Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Sancho Panza

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sancho Panza

  1. I think the real story here is that transactions are dropping,and are at 10 year lows iirc. The recent rise in rates is a smokescreen.
  2. They also get included in mortgage calaculations I believe.
  3. I'm intrigued as to whether the debt can be collected off other assets that a student may accrue post graduation?
  4. I think they're toast Ash.Current trading is going down.Things are worsening I suspect which may explain why they're trying to get this moving.
  5. From the comments.Completely oblivious to the non 'market' interest rate he's been enjoying for ten years. Completely oblivious to the non 'market' housing benefit propping up retns at the lower end. Words fail me sometimes. 'Don't have any problem sourcing tenants. Indeed they come to me pestering for me to let to them!! I have no problem charging top market rent. You work very hard to provision your letting property. You deserve the market rate for that asset. Time for your poor tenant to recognise it is a cruel world out there and that to afford what he wants where he wants will require resources he can't afford. So he will have to MOVE to cheaper area This is the sort of domestic decision any person is forced to make on a daily basis. Essentially this tenant needs to economically cleanse himself from your property area and move to an area he can afford. You cannot maintain your business on a sound footing if you do not receive the relevant recompense for your letting property. Jack his rent up!'
  6. Not before time,seen the usual parade of parasites arguing against it on the news. It's hard not to laugh,as the parasites can't see the politcal aiming marker on their backs.
  7. Which bit of the legisdlation being currently implemented have you missed.Admittedly they could have implemented S24 without the phasing in but it's a game changer. Lettings fees ban inbound.Seriously? And I can't stand either of the OxBridge Blue or Red teams Good to see the impartial speaker is 1 out 1 on this.
  8. If you're saying the Westmisnter class are aqful negoiators or that they're not the sharpest cards in the pack,I'd agree with you.
  9. RBS would have gone under with or without Fred.Bailout was the only hope.
  10. I think the 25% may refer to those who receive formal documented help ie parents are second charge or bank is aware there is a loan for deposit. If you just lend your offspring money and don't document it,then there's no way the L&G will know about it. Wolf St has become my go to web page for financial journalism.Really top quality analysis that touches subjects the MSM leaves well alone. Unlike Mish Shedlock-who's a similarly good read-Wolf takes a far closer look at specific businesses.
  11. Two days old,not sure if not posted yet. loved the Henry Pryor quote. Wolf St May 31 2018 '“Mum & dad are lending money to their kids so their kids can afford to pay the prices demanded by mum & dad & their friends. It’s like a giant Ponzi scheme but where the victims are your children.” By Don Quijones, Spain, UK, & Mexico, editor at WOLF STREET. As the economic growth in the UK stutters — for the first quarter, the UK posted the worst GDP figures in five years on weak business investment and household spending — the country’s all-important housing market is beginning to show signs of strain. In April house sales were down 9.4% on the previous year. In the UK’s most valuable market, London, house prices had their worst month since 2009, slipping 0.7%, according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). As credit demand slips, some banks have decided to bring back a financial relic that should never have seen the light of day in the first place: the 100% mortgage. Both Barclays Bank and the recently privatized Post Office have recently unveiled 100% mortgage deals. A high-risk loan instrument that helped fuel madcap property booms in countries like Spain and the UK, the 100% mortgage allows property buyers to borrow the entire amount of the purchase price. During the heady days of the UK’s pre-2008 property boom, some banks even offered loans that were 20% more than the property value. They included Northern Rock, one of the first lenders to collapse in the Global Financial Crisis. Mortgages for 100% (or above) of the purchase price not only help fuel high-octane housing bubbles, they also make them a lot riskier when home priced decline, and when more and more borrowers end up with negative equity – where someone’s home is worth less than their debt. That, in turn, significantly raises the likelihood of borrowers defaulting on their loans. And that’s why these 100% mortgages are risky for banks. Today’s new breed of 100% mortgages has a twist in its tail: to provide the banks extra security, they are insisting on family members acting as guarantors for parts of the loans. In other words, if a borrower falls behind on repayments, a parent’s home can also be put at risk. This kind of deal is becoming increasingly common in the UK, where property prices still remain close to their all-time high despite fears prompted by Brexit and the recent cooling of London’s property market. Underpaid and over-indebted, many young people cannot afford to put down even a 5% deposit on houses whose prices, after they’re adjusted for inflation, have almost doubled in the last 20 years. And a 10% or 15% down-payment is totally out of reach. Their only hope of getting onto the “property ladder” is to get a financial leg up from their parents. So widespread is this phenomenon that in 2017 the so-called “Bank of Mum and Dad” became the ninth biggest mortgage lender in the UK shelling out some £6.5 billion in loans. Parents helped provide deposits for more than 298,000 mortgages last year — the equivalent of 26% of all transactions. “The Bank of Mum and Dad continues to grow in importance in helping young people take their early steps onto the housing ladder,” said Nigel Wilson, chief executive of the financial service company Legal & General. It is not driven purely by altruism. The UK’s multi-decade property boom, propelled by artificially low interest rates and supportive government policies, has provided a huge source of wealth for baby boomers. If the Bank of Mum and Dad didn’t lend this money to the new generation, demand for new mortgages would dry up and the UK’s multi-decade housing bubble would have begun to deflate some time ago. As a result, the houses that mum and dad own would lose much of their “value” and their respective net worth would plummet. “Mum & dad are lending money to their kids so their kids can afford to pay the prices demanded by mum & dad & their friends,” explained buyers agent Henry