Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 24gray24

  1. If it was me in your situation, this is what I'd do: First phone solicitor, get him to order a Land Registry office copy of property today: you want to see what buyer paid for the property and when they bought it. SHe's just reluctant to order one for £12 before the offer's been accepted. Screw the £12, you want to know how much room to manoeuvre the seller's got ie if they bought it in 2001 they haven't actually lost any money if you offer 2001 prices, and only a little if you offer 1999 prices. If they bought in 2006 then they are desperate. It also tells you how much they paid. Second, IMO there are no other offers. It's not the lie barefaced, it's the lie estate agent. Tell him you are pleased there's some confidence back in the market, and then offer 30% less than the asking price, to reflect your new found confidence. (You can explain your theory afterwards, that sellers must be desperate if they are getting their friends to make fake offers in order to jack up the price). Then watch his face contort once he finally takes his eyes off your eyes, as he realises he has been caught out in a lie, but you're blaming the seller for it. Repeat what you said when he asks you to repeat it (he wants time to think). Then smile broadly: you are telling him he's a liar, but you're blaming it on the seller. Liars always get angry when they get caught out; watch the anger in his face. Next comes the old phone routine, phoning the seller and getting the seller to say "no". Followed by 10 minutes of him telling you the interest is real etc etc. Smile broadly until he stops (smiling means "you're lying again mr estate agent") Tell him, if you don't hear your offer has been accepted by 5pm today, then it will be 40% off in a couple more months (or, as an after thought, on this one if it's still on the market in 2 months with all those offers coming in. A third and final big smile) Take it or leave it. Leave him alone to try and talk the seller into giving him a commission. It's the only commission he's going to get all weekend. Will he be persuasive? Oh yes he will be very persuasive. Go and have a coffee. You will hear back by 5pm, with one final estate agent lie: final offer 15% off. Say no thanks and put down the phone. This is the moment you gamble: if it was all lies, and if he could persuade the seller to accept 30% off, he'll wait 5 long minutes and call you back. And then, the audacity, he'll lie again! and offer you 20% off when he knows the seller will accept 30%off ! So you say no thanks, 30% or bust and put the phone down a second time. Wait another long 5 minutes. All this IMO.
  2. I find it hard to believe this never never land can go on for another 6 months, when everyone already suspects no bailout can save the banks. The curtain will fall on the government at some point. Blind guess: Prime Minister will resign in August 2009 (can't see him wanting to come back from his summer holiday!). A long hot summer of eerie calm is what I expect.
  3. I'm confused. Prices of goods will skyrocket, but this is still called deflation? (Because bubble asset values are falling).
  4. Get real! There are plenty of reasons against no 2: A) Paying people £0 an hour is advocating slavery. Not unusual mentality for a Tory, but still illegal (abolition of slavery 1807) Wanting to pay people less is special pleading. Not unusual for a Tory, but amounts to the proposition: "let someone else suffer, and meanwhile give me more profits for me". In the current situation it's unrealistic. We will all suffer. C) In the 1850's the Southern US paid people £0 per hour ie slavery. The North invested in machinery. In the long run, putting pressure on to invent machines leads to more invention than getting a slave to do everything. It wasn't the British upper classes who invented the vacuum cleaner, or the sewing machine; they had no incentive to invent anything because they had cheap labour (and who cared how difficult it was for them). D) Since the would be slave owner writes the contract, contracts are one sided. Hence the law steps in to stop Tories behaving like, well, like slave drivers. E) If Margaret Thatcher didn't dare suggest this, there's a good chance you're not man or woman enough to make it stick either. F) If you pay £1 an hour, companies will still move to China, because they only pay 50p per hour. G) Progress is about more production for less effort, not about more slaves for less money. H) Good for me me me is not the same as good for the country's future. Unless you're a Tory banker, in which case good for me me me and bankrupting the country are perfectly compatible I) When a man advocates paying £1 an hour, he usually means that's all he wants to pay, but would never consider working for that himself. Tories seem unable to spot the inconsistency. J) You wouldn't like complete freedom of negotiation if you had it. The law on employment contracts is mostly for the benefit of employers, in the same way the law on property is mostly for the benefit of property owners. eg. You have complete freedom, so you suggest you want to pay £0 an hour. Next thing you know, your prospective slave pulls out a machete and suggests you want to pay him £50 an hour with a £10,000 signing fee, and here's the contract to sign right now. No sooner have you signed the contract in fear, than like a true Tory you'd be howling you wanted the law back and it was the law's business after all. But you still feel getting the prospective slave to sign the £0 contract out of fear of starvation was perfectly okay...see I) I hope you now see at least a glimmering of what's wrong with slavery, Mr Cells.
