, which is right about the same time the bank knocks on their door and want to talk about reverse mortgaging.
So what's happening is that the bank sells someone a home. Charges them 3x its value in interest over 20 years. When the value of the property matches what they have sapped out of the owner all that time; they tell the owner that they will give a small portion of that money back, in exchange for the house the day you die. The owner agrees because he spent all his cash paying his home loan over the years, and not enough left over to save for retirement. He gets cash, and he gets to keep his house that he slaved over his whole life. Win - Win?
So what he is actually doing, is renting, the stupid way.
3 comments:
Is this the most retarded headline in the history of property porn?
"House prices, affordability recovering"
Written by Eugene Brink and posted just now on Property24, it goes on to explain:
"Although the growth in SA house prices is not stellar, it has exhibited some recovery signs since 2009 and affordability is on a good path again."
So there you have it, folks. The more expensive a house gets, the more affordable it becomes.
A few years ago I might have been cross enough to write to Eugene (not that he can read), but I now believe that South Africans are not only financially illiterate but generally illiterate too. This article will be hailed by a small group of specuvestors, bewailed by a small group of permabears, and ignored by the other 40 million people in the country who can't afford a house or are about to have their current one foreclosed on.
BC, what is terrible is not only the shit quality of writing, but also of sub editing. Often articles dont make sense because they have been chopped up to fit with almost no regard to what was written. Examples of this stellar professionalism can be found in most publications, on any given day.
Maybe what they are trying to say is that anyone who bought property 10 years or more ago, wouldn't for a hope be able to afford it today should they have to bond it at 100%.
Conspiracy Theory time:
Quite possibly, the banks are holding onto foreclosed stock to trickle supply, at times like these of weak demand to maintain the uber high prices (nothing new there).
So what's stopping them from targeting those baby boomers who by now have tried to retire and realized their pensions just won't cut it. Yet have serious equity in terms of sitting on a 3.5 bar house?
These people (and this might just fall into BC's "Stupid Saffa Theory") are too dumb or too proud to scale down, even though their kids are long gone, which is right about the same time the bank knocks on their door and want to talk about reverse mortgaging.
So what's happening is that the bank sells someone a home. Charges them 3x its value in interest over 20 years. When the value of the property matches what they have sapped out of the owner all that time; they tell the owner that they will give a small portion of that money back, in exchange for the house the day you die. The owner agrees because he spent all his cash paying his home loan over the years, and not enough left over to save for retirement. He gets cash, and he gets to keep his house that he slaved over his whole life. Win - Win?
So what he is actually doing, is renting, the stupid way.
SuckerJack
Post a Comment