Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Kinky John

Members
  • Posts

    223
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kinky John

  1. Ok .. I am badly hung over on Friday evening - and this has made it even worse. I live reasonably near the blairs - maybe I'll go down and ask how it is in the village and then flip them the bird. At the very least getting shot would probably help the general malaise and awful headache.
  2. It's quite likely they're messing you around for a reason they won't tell you. I can however find it just as credible they are bored and uninterested and you should give them some shit. Imagine what it must be like sitting around watching episodes of changing places before making that epic decision - that you too want to make people cry for no particularly good reason. And that I'm sure is the creation myth for how a reasonable % of estate agents came into being. Act accordingly except with a pleasant agent - the principle has never seen me wrong.
  3. Haha! I'd forgotten Gordonomics .. must try harder! Though to be fair most of the world was almost as insane as us at the time, so perhaps his worst crime is to be swept up by the madness of crowds. He's probably a little too involved to be able to claim it was a popular delusion not of his own making though. That said - I was completely not fooled at any point .. and you can check my audited track record / statements to the IMF (I got one line in the 2008 blame assigning global stability report .. produced in 2007 .. apparently - still have a copy somewhere) / general rants to anybody that would stand around long enough to listen (not usually the IMF). So there is no need to go easy on him at all. After all .. in his own words - he saved the world. Edit: Edited to add some extra delusion.
  4. I knew unconstrained government backed HPI would finally draw attention to the jewel in our crown .. the off shore tax havens we have no control over (except when we change the entire government) .. They actually serve useful functions as well as providing a place for the top tier of wealth to avoid tax and scrutiny. Letting dodgy second / third tier dictators hide their wealth in London housing was a serious mistake. Letting any old have-a-go pay no tax asian new money type buy a flat with a view of St. Pauls nobody will ever live in was the biggest mistake of course.
  5. I would be deeply surprised if that holds in central london but not particularly if it holds outside. A quick look at any international property portal of your choice shows it's about the same price to buy a house in monaco (0% tax) as in London (50% tax) which strongly suggests London's house prices are deeply detached from a reality in which local money influences property prices. You might find relationships especially if you look at specific areas but I'd expect average stats (as always) to dumb those down significantly. The first rule of statistics is don't believe it. The second rule of statistics is to use simple heuristics (such as the above) to be certain you shouldn't believe it. The third rule of statistics is .... profit!
  6. That meme belongs to the bank of england doesn't it. Are you sure you've got permission to use it sarcastically? Don't blame me if somebody comes around to break your legs later (for the sake of financial stability of course)
  7. Sorry to ask a (maybe dumb) question as I haven't watched tv in 20 years ... but does anybody on TV ever ever ever mention it?
  8. It would have been much better to have a chicken make the vote. The artificial market volatility would make the classic pump and dump scam implicitly favored by constantly lowering rates far less tenable as you'd have to fear rolling over debt instead of exploiting your social position to maximise debt .. value it as an "asset" by investing it in a real object ... and then let the government bail you out. And that was before ZIRP. It got totally gosbank after that!
  9. That would make complete sense in a market .. but that would assume a consortium of nearby residents wouldn't start a campaign the instant they thought you were devaluing local land prices. Presumably you grow weed in places like Hull where you could probably get a european grant for your weed farm too. Though without the article link it's hard to be sure ...
  10. Why on earth would they grow weed .. I mean that's an unregulated and not-government set market so prices have been kept really quite reasonable in a highly reactive marketplace that is disgustingly efficient at meeting supply with demand. It's absolutely nothing like housing. Surely estate agents would know better.
  11. Maybe I'm going off topic a little here .. but if I remember an FT article I saw about 6 months ago it said the results of an investigation into cold storage in China found some meat that was over 60 years old. Can't go wrong with a '72 chicken .. best year ever. Prices only ever go up! :-p But back on topic - it does actually make sense to buy a house in many situations where you loose money on the capital value of the hosue, as there is much value that cannot be easily given a monetary quantity. The loss also needs to be correct worked out as a present value given future cash flows on rent / maintenance etc. Haven't done it myself for a while but it is often eye opening even if you expect to spend roughly 10x what your landlord puts down on maintenance. Even with significant losses you can often wind up on the deal just because of money not expended on rent .. particularly in the situation where interest rates on cash are 0% and you buy without debt. In the real world .. with actual interest rates that aren't designed to cause wars by causing massive future mispricing (i.e. future valuations not .. in the future) then the calculation rapidly inverts. But at 0% interest rates .. if you can't stuff it in a bag and run while smacking somebody else in the head with a hockey stick for the last can of beans ... then ultimately it's worthless.
