Jump to content
G0ldfinger

UK House prices: News & Views

Recommended Posts

A mildly depreciating currency, not one in freefall.

Look what is happening to long rates in certain European countries. Britain's turn will come.

 

Right now, they are pushing London properties like mad in Hong Kong. I think the potential buyers will soon wise up.

The long term rates are currently dropping in UK (and US)

 

http://www.yieldcurve.com/marketyieldcurve.asp

 

Again, we have a different debt structure (mainly long dated) and credible deficit reduction (and jobs growth, even here in Glasgow!).

 

I don't think it's comparable (as yet, things could always change down the road, then the government response would be important).

 

I guess the HK buyer of London property could just be some of those holding the record amounts of cash generated by 4 years of printing.

 

There are a lot of vey rich people about nowadays, looking for somewhere to park their ill-gotten gains. London might actually look like a safe bet to some of them at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the whole, yes. If I can't offer him a reasonable chance at life in this country (i.e. I don't really have the money to say to him 'here's a load of cash to get you started - well I do, but that leaves me potless in retirement - if I ever get to retire) ... and this country can't offer him a reasonable opportunity to get a job, buy a house, have a family, live a normal life etc. then, yes, I encourage him to go.

 

Much as I like the idea of one day playing 'Grandad' - with my sons and (in due course) their families near me - I know that this seems to be too much to ask. My wife hates the idea that our sons may have to move abroad and is finding out what the entry requirements are for old farts to Aus, NZ and Canada. I'd quite happily follow them but, in a way, it's a bit daft. They might move to Canada - settle down - and then get a job offer in Singapore or, even, the UK!

 

Who knows what will happen. All I know is that the bloody bankers have a lot to answer for. And I'd quite happily be the one asking the questions.

 

Well it's the country and governments job to offer the chance of a reasonable life. To many fundamentals going forward are bad for the UK, i'm struggling to think of any positives? I mean you touch on your own retirement but what type of retirement do you think your sons will have in the UK.

 

The leaders are as much to blame as the bankers. Even more so because they are the ones in control.

 

I'd fund them to do a 1 year working visa,easy to get when below 30, you never know they might love it and stay and if not at least they gain life experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the HK buyer of London property could just be some of those holding the record amounts of cash generated by 4 years of printing.

 

There are a lot of vey rich people about nowadays, looking for somewhere to park their ill-gotten gains. London might actually look like a safe bet to some of them at the moment.

There's some truth to that.

 

But perceptions can change quickly, from things like a change in tax rates.

Why, for example, have the Irish not tried to capture some that that flight capital into Dublin?

If people saw Dublin less dangerous than London, they might come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The leaders are as much to blame as the bankers. Even more so because they are the ones in control.

 

Neil, by 'leaders' you mean the shadow bankers, rather than elected 'govts'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil, by 'leaders' you mean the shadow bankers, rather than elected 'govts'?

 

I mean't the elected government. They knew exactly what was going on at the time, not saying the new lot are any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some truth to that.

 

But perceptions can change quickly, from things like a change in tax rates.

Why, for example, have the Irish not tried to capture some that that flight capital into Dublin?

If people saw Dublin less dangerous than London, they might come.

Yep, a land/property tax change would do it, but that's not going to happen with a Tory gov.

I guess they see the danger of Eire default (me too), plus traditionally London has a leading world centre reputation (in the west it was New York, Paris, London that everyone knew), whereas only 20-30 odd years ago Dublin was seen as a fairly poor, even backward place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean you touch on your own retirement but what type of retirement do you think your sons will have in the UK.

 

If they are ever able to retire (why do we all have to work so bloody hard all the time - oh yeah, because the bankers make sure we are permanently in debt) - they will still be paying off the debts taken on by Gordon Brown to fund his client state.

 

 

The leaders are as much to blame as the bankers. Even more so because they are the ones in control.

