Purchasing a house

(1/6) > >>

Faerie (May 11, 2011, 10:50:31 AM):
What a SCHLEP!!!

We've found a beautiful little home purely by chance last week Sunday which we instantly fell in love with. Impulsive people that we are, we made an offer which was accepted. So Monday we bunk off work to go do the necessary paperwork.

What an eye opener.... Our current home was bought in the early '90's and it was a simple matter of signing a couple doc's, being granted a bond which covered everything (and back then I was POOR and paying it was gatskuur every month), and moving in. Now, never mind being able to afford it quite comfortably, they grant a 90% loan, which means you have to dig out a couple hundred thousand as a deposit, and then you request an approximation of the attorney's fees.... which is another hundred grand or so....

Bloody hell, no wonder the housing market is in a slump, you have to be flipping well off with SAVINGS (or a few policies to cash in) before you can even consider buying a house.

We're average earners, and although affordability for the price range is not a problem for us, I'm just wondering how on earth does a normal person who needs to pay rent (we dont, current house paid up), save up an average of R300 000 for a house????
Mefiante (May 11, 2011, 11:17:16 AM):
This is one market that is in dire need of a radical shake-up in SA. As you say, there are many additional costs falling on the buyer that you only become aware of subsequently, chiefly deposits, attorneys’ fees, transfer duties, occupational rent and, if you sell your existing home, more attorneys’ fees and agents’ commissions. Also, you have to deal with several different parties instead of just one (unless you’re wealthy enough to pay someone else to do this for you), which entails something of a tightrope act with schedules.

The only reason I can see that the process is so inordinately cumbersome is that it protects the interests of those who benefit from it, namely attorneys, the Deeds Office (i.e. state coffers) and the lending institutions. As per normal, Joe and Jane Soap get the short end of the stick. In the past, it was the case that a family rarely bought more than one house during their lifetime, so it would have been mostly a once-off thing. These days, people tend to upgrade their homes periodically, which means that they need to wade more than once through the tricky mire that is property trading.

If one compares buying a new house to buying a new car, the latter is considerably less cluttered. You speak to one, and only one, sales agent, saying, “This is the car I’ve got. I’d like to buy that one. My finances are thus. Could I afford it?” The salesman will soon give you an answer, detailing the deal: trade-in (if any), deposit, additional costs, instalment, terms, contractual obligations, etc. Then, if you decide to do it, you sign the papers and get your new car very shortly thereafter.

Now why is it not possible for property trading to follow a similar model? They get it right in New Zealand, for example. There are far too many people standing in line with hands out, wanting their slice of the pie. That’s why it’s not possible in SA.

This doesn’t change the fact, though, that the major lending institutions in SA are in a unique position to remedy the situation to a much simpler and more equitable one should they choose to do so.

'Luthon64
BoogieMonster (May 11, 2011, 11:21:35 AM):
Quote from: Faerie
and then you request an approximation of the attorney's fees.... which is another hundred grand or so....

(wtf!!)!!! I bought a house (just under a bar) recently and the attorney fees were ridiculous, but nowhere near 100k. It was a bit of a mess because there were 2 sets instead of 1, but I still got away with around 25k in attorney fees.

Also, the 90% thing everyone is told is a rule, but I actually got 100%, however my credit score had to be sterling and I bought "under my means". Which simply means I wasn't pushing that crazy threshold everyone else tries to push, I really didn't want to over-extend because I still have to get some furnishings, etc. sorted out and must still eat too. I was told I am a very, very big exception (and 1st time buyer too) with this, but it is possible.

The assumption is usually you get 90% as a 2nd time buyer because you can flog your previous place.

I agree that buying a house is no longer something a middle-class family can really look at without getting really, really depressed. I think affordability is going out the window, even while our market is supposedly in a slump. Mostly this is a symptom of not being able to get a 105% bond anymore and suddenly people have to ante up costs up front.
Tweefo (May 11, 2011, 11:33:45 AM):
In the end it is supply and demand that determines the price. 100% loans to everybody and the prices will, as they did, skyrocket up. I think a 10% deposit is a good thing. Now the attorneys (my pet hate) and their fees...
GCG (May 11, 2011, 11:55:16 AM):
my other half and i have, ironically, allso been having the 'house' conversation this weekend.
his folks have an awesome place, but will be at least 5mil. he can flog his tiny, noisy, bottom floor apartment for a mil. who knows how much the bank will give me.
at a push, we can get togehter 2 mil maybe, this will have to include transfers cost and shark fees.
we even said we are willing to get an old fall-apart, and fixing it up as we go along. or buying on auction.
we both know absolutely jack-all about auctions.
on my own, i will never, ever, be able to afford a home. and greedy landlords all over the country is laughing all the way to the bank.
why isnt there some sort of governing body to regulate house-prices? the rich keep getting richer, the poor rent, or squat.
i would have said, fine let's buy a flat. but i have two dogs, and between the two us,w e have 8 cats. and desperately need my privacy, and a garden, and trees. and quiet.
have no idea how the hell we are going to figure this out.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page