Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

D Vardy's Shadow

Members
  • Posts

    390
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by D Vardy's Shadow

  1. Agreed, unless the money was already confirmed to be in a scheme. But I would be asking the receiver to confirm - if it is not in a scheme, it would have to add to the debts the receiver is managing.
  2. Traps never look like traps before you fall into them.
  3. Hmm, I do suspect the Agents are on the take from Southern Electric for moving tenats over. I have seen similar requirements mentioned elsewhere, even on existing tenancies and the funny thing is, it always involves a move to Southern Electric
  4. Hmm. Is the Receiver actually a new landlord or is he merely administering the estate of the bankrupt? Personally, if I were tenant here, I would not worry about not getting a Section 14 - I would just ask Receiver to provide a copy of the court order and an undertaking to indemnify me against all claims by the LL.
  5. As the SI is about 'undesirable practices' on the part of estate agents, I read this as being a warning not to tell sellers that they have 'dozens of prequalified buyers waiting for properties just like this' at the time of selecting an agent to put a property on the market. As far as dealing with buyers is concerned, the agent could comply by not making any checks or representations, leaving it to the solicitors.
  6. You don't need to go any further towards the exchange. BT are responsible up to the test socket. Don't let them plug the faceplate in.
  7. And this country is great enough and well enough run that the above is a problem. As a nation we know something is wrong, but we have our heads so far up our backsides that we still have this pathetic and stupid belief that we are somehow 'Great' and all the problems come from outside. The EU is the least of our problems. The biggest is ourselves.
  8. 'Springtime for Hitler' fraud. It is the fraud carried out in the musical in thestory line - nothing to do with putting on the show in the real world. At core, an asset producing a return, but with a risk of substantial loss is sold more than once over, at which point, the people selling the asset have a vested interest in turning it to loss. ie sell twice over reduce value to 25% pay out 25% twice over PROFIT!
  9. from the quoted article: Selling insurance is pretty boring thanks to regulations that date back to 18th-century England. In a recently published paper in the Connecticut Insurance Law Journal (http://link.reuters.com/fyv38c ), Arthur Kimball-Stanley argues that, in its earliest days, insurance policies were often used to gamble. Policies could be purchased for items that weren't yours, and for amounts greater than the insured property was worth. The moral hazard is obvious: Unregulated insurance gave speculators incentives to destroy property. Are CDS speculators actively destroying property? Take Delphi Corp . When the auto-parts maker filed bankruptcy last fall, investors held $20 billion worth of CDS that referenced only $2.0 billion worth of bonds. This looks like 'Springtime for Hitler' fraud to me. But nobody seems to understand what 'Springtime for Hitler' fraud is, whenever I mention it.
  10. OK, let's analyze what your mistake was. You based your decision to buy or sell on absolute yield calculated on present return divided by present value. If you had held the properties until 2007, your yield would have been very good based on your original investment, but you are looking at the yield in terms of the value of the asset at evaluation time and ignoring the value of the capital gain. When it comes to parting with the asset, you need to be asking whether you can get a higher yield from putting the value elsewhere - ie a relative comparison [eg letting gets me 3.6%, cocoa futures gets me 3.4%], not an absolute criterion [eg letting gets me only 5.4%, so I will get out of that because 5.4% is bad, even though I have no idea where I will get more]. And you need to take into account potential for capital gain. The whole bubble was based on oversupply and it being [perceived as] a viable business model to buy flats and hold them empty because the capital gains paid the cost of finance. So now there is a total oversupply of sh1tty flats, which will have to go to social tenants and bring the sector into disrepute. Whatever happens to the economy, it is not going to be so good for this sector of the market. I would say that your 7% target will be met in the near medium term, but not by values stabilising and rents rising, more likely by values falling and rents stabilising. This will help the future investor, but not the present investor. Yield is not the be all and end all and you need to keep an eye on capital values.
  11. Then let's cover these stories up and pretend that this sort of thing is not happening. Perhaps the mods should ban anyone who knows someone in similar circumstances in case they let word slip out?
  12. I believe the major reason for the clause is to make the valuation report a 'privileged communication' between surveyor and client, which provides some limited protection for the surveyor against being sued for libel by the seller if he makes a mistake which reduces the reported value. With this protection in place, the surveyor can fulfill his duty to the client and express himself more freely, without looking over his shoulder for a libel writ.
