# Pay off your mortgage in 2 years - selling house strategy !!



## dubinamerica (9 Feb 2006)

I watched this show tonight and could NOT believe what these people did. Sold a lovely house that appeared to be in excellent condition and decorative order and then moved themselves + 5 kids into that other place .. leaks here and there , painting to be done and so on ..  It made no sense to me whatever .. I would have thought that the LAST thing to do is to sell your house if you're in debt.. Let the creditors take what they can but try and hold onto that at all costs ..It sounded as if they didn't get any sort of report on the second house .. I was stunned. The guy's idea of doing a 'Cliff Richard' impersonation to bring in cash just highlighted his penchant for what appeared to be various mad-cap palns.. They also had to close down their dream shop as he couldn't open in that location due to another contract.  who is the presenter of this show ??  He offered no advice other than to try to rent a shop at 30+ k which they uncharacteristically and wisely did not do. Has anyone else seen this ?   Any thoughts on this ?


----------



## colc1 (9 Feb 2006)

dubinamerica said:
			
		

> I watched this show tonight and could NOT believe what these people did. Sold a lovely house that appeared to be in excellent condition and decorative order and then moved themselves + 5 kids into that other place .. leaks here and there , painting to be done and so on .. It made no sense to me whatever .. I would have thought that the LAST thing to do is to sell your house if you're in debt.. Let the creditors take what they can but try and hold onto that at all costs ..It sounded as if they didn't get any sort of report on the second house .. I was stunned. The guy's idea of doing a 'Cliff Richard' impersonation to bring in cash just highlighted his penchant for what appeared to be various mad-cap palns.. They also had to close down their dream shop as he couldn't open in that location due to another contract. who is the presenter of this show ?? He offered no advice other than to try to rent a shop at 30+ k which they uncharacteristically and wisely did not do. Has anyone else seen this ? Any thoughts on this ?


 
Did seem to be a bizarre show tonight the new house seemed a right state.  I was amazed by the money impersonators are making (maybe I'll start doing wee Daniel lol).  The presenter (Rene, respected businessman apparently) did offer very little advice tonight he was extremely critical of the husband sometimes correctly I have to say.


----------



## Capaill (14 Feb 2006)

have been watching this series and have to say I am not overly impressed.  The basic premise is stop spending and earn more.  Seems to be a pretty obvious strategy to me.  No mention of transferring mortgage to other providers with lower rates etc. to help achieve the goal.

C


----------



## Brendan Burgess (14 Feb 2006)

Earlier editions of the show have been discussed on Askaboutmoney and the general consensus has been that it is a dreadful show. 

I didn't see this edition, but one small point, is that trading down or up in the UK can make a lot more sense than in Ireland, because the stamp duty in the UK is much lower

Brendan


----------



## Betsy Og (17 Feb 2006)

Saw it last night. Show is a bit of a joke because it sticks to its premise of paying off the debt in 2 years. How??? By spending €12 a week on food and launching all sorts of madcap high risk "ventures".

So you could pay off the mortgage OR land yourself in a lot of bother. Surely sustainable savings is the way to go. Also, mortgages dealt with appear to be lower - last night Stg£75k. So in Ireland it might be - how to pay off your mortgage in 7 years!!

Shoddy Ted, shoddy .........


----------



## Thrifty (17 Feb 2006)

How to pay off your mortgage in 7 years - I wish. Given the earnings to borrowing ratio now and the fact that some first time buyers are having to get parents to contribute or go guarantor to get on the property ladder i would say aiming to pay off your mortgage in 15 years would be extremely optomistic for most first time buyers now unless they're hoping for large wage increases.


----------



## ClubMan (17 Feb 2006)

Why 15 years? If this was the case then that would still be pretty good and probably cleared quicker than most of our parents were ever able to clear theirs.


----------



## DrMoriarty (17 Feb 2006)

When my father cleared his mortgage, he was paying something like 11.5% _APR_...