  5. Is there a single person on this website, even one, that thinks HovelinHove would be better off staying in UK rather than moving to Vancouver. Anyone at all?
  6. Yes, we're all going down the tubes together this time, North South West East. Mr Game Over wants a tax cut meanwhile, I don't think he's going to get one somehow...
  7. Get another job, any job quick. Or else you'll be out of work for 3 years. Sorry, no holiday possible.
  8. So bought a 1 bedroom for £245,000. Cheap and nasty conversion into 2 bedroom. Now selling as 2 bedroom for £215,000....so a 10% drop then (for the BTLer). Hoping to take a very modest loss indeed.
  9. you should have knocked another 10% off, as a penalty for trying to ramp you up with fictitious competition.
  10. IMO there's more to this story eg the American vessel was doing something less innocent than surveying the seabed.
  11. Mr Injin, It looks like a theory of how to get enlightened. I've never got anywhere with trying it, not thinking as a way of feeling enlightened. Directly I want something (and have to work out how to get it), or want to know what's happening (and I'm usually confused about the situation), I have to start thinking and bang goes just sensing. The only time I just enjoy the view is when I see no issues with everything that's going on, and that isn't often. Look too closely at concepts, and they start dissolving and I'm back to thinking. It's only when all my conceptual prejudices look intact (because I'm not looking too closely) and I don't want anything at all that I can have brief moments of peace. But even then after about 5 minutes my mind gets bored and starts inventing a problem, even down to pretending I must be hungry (when I'm not). Thinking conceptually speeds future thinking up; life's too short to test each duck every time to make sure it's still a duck. Relying on concepts does involve ignoring small differences. Rejecting them as things in themselves is certainly one way to solve the mountain/valley problem (ie where one starts and the other stops), but makes it hard to negotiate a room if taken too far. Life moves quicker if you assume yesterday's table is still much the same, without testing its hardness again every morning. I don't see how it's possible to move through the day on senses alone without any conceptual framework behind it (much of it untested) to speed things up. The movie we see is made intelligible only by conceptual pieces, each previously conjured up and put in to explain a piece (fallacious though that is). Without concepts, it's raw data such as a baby might see. I'm not against it, I just can't do it, see a table without importing all my understandings about the nature of tables at the same time.
  12. Mr Injin, Can you give us the whole theory? If it's a long leap from current world views, there's more chance of getting it in one go rather than trying to get our heads around a drip feed of inconsistencies with the current world view IMO.
  13. To all the kids out there: the baby boomers had it really soft, and don't let them tell you otherwise. eg. If you went to university before about 1980 you got a grant that was about equal to average wage. Free. Think on that and weep. They also had the rolling stones and the beatles. If you lost one job, you could get another the next day. House prices were 3.5 x one person's salary; and the mortgage was quickly eaten away to nothing in the 1970's by the 15% inflation. They even got to knock their mortgage off their income tax partially. If you worked half hard, you got told off for making everyone else look bad. It was soft. It was Thatcher that ended it in 1980. She divided the country into 2. Half got mass unemployment and a lifetime of threatened redundancy. (Mostly the North). And the Southern half got everything; all the jobs, all the money, they even got to buy their landlord's posh flat cut price. The southern half had a whale of a time in the 80's as well. So when you hear them putting you down, just remember the Boomers got given it on a plate. And even the redundancy half had a damn good time until 1980. They're just frightened you're going to take some of the assets off them, before they can spend it.
