Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JustYield

  1. June 2014. The smiley is still with us.
  2. No, the yield I quoted is the next 12 months expected earnings divided by the current price. I was just noting that 6% looks quite impressive given we are at all time highs - so either it's right (and then the S&P could be a reasonable place to put new money) or the analysts have collectively over-estimated next years earnings (quite possible). Earnings are either paid out as dividends or kept in the company (retained) in which case book value increases (or decreases with a loss). Dividend yield is interesting because it is real cash being reliably paid out (the ultimate measure of whether a company is making money).
  3. He'd obviously put some thought into it: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=144809&page=3#entry2565785 (Link for posterity.)
  4. No need to apologise, it was only the choice of words that's all! I was 34 when I first posted here and can see the half century looming. The main thing was the anecdote, and the red trousers.
  5. I read that and smiled too, I wonder how "old" the OP is? But: "As far back as 1875, in Britain, the Friendly Societies Act, enacted the definition of old age as, "any age after 50", yet pension schemes mostly used age 60 or 65 years for eligibility. (Roebuck, 1979). " These days 50 is the suggested threshold for beginning of old age / being described as elderly, for third world countries: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/ageingdefnolder/en/ There are many 50 year olds in developed countries who are fitter and healthier than the majority of 20 somethings.
  6. Could you explain this all a bit more clearly? I read the FT article, understood some of it, other parts were quite opaque. Strada, Tragus, Apollo... Essentially, large restaurant chains are rebelling against high rents, right?
  7. I went to check if Jeremy Irons listed 1837 in his restaurant speech in Margin Call, sure enough he did: http://youtu.be/L5gZrgGXOco?t=1m45s
  8. To attempt to give the OP a sensible answer, the forward expected yield on the S&P 500 is 6.1%; the actual dividend yield is 1.95%; the 30 year is at 3.3%. http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3021-peyield.html http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/yieldcurve.php But VIX is at 11.4 while the S&P 500 is at record highs. Markets are frozen at low yields, for the time being. Interesting times; here's a fairly good article: http://online.barrons.com/news/articles/SB50001424053111904125704579591700716708592?mod=BOL_GoogleNews
  9. Good one! Crikey, that song stands up - better than most stuff out there today. I sound like an old man... but 1989 - happy daze, first year at university, Berlin wall falling, cocktails and the City were cool and here we have Katrin Quinol lip syncing to Heather Small's incredible voice. Actually the song sounds better now than it did back then. (Can someone tell me how to embed video, I know hardly anybody will click a link without some image of what it is.) Oh yeah yields. You can probably figure out if property is "too expensive" using yields. But you will learn nothing about the direction of prices in the short term.
  10. They also feel that since they don't lend at the frothy top end in London they are less exposed to an inevitable correction. "We are not overweight London." IMO, the cheap shit at the bottom could still suffer percentage-wise enough to give them huge problems. They acknowledge the pro-cyclicality of their self-assessed strength by claiming that recent price rises makes their overall book less risky. Well I think it was Mervyn who pointed out that price is opinion and debt is fact. Nationwide is a firm publicly showing signs of cognitive dissonance.
  11. Nationwide's Greater London exposure has increased from GBP30bn to GBP47bn, +56% in just 12 months.
  12. Can someone put some GBP values to that change in Nationwide's mortgage portfolio? It's an utterly staggering change in 1 year. Awesome.
  13. I watched it last night on the OP recommendation - I thought I'd seen it at the time, but hadn't. Very good, economical story telling and some accurate portrayals from the cast. Irons was actually superb and captured the essence of a guy at the top of one of these businesses - and Simon Baker was also spot on with his charmed progression and survival in the firm ("he's a killer".) The actual problem for the firm was they had several billion dollars worth of unpackaged mortgages on their books and it takes a month or more to package them up into MBS and flog them to their clients in investment grade tranches. So they had to dump the portfolios of mortgages wholesale (raw) to their competitors at 91 cents then 65 cents then 55 cents on the dollar... The film was so tightly edited that they didn't spend long enough spelling it all out. There was never actually a "margin call" from the banks lenders - the Irons character made the call to dump their positions once he'd learnt that only luck had prevented the firm going bust in the preceding 2 weeks due to unprecedented volatility.