  12. You know what get's my goat the most about this and to be fair many other pronouncements on housing policy. It's the one indefensible clause for tenant removal So .. after signing a fixed contract the tenant occupies the house and lives there because presumably it is their home .. the place where they feel safe and independent. This is of course enforced by law unless the landlord (presumably randomly) decides they want to live there. This means the tenant is de-facto a second class citizen as their right to a fixed abode factors below the landlord's right despite a free and legal contract having been drawn up to the opposite effect. Now forgive me, but this is completely counter to a moral system where all are treated equally (I presume most politicians would profess to a belief in such a system - if they don't then this policy is fine of course .. but we might need to have some words about other things). People like Zac .. clearly believe they are not Nationalistic minority abusing leaders but given the sort of unequal treatment you see in these statements they are undoubtedly taking the first steps towards creating a legally supported multi-class system which enforces division, resentement and dissent. The great failing of democracy is that the majority bullies the minority .. and anybody who professes a desire for significant power must be able to at least understand the trade offs and accept responsibility for them before they blindly give people what they want. That or we can just replace politicians with a machine that say "yes." Frankly .. I'm far more impressed by Hitler. He had a country crushed by reparations enforced after the first world war and he used nationalistic sentiments and the oppression of minorities to draw together and unify people. Some pretty horrid things happened afterwards but they aren't simply Hitler's fault (or even more childlishly ... "evil's" fault) as everybody is human (like Hitler) and therefore responsible for the consequences of their actions. That includes Zac ... even if he didn't go to Eaton or the other place. Edit: Worth adding that it is extremely unfair to target just Zac with this rant as most politicians seem incapable of understanding the morality in christopher reeve's superman films let alone a real world situation.
  13. There is almost no question this is a substantial erosion of rental rights dressed up to look like an improvement. The devil is always in the details but if I can see the holes in the propaganda announcement you can absolutely guarantee it will only get worse if you look at the details. Some obvious points: Why would you want a three to five year tenancy? the only rights you have as a tenant in this country is to pay your rent till the end of your contract and then leave. Given the desperately substandard rental housing in this country a three to five year tenancy would be mana from heaven for a landlord and their debt provider - especially if rents were falling. Sod all those stupid up-keep costs as the tenant is stuck there for x years after which you can refurb and repeat. The exception to this only occurs if the tenant has any rights at all to break the contract or massively improved rights to leave if the house is any sort of danger to health e.g. mold or damp you may not notice at a summer viewing So lets run that by ourselves again. The landlord can charge any rent .. the tenant is likely captive and the landlord has a choice of three easily manufactured excuses if they wish to remove the tenant (e.g. because of increases in rent). Certainty of what exactly? that they still won't be able to afford their rent in 10 years time but could be out on their **** next month? Nice work Zach .. now **** off.
  14. Weird article ... all this "will happen," in 2024 type ****. I remember coming to London and having to flat share 14 years ago to live in zone 4 on a 35k salary (a well above average salary back then). In fact - I lived in not very nice houses (or crowded houses) until I became head of risk of a multi-billion dollar hedge fund. After a year of that I could finally afford to rent a decent zone 1 house (2 beds .. no more of course) without having to go into bonus money or anything stupid like that. If I remember correctly the crossover point to having more than I needed was about 100k for a single person .. but that was quite a few years ago and I achieved escaped velocity on account of being able to see massive financial fraud even before it unwound (such an unblievably rare skill that isn't it? .. or maybe most people should be in prison). Maybe they forget that the little people have to pay tax or maybe they just make it all up to suit their agenda and phrase it so as not to scare the horses still in the stable. I doubt there is any genuine effort to understand or explain as frankly .. that's seriously rare anyway. Edited to make sure nobody thinks I only ever lived in zone 1 or something stupid like that.
  15. I didn't know it was possible to go to prison except for mistreating humans or animals. Guess it must have been the altercation with firefighters that did it as some of them probably weren't renters.
  16. I'll agree .. this is desperately filtered. Just think about tony blair ... doubt the FBI give a **** more likely this "leak" is just part of getting the proles ready for the government not throwing every little non-broken bit of the economy at supporting our precious property ex-bubble ... I'd be surprised if it wasn't also a good chance to repo some assets from somebody that pissed somebody else important off ... Our precious .. we've lost our precious ..