 

That's true. But, each bunch of muppets follows the previous bunch of muppets and inherits their debt. There should be a Golden Rule (heh, heh!) written into the constitution (heh, heh) that makes it illegal for governments to borrow more than a certain amount of GDP and then, it must only be for a defined timescale and must be paid back before the 'borrowing facility' can be used again.

 

(Didn't the Ghost of Kirkcaldy have a Golden Rule ... what was it ... that the government must borrow so much money and employ so many people that no-one will ever vote for anyone else and they'll stay in power forever. Nearly worked too.)

 

This lunatic system we operate under at the moment - paying £120 million in interest every day (how much!) - borrowing an extra £140 billion a year - racking up debts that (like the World War 2 debts) won't be paid off for 50 years or more - is just plain wrong.

 

I do hope that a future generation revolts and refuses to pay the debts. That would soon stop excessive government borrowing in its tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there you go, buying is now officially cheaper than renting in 10 out of 12 UK counties. (As long as rates stay super low ;) )

 

It is now cheaper to buy a property than to rent one in 10 of the 12 regions of the UK, with people in London seeing the biggest savings, of £144 a month.

 

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Buy-House-Rather-Than-Rent-skynews-1708070863.html?x=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there you go, buying is now officially cheaper than renting in 10 out of 12 UK counties. (As long as rates stay super low ;) )

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Buy-House-Rather-Than-Rent-skynews-1708070863.html?x=0

Time to raise rates, before people get reckless, and respond to false signals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A social conscience has dared to creep in, & the MSE bulls are far from happy:

 

Guardian:

 

Many Guardian readers have chosen to do buy-to-let and, as a money section, we have a duty to let them know the best deals. Lots of landlords are ethical and responsible people who care for their properties and their tenants.

 

But while on an individual level buy-to-let has (mostly) made financial sense, the societal impact of more than 1.3 million buy-to-letters – and more to come – is having a devastating impact on working people.

 

The dream of a property-owning democracy is receding fast. Young workers, burdened with college debts, face ever higher rents, preventing them from saving for a deposit. They have no choice but to live in shared properties on short tenancies. Meanwhile, the type of properties that in the past would have been "starter homes" – small terraced houses – are being gobbled up by the buy-to-let brigade, who need only repay the interest on the loan.

 

First-time buyers are only offered more expensive repayment loans. No wonder they are persistently outbid for family homes by landlords.

 

Tenure is important. Workers forced into unstable short-term leases cannot plan for their future and inevitably delay starting families. Remote landlords destroy the fabric of local communities. If that sounds exaggerated, take the example of a development of flats close to where I live, in Denmark Hill, London. It's in immaculate condition. Why? It bans buy-to-let. Other blocks that allow buy-to-let rapidly become uncared for and start deteriorating.

 

Meanwhile, property wealth becomes ever more concentrated in the hands of the few rather than the many. Non-productive rentier capitalism is the enemy of enterprise, channelling the nation's resources into the dead end of house price bubbles. Wouldn't we rather it went into rebuilding Britain's battered industrial base?

 

Three reforms are necessary. First, we need to bring buy-to-let under the regulation of the FSA. Given that it was behind the economy-wrecking surge in "wholesale" lending, it is bizarre it still escapes oversight. Second, the FSA should require buy-to-let loans to be written on a repayment basis. It's not only prudent, it puts them on a level playing field with first-time buyers. Third, we need better protection for tenants, such as the abolition of assured shorthold tenancies, to be replaced with longer-term contracts and rules preventing landlords raising rents by more than inflation.

 

 

& there is this amoral, barely believeable *&^%$!! on mse; (be prepared to fall in love with a woman? of delight...& take a Valium):

It's a deeply flawed analysis. The BTL opportunity only exists because there is a shortfall between home creation and home building. That is what needs to be fixed. Anything else is just Canute style tinkering on the shoreline.