Pryor. “It’s like a giant Ponzi scheme but where the victims are your children.” More than one in four transactions in the UK’s property market this year will depend on the Bank of Mum and Dad’s financial support, according to Legal & General. The “bank” is expected to help fund 317,000 homes this year, up 3% on 2017. It’s not just twenty and thirty somethings that rely on its “lending”: 20% of those aged between 45 and 55 are also receiving some form of assistance. There are two major problems with this trend: One, only those with affluent parents get access to the cheap (if not free) funds. This further exacerbates the already high levels of wealth inequality in the UK. To lend their children a helping hand, some less moneyed parents may decide to remortgage their homes or serve as guarantors on the sort of mortgage deals mentioned above, but at the risk of losing their own properties in the process. And two, the Bank of Mum and Dad does not have infinite resources at its disposal. In fact, while parents may be playing an increasing role in mortgage transactions, the actual amount they’re ponying up appears to be falling. Overall lending is expected to drop to £5.7 billion this year from last year’s peak of £6.5 billion. “People are feeling a bit of a pinch around the economy and therefore we’re seeing pretty much a national trend outside of London for less to be given,” Nigel Wilson told the BBC. If that pinch continues to grow, the Bank of Mum and Dad could lose a large part of its liquidity. And with it, the UK’s housing market, which has provided a vital source of artificial wealth creation over the last three and a half decades, could lose its final pillar of support. By Don Quijones.'
  12. I'd watch out in terms of where you're placed with regard to your capital shoudl Close Bros be subject to a bail in. If you're money is in a normalsavings a/c you'rre covered by the FSCS guarantee for 80k I think.If you've bought a bond with them,I'd check whether you're being paid a premium for a risk that you're unaware of. Must state I'm not a financial adviser and that you should get some advice from someone in the know.
  13. This is potentially a once in a 70/80 year debt deflation.Previous busts were mainly inflationary/rising IR's. I rule nothing in/nothing out.But best guess at the mo is debt deflation which followed GD1 and featured contractions in broad money supply which didn't occur in the busts you mention. Deflation thread is worth a read if you haven't had a butchers. Like I say we could both be worng.One of us could be right etc.
  14. This bubble has taken HPI way beyond where local salaries took the previous bubbles,given this was pushed at the margins by BTL and foreign buyers. I'd becareful using previous blow offs as a guide for timing.Rather use local salaries as per @spyguy says
  15. I remember reading a wll sourced article a while back which had margin debt at under 1.5% of daily vol. Doug Short collates the margin debt data on his website. https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2018/05/21/margin-debt-and-the-market Here's a good Market watch piece on why using margin dbt as a trading tool can hit you hard. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/margin-debt-levels-are-a-poor-tool-for-timing-the-stock-market-2017-09-27
  16. About 50 pages back we discussed Armstongs call to buy Dow stocks as they'd benefit from a flight to quality during a crisis I pointed out that that would be illogical on the basis that membership of the Dow was based on an opaque set of criteria and that more importantly,it was price weighted and replicating it might expose you to the risk of being overweight Goldman Sachs and Boeing. You emailed Armstong and he came back with an answer that didn't address the substantive points I made.Dare I point out that you've still not answered either of these points. For those unfamiliar I lay it out below. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/09/10/the-dow-jones-industrial-average-is-ridiculous/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.05e371f97ba0 'But in reality, it really only shows the utter uselessness of the Dow Jones industrial average for measuring anything. It is an accident of history that the Dow is the most widely cited measure of how the overall stock market is doing, and a bad accident. Let us count the ways: The Dow includes only 30 stocks. They are chosen by the fine people at S&P Dow Jones indices, intended to represent that breadth of the American stock market. They are weighted not based on the size or importance of the company, but by its per-share price. So IBM, with its $184 per-share price, counts more than four times as much as Coca-Cola, at $39 a share, even though the two have about the same stock market capitalization. The announcement of the changes shows the absurdity of the index. "The index changes were prompted by the low stock price of the three companies slated for removal and the Index Committee’s desire to diversify the sector and industry group representation of the Index," the company said. Of course, the per-share price of a stock has absolutely nothing to do with its size, importance or representativeness. Bank of America is being booted, it would seem, for its sub-$15 per-share price, in favor of Goldman Sachs with a $164 share price. But Bank of America is a way bigger company! Its total market capitalization is $155.6 billion, to $74.5 billion for Goldman. It has 257,000 employees, to 32,000 for Goldman. It is engaged in banking and lending activity in basically every community in America, as opposed to Goldman's specialty investment banking business. But when you find yourself in the archaic trap of weighing companies based on their per-share price, that's the kind of absurdity you end up with. The case for swapping Alcoa for Nike is stronger — the latter company has a $59 billion market cap to Alcoa's $8.5 billion — but this shows the opposite problem. What took so long? Alcoa has been a relatively small company for years, no longer what one would consider to be among the 30 most important companies or stocks. But the Dow mix is changed only rarely (the last time three members were changed at once was 2004), so it has lingered long past its time as a symbol of American industrial might. A century ago, it made perfect sense to have an easy-to-calculate index that captured the overall trends in the U.S. stock market, even if it was a little arbitrary and weird. But we are living in an age where magical devices can instantly perform calculations on hundreds or thousands of stock prices at once. And we have the tools to select and weight stocks in an index based on their size — typically, as measured by their total stock market value v rather than the arbitrary per-share price.'