  14. If the chinese get fed up with the value of their bonds being continually eroded, and start selling them, the pound goes into a down spiral. Then prices of imports go through the roof. People are even worse off. The economy goes into a further deflationary spiral. The government says, more deflation, more QE. etc. That's my guess on how to do a Zimbabwe/Argentina.
  15. I guess anything imported will cost more; inflation in import prices as sterling drifts down. Everything else drops in price lower and lower as no one has any money, BUT offset by the amount of currency the government is printing via QE. If it does it too little, prices keep sliding down but slower. If it does it too much, one day everyone wakes up and thinks, get rid of £ quick, and the pound collapses. After that, prices of imports skyrocket, prices of any goods (eg paintings) skyrocket, as no one wants pounds, and you've got hyperinflation. The argument against the pound collapsing seems to be: the chinese will never dump their UK bonds, even if sterling quarters in value. (Or more credibly, the government have come to some written agreement with the chinese about how much they will devalue via QE, and the chinese have already agreed not to dump their UK bonds). So the problem is only deflation. My guess is Hilary Clinton was doing exactly that (for the US bonds) when she went to China.
  16. Halfwits like me think if the pound collapses, very high rates of price inflation are inevitable, esp imports of food, commodities etc.
  17. It was Margaret Thatcher and the Tories that deregulated the financial services sector. Oh dear, that's inconvenient.
  18. What happens if you don't complete? Do you just lose your deposit or can they chase you for the losses in value?
  19. Buying a house because the currency is about to go down the tubes, is like transferring all your assets into the Titanic from the Lusitania. They're both sinking. You need to put your capital into something that isn't sinking! And that isn't going to sink for 18 months. A baby perhaps?
  20. Shameless of auctioneers to be collecting a premium from both buyer and seller, but hey ho. The real question in my mind is whether nationalised banks auction the repossessed properties, or just hold on to them and rent them out for years (until they are no longer in negative equity !) like they did in the 1990's. Since the govt owns the banks, it's a political question, and the government loves high house prices. I have a nasty feeling the banks will just hold onto them. So...there will be very few sales, (only probate/deceased) and you'll only be able to buy a house for 30% off, from a bank who won't sell it for less...perhaps I'm being too gloomy, imagining the banks will turn themselves into mass landlords instead of banks. (Owning all those houses will even improve their asset base) Incidentally, if they do hold on to a house for 10 years, and then sell it...they can chase the former owners 12 years after the SALE for the difference AFAIA. So giving the former owners 22 years to forget about it, and then presto, taking it all back. Thus a cunning system is already in place for making the losers pay all their debts back and recapitalising the banks (by spreading the loss over 22 years). It relies on the poor sods not knowing about these rules, and thinking when the mortgage forecloses, that's the end of it. It isn't. Can anyone think of a convincing reason why the banks won't do this?
  21. How do BTL figures look with 7 years' tax, backdated, plus tax evasion penalties? Still rosy, or turning blue? We've got to stop tippy toeing round the tulips guys. No doubt present company is an exception, but for the most part, the BTL market is based on tax evasion. A huge pool of money is out there, in the form of BTL unpaid taxes, and is very easy to find. The government does not have to raise taxes to get it. The BTLers for the most part vote Tory. IR gets its tax first out of the equity. The government has plunging revenues. The BTL market is toast anyway...does the axe have to actually fall before BTLers see the problem coming? You only have to mention tax to a BTLer and the whole place empties...the potential for losses is very real.
  22. How do the figures look after IR sends BTLers a demand for tax? Still rosy? (The government is now desperate for money and the BTL market is toast anyway.)
  23. Deflation is bargains. Bargains today and even better bargains tomorrow. What causes people go give you bargains? Desperation for cash flow. Or a nice pair of legs.
  • 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.