Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by keeprenting

  1. Some good comments from McDonnell on Help to Buy. Unfortunately no explanation of why extending it to 2027 is Labour policy. No word from Jezza. He comes across as slightly doddery and I do wonder whether he has managed to see past the rhetoric of "helping young people get on the ladder."
  2. I think it's just stupidity TBH. As a Tory, why not let the free market operate and prices fall? You can blame it on Brexit, so no boomer backlash, and the boomers are hardly going to vote Jezza in. Falling house prices, the young can buy homes and start voting Tory. What's not to like? Maybe the fact that their backhanders from property developers will dry up?
  3. I know McDonnell is a fan of LVT even if he didn't get it into the manifesto. It's not just LVT, though. A Jezza/ McDonnell government would in my opinion cause house prices to tank horribly (even more than they're currently doing in London). If you're a young person looking to buy a house, and your job would be secure under Jezza/ McDonnell, not voting for them would be a pretty stupid financial decision.
  4. I don't think Jezza would be good for the country either but if I were 21 I would vote for him out of self-interest. It is massively in the interests of the young for someone to do something radical to smash house prices. McDonnell's land value tax would do it. God knows, there have been enough policies doing the opposite. Voting Jezza could save them a fortune, paid for by the greedy boomers having their unearned, undeserved property gains confiscated. May is delusional if she thinks that something like Help to Buy will win her votes from young people. Why would any young person vote for her (or for that matter any "centrist") when a radical Labour party will do so much more for them?
  5. https://www.ft.com/content/38549050-a52c-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2 Developers were already eyeing up some more HTB cash to boost their profits. It's not just the Tories. Gordon Brown was worse. Any self-described "centrist" party would be doing the same or similar. I could just about take HTB if it were restricted to FTB and combined with additional BTL taxes. Let's say 0.25% land value tax on BTL property, the proceeds of which go to fund HTB.
  6. £10 billion extension. Torygraph premium article - full view for subscribers only. But the limited text available tells you enough about the 'help' they will offer first time buyers. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/30/theresa-mays-tuition-fees-revolution-win-students/
  7. Capital gain = £210,000 minus £50,000 = £160,000. You are right. Strictly speaking each person sharing in the gain would get an annual exemption of just over £11,000. Say it is jointly owned by two people - the taxable gain would be around £138,000. But they are still talking nonsense.
  8. Don't know about NI. But what the surveyors are reporting is consistent with what the indices are showing, i.e. flat or very slightly rising prices as a national average. However, the surveyors go beyond this and report that the flat prices overall don't tell the full story - it is in fact a mixed picture, with rises in some areas concealing falls in London/ the SE.
  9. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/10/uk-property-market-slowdown-political-uncertainty-surveyors "A large majority of surveyors in both London and south-east England are reporting falling prices, though the national picture is balanced by price rises in the West Midlands, the south-west and Northern Ireland." "The net balance of surveyors reporting price rises fell from +7% to +1% in July, signalling that prices were broadly flat across the country. In London, the net balance reporting price rises was strongly negative, at -48%."
  10. 1% increase is definitely not consistent with what I'm seeing "on the ground" in London. Hence the thread - whether it's still going up in other parts of the country and that is masking the reality of what's happening in London. I don't think prices at six times incomes outside London (and excluding commuter belt areas in e.g. Surrey) seems that ridiculous, with the banks lending at 4.5 times income. Throw in some dual income couples and BTL'ers which justifies a multiple of six. London is a completely different story at 14 (?) times average income.
  11. Er, what? Post something constructive. This isn't some sort of emotional support group where everyone has to echo your views. If you expect prices to fall then explain why the indices are still churning out positive monthly figures, over a year after Brexit, and with BTL buying capacity having been decimated by tax changes.
  12. It feels like we are the ones smoking on the 'hopium' pipe, I'm afraid. The market doesn't seem to gather any real downwards momentum despite repeated shocks to confidence - Brexit, weak/ unstable government. My 'hopium' pipe is that rises outside London are concealing London falls in these figures. 2% annual rises unfortunately isn't just a hangover from last year. This month was +0.3%. Multiplying by 12 will, of course, give +3.6% annualised. Annual rises changing from 12% to 3% simply is not going to do the job, I'm afraid. I was hoping that it would gather some downwards momentum after three straight months of falls earlier in the year, but then we had +1.1%, +0.3%. As for YoY going negative, we would obviously need the monthly data to show falls for this to happen. Nationwide has now shown two months of rises. Hopefully Halifax will produce some better news.
