Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by London-loser

  1. OK, I'll humour you one last time and then I'll go back to my policy of ignoring your sh!te. Could you please show us the FACTS that back up your statement that:
  2. Brainclamp, Your reply seems to be a renewed bout of opinion backed up by no facts. You are entitled to these opinions... but please remember they are no more than that (and no more valid that any other pub bore/black cab driver's opinions).
  3. Hi BuyingBear, I wouldn't disagree that CPI inflation masks a higher reality - that "TRUE" inflation is definitely higher... but I still think we are a LOOOOONG way short of explaining the house price rises the UK has seen in the last three-to-five years as merely "the government printing money". The Halifax index is up almost 100% over five years, RPI is less than 15% and the UK's compound real economic growth is below 20% (not accounting for 35% combined). Even with extra "hidden" inflation where did the rest come from? I find the suggestion it was the government's printed money wot don it laughable.
  4. Isn't that increase from 1991 to 2001 a 4% rise?
  5. As ever Brainclamp, you offer an overly simplistic analysis coupled with several leaps of faith to "prove" that house prices will go up. As such I tend to ignore your rants but it 's a quiet day today. So, according to the numbers you posted at the start, the UK's population has increased by less than 10% between 1971 and 2001. I do not see any evidence you have posted with regard to the "massive" population growth since then (as you say, we do not know). You do not seem to want to address questions over the change in the number of dwellings over the period either (the suggestion that the ratio of EDIT inhabitants to dwellings EDIT has gone DOWN rather than up massively). Surely this involves only looking at one side of the equation? Equally, you seem to want to completely overlook the arguments about whether these immigrants are highly paid or lowly paid and whether they actually add little demand for housing (as, has been suggested, many live in HMO situations non-immigrants would shy away from). Furthermore, you then extrapolate into the future with statements about "endless, unlimited immigration" with no apparent foundation in fact (rather than your "gut feel"). This also rather assumes you can predict future government policy pretty well (I certainly sense a distinct backlash... with "tougher" policies on asylum seekers, more efforts to eject people, removal of social security for many immigrants etc). In short, you seem to be unable to provide a cogent argument as to why this immigration logically leads to a massive and permanent change in house prices (I don't doubt it has had an effect). Also, I find it a little hard to reconcile the "rising population due to immigration is the key to upwards only house price movements" style argument with the apparent fact that the population was rising (I'm certainly not away that it shrank significantly) in the early 1990s when there was a real terms house price correction of some 50% or so. Why could it happen then but not now? Similarly, London is very much the hub of immigrant attention (I believe the Institute of Public Policy Research was quoted in today's Financial Times saying that 41% of all immigrants live in London) but it seems very few people (anybody?) now disagrees with the statement that London property prices HAVE FALLEN over the last year. Surely, you argument would clearly suggest London property prices would be leading the way in flying ever higher on the back of endless, massive immigrant demand? If wages are reduced and labour has no bargaining power, how does that fit with endlessly rising house prices? Surely house prices are still supported by people's incomes? We had this argument a while back with TTRTR, who told us more immigrants supported higher house prices in one breath and in the next how he now employs Polish builders at half the previous wage who live together six to a house. Perhaps you might want to enlighten us as to how this apparent paradox is resolved? Similarly, you might want to explain how the government printing the vast amount of (paper) money you talk about has not led to notable inflation?
  6. Does 15% down in one year... and here I mean real price paid in 2004 compared with estate agent's (probably optimistic) valuation in 2005... constitute a crash? Perhaps they should leave it in the estate agent's window at £375k... then they can tell themselves prices haven't "crashed"... Or maybe rent it at £1,750 pcm and then tell themselves it is worth £375k?
  7. Looking at those details... RICS says: 61% of surveyors have seen rents stagnant 10% have seen rents fall (so 71% have seen flat or falling rents) and 29% have seen rents rise And the ODPM says rents have risen on average by 3.8% (a little bit behind the UK's average wage growth for the period). Given surveyors are generally regional creatures, doesn't this suggest there are perhaps SOME areas with decent rental growth but on the whole there is very little here for the average BTLer to take comfort from?
  8. Yup, you're right Brainclamp, that doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever. Have you got your head around the distinct lack of massive rent rises you were predicting yet (you remember, when you couldn't rationalise how your immigration-related rants logically meant house prices soared ahead but rents did not). Your rentier society... zzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
  9. You see TTRTR, we're both on the same side really... Your friends had a £650k asking price, with £2k pcm rent that's a gross yield of less than 3.7%! Re-calculate the "price" as a 6% yield (I still think this is low) and that gives you a £400k "value"... just 40% below the asking price. Now, all I need to get is my landlord to recognise the asking prices for similar properties are 40% above their value and I'll be moving from renter to owner occupier. Unfortunately, I think we're still some way from your friend or my landlord taking such a cold view of the property market.