  14. Ensuring that renting remains relatively shit.
  15. That's back when 60K was a very fine salary, well played! I remember buying our 2 bed flat in London in 1994, on a joint income (we were both on about 25K) and we restricted ourselves to the 80-90K range, and settled on Highgate/Muswell Hill/Crouch End (zone 3 seemed to be our aspiration, did not think zone 1 was possible). We put in a 5K deposit. We did see a couple of places at nearer 100K, but that just seemed to be a step too far and a bit scary at the time. How wrong we were. Assuming we could have wangled a bit larger mortgage (taking us to 40-50% take home cash to service the repayments, say) we might have stretched to 120K. So 130K for a 1 bed flat in 1992 for someone on his first step definitely smacks of privilege / BOMAD and/or a confidence that he'll be OK whatever happens. I had friends who were helped into similar priced places with parental help in 1994, nobody could do it entirely on their own (in the first year after graduating). But the real story of course is the price of the place today - 1,400K, and the entire political class should answer to that.
  16. Cameron keeps banging on about "in real terms" as if inflation has magically made everyone richer since 2007! Unless wages across the board have kept in line with CPI, then he's the one who should be careful talking about "real terms", rather than warning others to be careful about using the term "bubble". And who accepts his premise anyway that it is inevitable or desirable for house prices to surpass the 2007 peak? What is this "latest report" he saw [that it would take until 20017/18 for prices to reach 2007 levels (in real terms)]? I can't imagine what it must be like for the 25-35 age group in the UK right now - to have this relentless pressure from the top to saddle up with crippling, real debt.
  17. According to John Le Carre, the Lords has long been bought by the (Russian) oligarchs, who were seeking exactly the assurances you mention. It could be something discussed on a yacht, for instance. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9039790/Lord-Feldman-I-was-fascinated-by-70m-yacht.html
  18. “I’m looking through this and all the amenities that we had already, they’re bragging about. The reservoir, the sailing club, the parks, the local markets: they’ve always been there. I don’t know what they’re actually adding.” I went to the marketing of this development in Singapore about a year ago, out of curiosity. Units were selling off plan like hot cakes. Luckily I know a bit about London.
  19. Thanks for posting that winkie. A quite brilliant essay / review of the book: http://davidharvey.org/2014/05/afterthoughts-pikettys-capital/ I haven't read the book yet, but seriously: we knew all this already, right?
  20. It was a sensible video although he went a bit wobbly around the 9 minute mark as I recall, citing the Asian economies as models of prudence. Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai (and 100 other Chinese cities we have never heard of), Singapore and Jakarta are all prone to the same human behaviour which creates frightening asset bubbles. Singapore's partial solution (it's not perfect) is to let the private sector largely do what it wants (although it has recently intervened with tax and caps cooling measures) in the knowledge that every citizen has shelter available to him at a liveable cost, through the HDB policy. We are told that some 80% of people live in these "subsidised" HDB flats - they enjoy leasehold ownership for life and can move up or down the ladder if they wish. Many families aspire to move to the private sector (condos / or landed property) as soon as they can to show they have "arrived" and I believe HDB flats are not available to high earners (but this is detail). The point is Singapore recognises that a Government has a responsibility to see that everyone has reasonable shelter available. Successive governments in the UK have been asleep at the wheel since the council houses were sold off; and as the rental sector is generally regarded as dismal, home ownership became the only game in town. My solution is perhaps a bit of wishful thinking - but logically sound: renting in the UK needs to be made at least as attractive to people as owning. It is that simple. Everything flows from giving people a real alternative to buying their shelter. Prices should normalise around capitalised rents. (If prices do diverge, then people have a real choice not to play the speculation game and rent instead - buyer beware.) Rents, provided there is sufficient supply, can only ever increase in line with take home wages - this is indisputable. Of course we know why renting has been relegated to a second class option - because it suits so many vested interests (including existing home owners, or so they think). But with a healthier rental market, more people would be able to see if it made financial sense to buy and if not choose to rent instead. So in summary, renting needs to be made less shit and this can be a purely political decision.
  21. You're sure it's not a bottom Surrey major public school? It's a fine distinction you know. FFS.
  22. Meanwhile over at the pink paper, Kate Allen conveys an EA's view: Prime London property consultant Charles McDowell, who specialises in buying and selling homes in Knightsbridge, Chelsea, Belgravia and Kensington, says there is a particular “vacuum” around the £10m-£15m price bracket, which he says is the “bankers’ sweet spot”. So get in and snap up those bargains while the bankers' are out of the market! [bTW, if they complain about this fair-use quote in the context of a wider discussion about London prices, then I contend that this article was not an example of quality journalism that needs to be paid for.]
  • 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.