  13. Bump. Does anyone have any thoughts on how the split between London and the rest of the country could affect figures. London prices are 14 times earnings. Rest of the country is only 6 times. You can see which looks more vulnerable. You might think that if there are lower transaction numbers in London, there would be fewer sales at London prices which might skew the average down? Or do they pick this up in the way they do the calculations/ is the rest of the country rising and masking falls in London?
  14. Yes, based on the indices, they are both heading towards 0% YoY. I'm certainly not disputing that they might go YoY negative after that but, even if they do, it seems to be very slow.
  15. These seem to be heading towards 0% on an annual basis. I wonder if the reason for this could be that, although London and surrounds will soon be YoY negative, there are very low transaction numbers in London. So the relative impact of London (falling) is lower than it should be and the figures are being propped up by the less bubble-tastic regions, which are still growing. And it may continue like this for the rest of the year. So maybe we shouldn't be expecting drastic fall in these indices any time soon?
  16. Even the Nationwide figures show London falling in the last three months. That is consistent with my experience of the local market. I don't have a clue what's going on in places like East Anglia and Northern Ireland. Did they even rise that much after the 2007 bust? I'm not sure prices in these places are that far detached from what 0.25% interest rates allow for. The air is slowly escaping from the London bubble but I'm not sure East Anglia has ever really been a bubble since 2007 and the Northern Rock "Together" mortgage. No doubt someone with better knowledge of these markets will correct me...
  17. Surely low volumes will mean another fall? Anyone paying anything decent will have pulled out with all the continuing uncertainty - just leaving the forced sellers?
  18. That says either Weds, Thurs or Fri this week for NW. Looking forward to it - should be a good one this month. Hopefully taking us into four straight months of falls.
  19. Aren't the land registry figures non-seasonally adjusted? If so, it may flatline now but with some painful falls coming in the autumn.
  20. I don't see why you have to say that either a seller or a buyer is "in control." There are two parties to the transaction and neither is in control. The vendor controls whether they sell or not but clearly they do not control the price they sell at. That is dictated by what the market (i.e. the highest bidder) is prepared to pay. They cannot just make up a number and dictate that a sale will happen at that number. A buyer has one property and many potential purchasers for it but equally there are many other properties that the purchasers could go to. Of course, if the property in question is particularly unique/ special, this will increase the price that the highest bidder will pay for it but, even then, the vendor still cannot just dictate what number it will sell at. There are plenty of amazing/ special properties which have sat on Rightmove for over a year because the asking price is too high.
  21. The bottom line here is that you have to let the market do your dirty work for you. It is only possible to get a property at a discount of 10%+ if the rest of the buying market backs you up and refuses to pay within 10% of asking price. And to achieve this, you have to give the market time (months) to make clear to the seller that it is backing you up. Even then, you have to hope that the seller actually wants to sell rather than saying "I'm not giving it away"/ taking it off the market/ letting it fester at an unachievable asking price.
  22. Hahah. Much as I hate to agree with anyone on Property 118, it seems that their paranoia about this being a hatchet job on landlords wasn't entirely unfounded.
  23. There will be far more of them than last time. For anyone looking to move who can't sell their existing property, renting it out is unthinkable (for anyone with two brain cells to rub together). Rents are plummeting. Schedule 24. Worst of all, there will be an additional 3% SDLT on purchase of their new home, which might be more expensive than the one they're selling (although potentially refundable if they sell the first one). So either you cut the price or you don't move. Then there's BTL'ers. Obviously the ones in real financial trouble will have to sell but, in addition, some of the prudent ones will (in effect) be forced sellers. I've seen a few properties up for rent on Rightmove where they've dropped, dropped, dropped, still can't find a tenant; then the property goes up for sale. The BTL'er will still have to pay the mortgage on it - and not all the interest will be tax deductible. He or she has to drop the asking price. There is no other option. Can't just let it sit there and keep paying the mortgage. Can't find a tenant without massively dropping the rent - and if you do rent it out again, it becomes more difficult to sell, and there's Schedule 24 to rub salt into the already painful wound.
  24. Bump. Did anyone have any thoughts on premium bonds? Equivalent of a 2.1% return for a 40% taxpayer, no real risk.
  • 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.