  13. I think that the thread should stay open. The majority of threads stay open forever and it is not right IMO for mods to make a decision to close a thread because someone thinks you have been answered fully. Landlord failing to meet responsibilities is just that. It is common sense that this is bad. But it is not common sense that it is a conflict of interest on the part of the Agent to support the Landlord, it is a misunderstanding on your part.
  14. The buyer should be the best placed person to purchase. The valuation is to establish what the next best placed person would offer.
  15. You are in a muddle about this. Define conflict of interest. To me, conflict of interest is where Agent should get highest price out of duty to client seeks to get lowest price when employee buys or rents personally from client In this case Agent seeks to get highest price from customer out of duty to client seeks to get highest price from customer out of loyalty to employee That is clear. As customer, agent will always seek highest price from you, there will never be a conflict of interest which affects you. Conflict of interest only affects a client, eg where the agent should seeks to get highest price, but might not if the Agent adopts the role of customer. Understand that you are never a client, and always a customer if you are buying or renting. Only if you are a client can you suffer from conflict of interest.
  16. It is not strictly a conflict of interests. Both for selling and letting, the agent acts on behalf of the owner or landlord. As someone else said, they are NOT impartial go betweens, never. So as buyer or renter, the agent never NEEDS to take your interests into account and MUST never put your interests above those of the seller or landlord. Conflict of interest arises when the Agent has an employee who is a prospective buyer. The comparable situation for renting is when the Agent's employee is a prospective tenant. In either case, the person who stands to suffer from the conflict of interest is the owner or landlord. The prospective buyer or tenant only suffers from the agent's conflict of interest if the agent's employee is also a prospective buyer or tenant who stops others from getting a look in or putting an offer forward. Not the case for you. In your case, you get the short end of the stick from the agent whether renting or buying because that is the way it is. The fact that an agent's employee is either the seller or the landlord does not make your end of the stick any shorter. Hope that helps
  17. Thoughts: Government well distracted for the forseeable. They will do nothing, the exemption will lapse and the civil service will resume collecting. Then there will be an outcry after 2 weeks and then the exemption will be reinstated.
  18. In isolation, that snippet is either misleading or meaningless. If 19 loans out of 20 were prime [which is probably not unrealistic], it would mean that subprime was 19 times more likely to default [which is probably also not unrealistic]
  19. And no doubt you should offer to cook all their meals for them in their new place too and be grateful. Actually, it is the Agent's job to talk you out of your money by whatever means he can. Now this is rather a brutish comment coming on my part, but pay attention :- if the Agent thinks this kind of ploy will have any traction with you, then maybe you should think quite hard as to how you are coming across to Estate Agents in general. If an Agent made such a comment to us, Mrs D Vardy's Shadow and I would quickly let him know he was talking out of turn.
  20. All your mortgage adviser can see is his commission. Since when have mortgage advisers been qualified to pass comment on the value of property? By and large they can't even assess ability to pay.
  21. So, let me get my head around this. People are leaving this country, because they don't like foreigners coming in? So they think the best thing to do is to go to another country? Where they will be, err, foreigners? Let me get my head around it a bit more. You think foreigners are bad because they take benefits? What would you think if they took jobs? And when British people leave this country because of the foreigners here and themselves become foreigners in another country, should they take a job in the other country or should they take benefits? I'd love to have a solution to that moral dilemma.
  22. The problem with this country is that you can get away with being a criminal if you talk posh. Here you are teaching him how to talk posh.
  23. I would offer what it is worth to me, but only if I wanted it. The concept of value is abstract - it is only concrete when you say what it is worth and to whom There is no formula which calculates value from data
  24. Either of You sold it for £450 and its value is £450 You sold it for £450 and you are a fool for selling it too cheap Now when it comes to that house, the lender will look at the deal and say it is either of Seller sold it for £155,000 and its value is £155,000 Seller sold it for £155,000 and he is a fool for selling it too cheap Now the difference is £15,000 - half a year's pay at least. So the bank will say no one is so stupid as to let half a year's pay slip through their fingers - it is actually worth £155,000
×
×
  • 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.