 

The idea that cash is being removed from the economy into the "dead end of bubbles" is ridiculous too. It's just going to someone else who then maybe recirculates via loan interest payments into savings interest payments and other outlets. Actually it's the banking restrictions which are forcing potential first time buyers to stash their money away against deposit requirements which are removing money from the economy. And there is simply no evidence at all the housing is or was in a bubble anyway. Prices are sustained on the basis of competition for a limited supply.

 

For the rest, it's confirming what the "bulls" here have been saying. First time buyers are being squeezed out by investors, lending restrictions are making that worse rather than better. You don't need first time buyers to sustain the housing market because the overall demand for housing is high. Actually at the moment BTL investors have the whip hand anyway because lending restrictions are removing swathes of competition. When that comes back - and the clock is ticking because deposits are being saved - prices are going to shift sharply north again.

 

All this is on http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3192362 & we are up to page 3 now.

Beware, the thread is riddled with BTLers.

 

A happy Liberation Day from Portugal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A social conscience has dared to creep in, & the MSE bulls are far from happy:

 

Guardian:

Non-productive rentier capitalism is the enemy of enterprise, channelling the nation's resources into the dead end of house price bubbles. Wouldn't we rather it went into rebuilding Britain's battered industrial base?

 

Three reforms are necessary. First, we need to bring buy-to-let under the regulation of the FSA. Given that it was behind the economy-wrecking surge in "wholesale" lending, it is bizarre it still escapes oversight. Second, the FSA should require buy-to-let loans to be written on a repayment basis. It's not only prudent, it puts them on a level playing field with first-time buyers. Third, we need better protection for tenants, such as the abolition of assured shorthold tenancies, to be replaced with longer-term contracts and rules preventing landlords raising rents by more than inflation.

 

It would be quite a good thing if they could knock the more highly-geared BTL monsters on their heads.

 

Prudent measures might involve:

 

+ A maximum LTV of 70% or 75% for all mortgage loans, but allowing some leeway for owner-occupiers, but NOT BTL

 

+ Higher interest rates for BTL loans

 

+ A higher stamp duty for anything beyond a second home

 

13549-1.jpg

(A BTL Monster seeking to acquire another property - Many cannot do it without aggressive loans from their banks)

 

These measures would help to reduced HPI, and put homes back in the hands of owner occupiers. I think the time for warfare on this issue is fast approaching. And there may be enough votes to put the BTL brigade back into a less favored position.

 

How realistic are they?

 

+ HK caps loans at 70% - but makes some exceptions for Owner occupiers

+ Some countries have done high rates for BTL loans - that was once the case in the UK

+ HK recently raised stamp tax for everyone, and put a special sellers tax, on those who sell within 18 months

 

My suggestions would HELP FTBers, and slow the creation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For all the talk of the wonder down under and Australia's almost recession-proof economy, is this country becoming increasingly unaffordable for the people who live here and the migrants who want to make it their home? Anecdotal evidence abounds of Brits who would dearly love to emigrate, but have been put off by the soaring Aussie dollar and seemingly inexorably rising property prices. The oft-heard cry of visitors, that Australia has become ridiculously expensive, often finds an echo from the people who live here - Aussies and ex-pats alike.
continues:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/nickbryant/2011/04/australian_affordablity.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead, the banks are now targeting future BTL'ers with better deals and more coming into the market.

 

Apparently, they see lending to a "professional" landlord a better bet than mr and mrs average FTB.

 

Northern Rock back in the game and Santander now moving in too.

 

Make no mistake, BTL is most definitely back. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Make no mistake, BTL is most definitely back. :angry:

 

& so are the egos.

 

There's BTL landlord on MSE now spouting that investing in gold is as immoral as dealing in arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

& so are the egos.

There's BTL landlord on MSE now spouting that investing in gold is as immoral as dealing in arms.

They are completely full of --it.

 

That is obviously very clumsy way of trying the spin things, to make their own morality less transparent.