  10. Property is not the answer to the UK's retirement plight. The FT's economics editor has written a very interesting article in today's FTfm supplement (I couldn't find a link to it on their site). If anyone else can find it and post a link, I think it is a good read. Anyway, he goes into some the detail of residential property/Sipps (at the risk of driving people insane with yet more talk of Sipps) and suggests there are only a few real solutions to our retirement issues... save more, pay more tax, live more frugally on retirement etc. Apparently BTL is not going to rescue us. There were some details on annuities, inheritance tax etc that he suggests puts up potentially big problems for Sipp-holders.
  11. £650k See, I knew you were a bear really... their property is way overvalued, eh? And I wonder how they came up with that price? So, to get a (modest) 6% yield on that they'd need £39k a year in rent on a three bed place. Any idea what rent they are getting? My guess it is SIGNIFICANTLY less than £3,250 pcm.
  12. People selling property say property is still a good buy.... zzzzZZZZZZZ
  13. Prices down supply up new buyers down average discounts over 6% time taken to sell up number of viewings per sale up no positive benefit from the IR cut And Wriglesworth says: Is there ANY good news for the bulls in this report?
  14. I'd guess karen1000 is a male with a gender-related issue.
  15. The guys who were telling you there wouldn't be any correction in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 AND 1995... By 1996 they had just got there heads around the concept and had just unloaded their property at a big discount to thankfully get rid of it... after all, house prices to incomes had fallen to 3x and would soon be -3 so they were glad to be out of it! So, is karen1000 a new incarnation of one of the other tedious, brainless bulls or do we have an entirely new contestant for HPC's thickest poster of the year competition?
  16. Have they already tried to pass the cut up the ladder?
  17. I've always found Paragon's numbers to be dodgy... but does ANYBODY really believe that rents in Yorkshire have risen by anything like this amount?
  18. I'm absolutely gobsmacked! This is BBB (Yieldman) telling the piggies a few home truths: Looks like Yieldman's a rehabilitated "big bad bull".
  19. We may not agree... but the terms yield, profit, total return etc are NOT interchangeable. All are very important... but they are different things. And, of course, what you pay for an investment is important. Dividend is pence per share... the yield is this dividend as a percentage of the CURRENT share price. As I said, you have a 100% total return on your investment... not a 100% yield. The yield allows you to look at where you are NOW, profit, total return etc tell you about the PAST. Like I said above, if you buy a property at £35k and only calculate your "yield" on this figure (regardless of capital gains, inflation etc) then the house looks good at £100k, when it falls to £90k, £80k... yup, still looking good at £70k, £60k no problems...
  20. Lochy, You've hit the nail on the head! If you bought at £2 and the price rises to £3 with a £1 dividend, you have made £1 (50%) capital gain and £1 dividend income (a YIELD of 33%) giving you a total return of £2 = 100% (you did very well). A £1 income on an investment currently worth £3 has a 33% yield REGARDLESS of when you bought or how much you paid. Now, your house example: you are right the guy who bought for £35k will MAKE more than the guy who paid £100k... but both (similar) properties will have the same YIELD. If the current rent is £3500 you would get a "YIELD" of 10% and think that is fantastic while the other guy would have a yield of 3.5%, which isn't fantastic. Of course, in reality, you also have an unimpressive 3.5% yield, it's just that you don't want to pay attention to this fact (that is telling you the investment is a duff one at the current valuation) and prefer to bask in the glory of what a good investment it WAS at £35k. Hence BTL landlords kid themselves into believing that everything in the garden is rosy!
  21. I hope you're not buying the new TV directly from your "profit". Perhaps you can put it on a credit card... and maybe re-define debt before your statement arrives?
  22. That doesn't make sense. Can you expand? BTW: My post office account is "yielding" 53% interest bet no-one can beat that for a return on an ordinary savings account.....The last time I touched it was in '79 when I left £1 in it.....Tch if only I had put a £100 in it I would be rich rich rich! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well done. You invested £1 and are getting 53% yield. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you a BTL landlord by any chance?
  23. Lochy, BA shares have ONE dividend yield. You seem to ignore the £1 or so extra capital you have made. That's your choice but I'd say it is a mistake (precisely the point of this thread... to suggest BTLers are reaching poor conclusions about the attractiveness of their property holdings because of their inability to grasp the simple concept of YIELD). You NOW have X many BA shares with the SAME yield, regardless of when you bought them or how much you paid for them. For example, if BA's share price is £3 and I paid £5 per share, they STILL offer me the same yield as they offer you(I've made a capital loss... but the YIELD is the yield, is the YIELD). It is a definition set in stone, not one open to interpretation (if I might be so bold, I'd suggest dictionary.com is fine for defining "underpants" or whatever but not necessarily the best source for specific, technical financial terms). I have no dispute that the total return on your first investment is higher than the total return on your second investment but... please... the shares YIELD the same. I am AMAZED that this is up for dispute!
  24. Wow! BBB (Yieldman) is talking a lot of sense over there (I just caught up on the competition thread)... maybe he did learn something over here, amid all the slanging matches.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.