Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by spyguy

  1. Revisit your sums. Welcome to back-of-envelope-ville. I'd guess 50% of Bath are retired. Figure jumps to 3.5% of the working age population. There are a lot of people of benefit in Bath - not the nice bits but the scummy out-burbs. And this is ignoring Trowbridge ... I'd guess there is a 50% labour market participation. This is a high cost, low-income town - like a seaside resort inland. Figure doubles to 7% Of course you do get people who come into Bath. And people from bath who commute out, mainly to Brostol - which is pretty much on its a*se.
  2. I've noticed that my locals EAs have a skeleton staff on Saturday. They've stopped opening Sundays. Hardly rushed off their feet.
  3. Wierd that. A couple of places I've looked at are now probably attemting to shift at around 2003 prices. (N Yorks). In these areas the number of sales fell away after 2004 - the prices just got too high. At the moment, asking prices are about 30% off 2006 prices. Assuming that offers are going to come in at least 10% then they are well down. There's just not the mortgage credit in the area any more. Houses have gone from being prices using 'Price @ 2006 + 10% = 2007 price' To now being priced to 3 x salary MINUS any unsecured debt.
  4. I should add that China's got to go thru a revolution pretty soon. India has de-fused the democray bomb by createaing a very clan/castebased society. China has not. The ruling elite are well behind the rain makers. The rain makers are not happy. This pressure will only end in one way - boom.
  5. You'd cr*p your pants if you saw the cost of living in Indian cities. Seriously, Bombay (yes, ive said it Booombaaaay) makes london looks cheap. The churn in India is beyond a joke. I've had about 15 years of delaying with Indian companies. Apart from some very very rare exception they are all the same - nobody has more than about 2 years solid experience. India cheaper???? Forget it - even if the engineers were cheap the extra layer of rent seekers - management, local government, etc that comes attached to them cancels out any saving pretty quicky. I would never ever ever deal with a financial compant outsourced to India. Not due to any BNPism but purely on the basis a signifigcant number of Indians are so crooked its just not worth dealing with. Seriouesly. just ask an Indian.
  6. Any good pictures of Amy Child in it? Mmmmm. But I'd have to urst my ear drums first.
  7. Then homeowner's need to give up the idea of being able to sell their house then. A market has two sides.
  8. You cnanot made a general comment on either the public or private sector. All organisations screw up. In the private sector a badly run company does not live long. In the public sector they keep on going, swallowing more + more money. All from observations esp. comming from the NE. Public sectors organisations become more + more about about the staff rather than the services they provide. Witness our local hospital - Scarborough - Have a goolge. A 1/3 of the staff run up 40+ days of sick a year. The service is really really bad. It should be shutdown - everyone sacked. Same goes for the local ocuncil. They employ someone. Person is crap at their job. Rather than sacking + getting someone else they keep the person + employ someone else. Payrool bloats, becoms more beaurucratic, zilch productivity. I thought baout this when I read an artcile in the Radio Times about Heston Blumenthals lastest TV venture. He's going to Alder Hey to get kids to eat more + better food. This is Alder Hey - hospital for sikc kids - not the sex offender unit at Wakefiled prison. The staff at the hospital have 14 chefs to preapre their meals. The kids have '2 demotivated people, microwaving processed food' Says it all really. In my experience the public sector is mainly for the staff not the customers.
  9. Read that,. Talk about chasing the market down. Two of the pople featured have been trying to sell for more than 3 years now. A portent of the UK now.
  10. It was a strange article - considering his normal armegedon prose. What he's saying is not untrue - the Basque and Catalan bits of Spain were up their with Germany on enterpise and skill levels. They have lost their way a bit - house price mania hit their and the level of government bureaucracy has got out of hand - central and regional went into a spendings arm race. The stereotype of an idle, work-shy spaniard manyana originates from these regions. A basque friend refers to Castilans (the hot bit) as morrocans. Spains problem is that these regions are not as competive as they once were and that they only ammmount to a small percentage of Spain's population.