----------



## Thrifty (17 Feb 2006)

Clubman, I agree 15 years would still be good but i'm talking about taking fairly extreme measures and living on a very tight budget for those who have only recently taken out 30 year mortgages. The whole idea of paying off your mortgage in two or even ten years now only really exists for those who bought a few years ago, who are not stretched to capacity on the mortgage or who have got a job where there earning potential for the future is good.


----------



## ClubMan (17 Feb 2006)

Are you sure? It looks tight if you assume the average industrial wage for a single buyer (see below) but surely there are lots of people who are not in that situation (e.g. higher income and/or joint buyers)?
Average national house price up to December 2005: c. €300K
Average industrial earnings February 2006: c. €30K
 €30K gross = c. €26K p.a. or €2100 p.m. net ignoring additional common reliefs/credits (see [broken link removed])
 Monthly repayment on €276K (92% mortgage) at 3.3% APR over 20 years: c. €1500 after _TRS_ (see here)
 Disposable income after mortgage: €600 p.m or €150 p.w.
I am ignoring the pertinent issues of deposit and mortagage qualification above for simplicity.

Of course if some people decide to buy a property that may be beyond their budget and/or buy lots of other stuff that they want rather than need (fancy car, fancy fixtures and fittings for the whole house in one go, several holidays a year, expensive clothes and nights out etc.) and incur even more debt than absolutely necessary then that's another matter but really their own responsibility.


----------



## ClubMan (21 Feb 2006)

I take it that nobody disagrees with my rebuttal of _Thrifty's_ assertions above so?


----------



## colc1 (21 Feb 2006)

I agree with you clubman (assuming your calculations are all correct ), though 150 is approximately the dole/pension (state).  I personally dont lead an extravagant lifestyle so could live comfortably on that including holidays (dont drive, public transport, so that saves a fortune), but then if you were stuck you could just rent a room and live like a king by my standards!  Renting a room would give you another 635(max) a month leaving you a disposable income of 1235 a month how could anyone struggle to live comfortably on that, well maybe one of the mad spenders on SMTM could manage to still run up debt I suppose


----------



## ClubMan (21 Feb 2006)

The calculations are correct but simply illustrative. Obviously there are many properties more expensive than the national house price average and the averages in some areas (e.g _Dublin_) will be higher than others or nationally. Similarly there are people who earn less or more than the average industrial wage. And there are many cases of more than one (often two - couple, married or friends) buying jointly. All of these variations will obviously deviate from the single artificial example that I have outlined above. However my point is that to automatically assume that most or many people are put to the pin of their collar in coping with mortgage debt (as suggested by _Thrifty's _post above - nothing personal _Thrifty_, you're not the only one to make such assumptions) without reference to the facts and at best reference to anecdotal evidence is largely meaningless. Also - one cannot ignore the fact that some people, guided more by wants rather than needs, choose to buy (property and other stuff) beyond their means and if they find it hard to cope with the concomitant debt then that's really their own hard luck and responsibility.


----------



## colc1 (21 Feb 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> The calculations are correct but simply illustrative. Obviously there are many properties more expensive than the national house price average and the averages in some areas (e.g _Dublin_) will be higher than others or nationally. Similarly there are people who earn less or more than the average industrial wage. And there are many cases of more than one (often two - couple, married or friends) buying jointly. All of these variations will obviously deviate from the single artificial example that I have outlined above. However my point is that to automatically assume that most or many people are put to the pin of their collar in coping with mortgage debt (as suggested by _Thrifty's _post above - nothing personal _Thrifty_, you're not the only one to make such assumptions) without reference to the facts and at best reference to anecdotal evidence is largely meaningless. Also - one cannot ignore the fact that some people, guided more by wants rather than needs, choose to buy (property and other stuff) beyond their means and if they find it hard to cope with the concomitant debt then that's really their own hard luck and responsibility.


 I agree with everything you're saying clubman, most debt is just down to irresponsibility with cash, i.e. going mad and spending way beyond your means!!


----------



## ClubMan (21 Feb 2006)

Nothing wrong with debt per se. Unnecessary, excessive and high cost debt is another matter though.


----------