  17. Wonderful concept for a thread but I do have to say it falls a little short on the graph front. It's not hard to find descriptions of 25 years of price reductions and your graph shows the first few years. I will however confess it's almost impossible to find some sort of graphed index that shows anything like the whole story from different points of view and I don't have bloomberg anymore and it would likely need some odd scale to fit anyway. I guess I shouldn't be surprised as we're already way past the point of hunting down the shorts and torturing them to death for crimes against "humanity," just for another 50 minutes of bubble. It's all so predictable ... tweedle dum and tweedle dee chicken out the millisecond a broad index of activity starts to dip and the broad index is dominated at the margin by housing (and basically has been since Thatcher gaves us an industry-o-mectamy). This selects out non-housing industry especially that which tries to operate through international currency markets as these are wildly manipulated and price shocks become at best unpredictable and at worst extremely poorly timed. I don't think the Japanese got to the point of actually deliberately making this mistake like us - but I wasn't on the ground predicting that one for 15 years before it happened.
  18. It's beyond revolting .. he's not a nice guy but how can somebody with so little money manipulate a market I've put 3 billion dollars through on a stressed day. And he was hardly using an aggressive strategy like I used to have to deal with from the banks. I would ******ing know .. I used to be a part of that market. If you start with the market makers and work back from there I guarantee you'll never wind up in Hounslow .. unless somebody buries your dead body there.
  19. What an amusing question ... I spent enough years trading to know that not having seen a 20% downturn in a highly illiquid market for which 40% returns are normal is a damn good reason to expect a huge imbalance has built up in the background that you can find strong evidence for and then make a stonking huge amount of money out of correcting. Doesn't matter what it is - things can only ever go down for ever .. it doesn't work for up for obvious reasons to do with behavior, substitution, population growth and wars (aren't 0% interest rates brilliant .. but where did all these refugees come from?).
  20. Utterly repulsive .. if these were shares in listed companies then this would be regarded as corruption. The only actual difference is in the legal construct and in not in any ethical or moral sense.
  21. Awesome .. I've been looking for a suitable location for a week long hookers n meth bender! But seriously - I'm not sure I disapprove of Airbnb turning homes into almost hotels. At the margins I'm sure it's worth ensuring the impact on local services is handled properly if the house is being used as a "hotel," rather than for occupation with the occasional visitor. Hardly crime of the century though ... at least the buildings are in use. The tax system in this country is hardly either progressive or fit for purpose (although the legal system is in some parts) and so long as the system isn't being abused to overcharge captive tenants like hookers/illegal immigrants I'm not going to come out swinging.
  22. I think this nails the most likely answer for the confirmation/disbelief on this topic. My own experience is completely inconsistent, but I've been blessed to be living high end London and the rent compression there is I suspect a sign of the massive amounts of fraud in high end London set against the massive demand in real (I could have a family there) housing. I say fraud and I mean fraud - mis-selling to foreign investors, unlivable space, swap transactions in place of actual cash, empty housing (not technically fraud .. but it should be chargable). Very far cry from the 300 quid a month I shared to live in Hadfield (just outside Manchester where league of Gentlemen was filmed) almost 15 years ago. I was hungry (literally), but it was a nice house. I'm barely doing better housing wise now and I'm at 2.5k/month. Central heating is a boon of course, but since I could buy underfloor heating for 4 months rent now .. you'll forgive me if I don't regard that as an upgrade.
  23. It's always worth negotiating, although I wouldn't start that from a point of "you've infringed my rights," unless you're looking for a fight (not that I'd blame you if that's your intent). At the very least you can approach them with your contract and say you'd value them sticking to it because you have a budget to run etc. etc. 8 weeks notice hardly seems unreasonable and the section 13 is probably just a scare tactic as it would cost a couple of months rent and hassle to actually enforce it. Better to mention that you're a good tenant who always pays their rent than they are a crappy landlord. You don't have much to work with to get more than a delay though, but if you plan to stay you could maybe try and negotiate a long term fixed-rent contract. That might prevent future increases. I've never had a not-crap landlord so I'm pretty certain telling them they're crap won't do much good as that sort of semi-aware collective delusion is impenetrable. I spent 3 grand a month on a flat which had no lights in the bathroom for a year once ... I can't even think of anything else I could spend 3 grand on where I would get such crappy service ... let alone 3 grand a month. Normally trading standards would be involved at that level I'm sure.
  24. Sounds very distressing, and depressingly run of the mill when dealing with a non-institutional landlord. I don't have a huge amount of experience but my attempts to get legal recourse against landlords left me pretty convinced I have absolutely no rights whatsoever and I'm surprised an AST needs to be modified to sell the house from under you (assuming it is an AST of course - you don't say). If it's more than 6 months I can see they might want some flexibility from you in which case you have something to bargain with ... I think it's worth a try regardless though. I also don't think they can get you out of the house easily until the end of the contract ... there were loop holes and hopefuly somebody with more experience than myself can confirm they were closed. As another sub-citizen with no rights I wish you all the best. We're not real people because we don't own a house ... obviously.
×
×
  • 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.