  11. Wiltshire too. A big house on the same road as us. Bought in 2007. Asking price at 50K under 2006 purchase. Big assumptions - if it sells and if its bought for the standard asking price - 10% then they are looking at ~ 100K loss. Looks like what little stuff is shitfting is going for 2003/2004ish prices.
  12. Its GDP. The UK public sector spends ~ 53% of the UK GDP at the mo. The 'accepted' (by Lab + COn + LDem) top limit of public sector spend is about 40%. When Lab came it the public sector spend was 37%. Its noiiable that the UK economy has grown by about 30% since 1997, so the amount being spent by the public sector is much much more. As far as cuts go the pubclic sector spend has to go below 40% for a number of years to reduce the debt. I'd guess the target should be about 35% - so spending has to be cut by about a 1/3 from its current levels and held their for about 10 years. The Cons (79->97) only ever managed to hold the public sector spend at the same nominal rate i.e. never really managed real cuts. Going back to the 40% upper limit of public spend. I think this is wrong because the UK has now got a shringing tax base - all those boomers retiring, all those unfunded public sector pensions being drawn upon. Something will have to be default on.
  13. Ive a 3 yo + 6 yo - i refuse to get into the mumsnet abbrievations! What I've found is that there's not much of distribution in parenting - people re either good parents or bad parents. There's no middle. The difference on good + bad parents is not by rich or poor parents. By rich i mean working. I used to take my kids to the sally army free playgroup. There was a mix of rich + poor. The mums on benefit their got up and got their kids to the hall - it did start at 10am so hardly 6am start. I never met any bad parents when my eldest was below school age - everyone you interact with at that age are making some sort of effort to spend time with their kids. Playgroups, park, that sort of stuff. I did start meeting bad parents when the eldest started school. Then parents !have! to mix their kids. Thats when the fun starts - kids that have not been socualised i.e. met other kids. Kids that cannot behave or sit or listen. Kids that are total *****s already at 5. Surestarts problem is that it assumes that all parents want to do right by their kids AND will make some effort. Its a bit like the early Labour job schemes when the working model was that people wanted to work. Bets indicator of a bad parent is check the school late/no turn up book.
  14. My 6 year old son has 6,000 in his child trust fund. Obviuosly he has no debt, giving a net wealth of 6,000. He's wealtheir than about 60% of the people I chat to when I'm out drinking. He's about £206K wealthier than someone I know who bought a big house in 2006.
  15. Can't be a lot of work then. I my experience the correct answer to 'Do you think that this pub/bar/restaurant/b+b will make money?' is No 95% of the time. Oh course you might to elaborate 'No' a bit to justify your fees and all that, say large spreadsheet with 'NO' at the bottom. Pubs are nuts at the moment. The PubCos have finally run out of people dumb enough to take on a tied-lease. And boy were they scrapping the barrell recently. They've even given up 'Can;t make money on your pub? Then take up another lease in town'. The most nuts thing I've seen in the last few years was a LL at a loss making pub being convinced to take on a 2nd pub - double your revenue, split your costs. How the guy could serve at both pubs at the same time seems to have escaped the LL and PubCo business rep. The dumbest part was that the 2nd pub was over the road from his existing one. Id suggesed that he does not take on he 2nd one, letting the one over the road shut and hopefully pick up his customers. But - No, the business rep was right. 8 months later he was bust. Also find the concept of a food led pubs to be nuts. Bar takeaways, restaurants make their money on the wine mark-up. The food is a loss leader (almost). Why on earth do you want the extra cost of doing food - capital and chef/waiting staff, when booze is your money maker. Most people used to stay around all night, buying multiple drinks. Unless you have Eamon Holme's local, you will only serve one meal per punter.