A child should be able to see through it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telegraph: House price gloom moves up a gear

 

Results from its March survey covering 1,000 people showed 42pc feel house prices will fall further in the months ahead and only 11pc are looking for an improvement

 

/see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/houseprices/8472296/House-price-gloom-moves-up-a-gear.html

 

How many are going to be buying, when they feel so gloomy?

The big gap between bids and offers should worry the bulls.

 

It would be interesting to see the historical correlation between survey results and prices

== ==

 

In May 2010, a recent highpoint for optimism about the UK housing market, just 16pc of respondents expected prices to fall in the months ahead, compared with 36pc looking for an increase.

 

Prices nationally peaked in April - so optimism peaked with prices. Is it now bottoming?

Somehow, I do not thinks so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the point of view of the banks - they don't care who they lend to - as long as they lend. And the more they lend, the more secure their previous lending is.

 

Until and unless the young people in this country take to the streets to protest about the way the property market (and life) is being systematically rigged against them - nothing will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Tips for selling overpriced property ...

 

Want to sell your house? Give it a name

If you have trouble selling your house, you should consider giving it a name rather than a number, according to a survey.

 

Property website Globrix found that one in 14 said they would be prepared to pay more for a home just because it had a name Photo: PA

By Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs Editor 6:00AM BST 11 Apr 2011

 

The name "Rose Cottage", "The Lodge" or "Woodlands" conjures up images of a rural idyll and property full of character, far more than if the same house merely had a street number, according to a survey of 4,000 consumers.

As much as pretty climbing flower in the front garden, or a smartly-painted front door, home buyers can be influenced even before they have visited the property, the study suggested.

 

The survey undertaken for the property website Globrix, found that one in 14 said they would be prepared to pay more for a home just because it had a name. Even those that were not prepared to pay more said their opinion of the property would improve, with 40 per cent saying they would be more interested in viewing a property with a name.

 

Land Registry transactional data reveals that 1.4 million of the 26 million homes in Britain have names.

With the average house valued at £216,968, just an extra 1 per cent would work out as over £2,000 extra for the same property that simply had its postal address changed to a name.

 

/more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/houseprices/8441463/Want-to-sell-your-house-Give-it-a-name.html

== ==

 

Dun Squatin'?

Rose Glass Cottage

The Devils Den

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the point of view of the banks - they don't care who they lend to - as long as they lend. And the more they lend, the more secure their previous lending is.

 

Until and unless the young people in this country take to the streets to protest about the way the property market (and life) is being systematically rigged against them - nothing will change.

Sure.

So this is a job for regulators.

The should put maximum amounts on LTV, as they do on stock margin loans.

 

If banks want to lend more than that, as 2nd mortgage loans, they should be able, but those loans should have a much larger capital requirement (2x - 3x higher?) associated with them - the risk is genuinely higher.

 

This alone would make such loans more expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bubb,

Beautiful head and shoulders pattern playing out on Barratt BDEV.

I can't post my chart, but check it out. Left shoulder late Feb.

Here's a Link to the BDEV-chart

 

I see what you mean.

It is now at a good level to form that Right Shoulder.

If it begins to slide there is some decent support around 100p, but it is fragmented now, and less intense.

 

The latest rally from 100-110p has come with minimal volume. This doesn't look like the base for e big bll market too me. BDEV needs more volume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like there has rarely been a better good time to sell the silver and buy a house! :lol:

Indeed! Another 1,000 oz off, and we're possibly in the cheapest 10% since 1930.

 

In gold, it is not quite as cheap yet, but we are getting there.

 

Given the housing bubble, combined with the anti-gold and anti-silver bubble, we might see the old all-time lows being taken out in the wake of this crisis. It is a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same applies to a lot of my peers in the 25 - 32 age group, plenty perhaps 15-20% have left and about 20/25% of the rest are seriously plotting their escape.

I know people older than this who have tried or still try to get out. I myself packed up shop, although I wasn't a native.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×