  16. No argument or disagreement with you. I guess you dealing with pubs from the perspective as an accountant. My comment was based on a wider range of businesses, including pubs, based on the North Yorks coast. My only observation on running a pub is that if you do choose then make sure you go tee-total first. At least town-based pubs have the potentential to be all-year businesses. In my experience, people start running the businesses in Easter or summer, think they are going great than - Wham - schools go back in September - and they are eeking out the odd 'nice' i.e. not p*ssing down weekend til the next easter - potentially 6 months away. The UK does not really have a tourism industry. It has a 'p*ss away your savings and/or redundancy trying to make money' insutry. Unless you have virtually no capital outlay - think ice cream van, or the capital cost has already been sunk i.e. taking over grandad's hotel then, inthe words of Zammo - Just say no!
  17. The only way to make money in UK tourism is to buy at the bottom ofthe cycle, hold till the economy picks up and sell it as a lifestyle business to somewide-eyed idiot who thinks there experience as some middle management admin will translate to running a business. The first year is fun - you get a couple of idiots with a vast employment pool, swanning around bossing loads of kids and retired women about. Mkaing subtle changes -my pet hate is snack bars which are taken over and the mad bint (its always a woman) does the standard - No Chips policy. WTF!!! The next is fun. Most of staff go, just left with some idle 14 year old who take thepiss. Owning couple running around causing disasters, shouting at customers. Portion sizes collapses, prices shoot up. And the lifestype - stress + bankruptcy.
  18. Most people COULD run a hotel or restaurant. The trick is being able to run a hotel or pub AND make money to pay off loan AND pay yourself and partner a wage. I grew up by seaside. My teenage years were spent working in a medium sized hotels, pubs + restaurants which was owned by a wide colection of idiots. SOme people just can't cope with people - and I don't the small percentage of scamsters trying to rip you off. The worst owners are public sector, or people who've worked for large monopolistic companies. They have absolutely no sense of business or dealing with people when those people have choice. Oh christ, useless teachers who were pensioned off for being drunk/incompetent/paedo-ish going to run a pub. jeez.
  19. I thoguth that too. Is that one-eyed tw*t earning consultancy fees on the side. G Brown - 'How to get elected even if your are a *****'
  20. Not listened it yet. I don;t deny that a large factor in the lower number of FTBs is lack of finance available -- too little, too expensive. Hardly suprising when about 70%+ of mortgage lenders of 2005 vintage are either bust or in some form of government-help bustness. But there is another factor that no-one appears to be discussing - demographics. There is a significant fall in the number of pople who are 20 to 30 years younger than boomers i.e those 25->40 ish. I don't think people have really contooned on to this. There has been some reasearch on demographics on equity values.
  21. I listened to this. The 70 y/o with a '1.2M' house and a 500K mortgage was really, really wierd. I'm guessing the '1.2M' valuation was his own, never mind an EA touting or business. HIs was banging about 'cash flow'. Now he may be a Rupert Murdoch type still working past 65 but I did not get that impression. The panellists made a comment out having a pension was a very secure income stream. But did he? How much did the pension payout - a 500K mortgage at 5% will require 2K Ir only a month. Thats a lot. If this bloke was ricn/sucessful - why did he have a mortgage? There's no tax advantage.
  22. Would be nice to know the sums bhind it. I've had a go. Using my finances high salary, no debt I could borrow about 3 times. I put in a 20K deposit but in reality its going to be a lot higher. Then I had a go, using some of my friends typical finaces (there are ones whose finances I know - griping i nthe pub and all that): averagish salary (24K), car loan (9K), misc montly outgoing (CSA/student loan) 300, uncleared credit cards 5K. Although much too much debt for me they are pretty typical of most mid-30 blokes I know. I put 5K as a deposit - althogut it would these people about 3 years of hard saving/extreme (for them) life style changes to achive that. £300/month, allowing for some misses/crisis. I got the grand total of a max 22K mortgage. Wow! Housing is scr*wed.
  23. 50K is a high earner. 50K will put you in the top 10% wages. That's part of the problem in respect to house prices - the average, and above average, and above above average person cannot afford a small house.
  • 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.