  17. Got you.The inverse of the net yield.In the UK tyou only getto that sort of level at the higher end.
  18. He's made a number of bad calls apparently. http://www.dvdbeaver.com/Gary/gold/martin_armstrong.htm 'We don't want to delve too much in his history, and lauded calls of decades past, but rather some of the more recent predictions that were flat-out wrong or have not come to fruition, yet. I find him vague in a Nostradamus-way and he flip-flops quite often. His calls are often about general, and large, economic events - so he puts himself on the line but these ambitious calls rarely come true. Ex. In 2013 he predicted the DOW would double by 2015. At the time of the prediction the DOW was approximately 14,000 - today (April 2016), it is at/near its high of 17,737.00. In 2014 he stated that $100+ crude oil was here to stay. Crude is now trading below $40. So both of these are way off base. Let's take a look at some of his other miscue predictions: Forecaster Martin Armstrong calling for start to a Sovereign debt crisis 2015.75 - he means the 3rd quarter of 2015 but it did not and has not transpired... yet. August 25, 2011 - Martin Armstrong: Gold to Correct for 1-3 Quarters Before Resuming Uptrend - Gold was $1740 on that date, did correct lower - but never resumed, eclipsed or equaled that high 1-3 quarters after - nor has it 4.5 years later. June 1, 2012 - Martin Armstrong: Are Commodities Preparing for a MAJOR RALLY? Armstrong is still looking for gold to explode to the upside into 2015 due to the Sovereign Debt Crisis - in this case the exact opposite happened - Commodities essentially collapsed for the, almost, 4 years following his statement. November 2009 - "Martin Armstrong: Gold Headed To $5,000 And Beyond!" - 6 years later and no where near. That is not saying it can't or won't - just that without a date - it is a rather meaningless statement. April 19th, 2013 - "We elected Weekly Bearish Reversals in both metals with gold closing at 1397.2 and 2304.1. Gold closed also just below the Weekly Break line 1398.6. This is warning that the FAILURE to exceed Friday's 4/19 high intraday, and a penetration of 1310, we are looking at a drop to $1158. Breach that, and we very well may see $907 in 2 weeks." No chance. Before he said this Gold had dropped $200 in the month of April, 2013 but it ended about $90 higher after he made the statement and it did not reach or breach $1158 although the following month it came close. Sub $1000 has not occurred even 3 years later. Dec 2012 - "The metals will be taking off during 2013, Martin believes after the summer, going all the way to 2016. Major support is at 1570." - Gold started December 2012 at $1720 and closed 2013 at $1205 - $1570 was not support and June (Summer), it went below $1200. Oct 2013 - Gold's going to drop below $1000 - and here is an example of his flip-flopping from the previous prediction. Sub $1000 has not occurred even 2.5 years later. Aug 9, 2013 - "Martin Armstrong has come out with this shocker – Dow 32,000 by 2015! - needless to say this wasn't even close to transpiring. In 2013 - regarding the above DOW call: "Gold will be a beneficiary too, but in 2015." but later stated ''$650-910 price of Gold coming soon.'' - so this is an extreme flip-flop and neither came close to fruition. September 14, 2014 - "Is Martin Armstrong Right on Sub-$1000 Gold?" - This seems to be a call that he is sticking with (see below), and I don't disagree, but the timing has not proven him correct to date.'
  19. I had a feeling it was pretty Gucci data.Most of my trades-even the short stuff- are relativel medium term at minimum.It's the yoyos that kill returns,I was just intrigued as normally positioning yourself opposite to retial money isn't a bad strategy.(even if you're retail yourself...) Their chart is still in a tight downtrend-I'm not 100% charts at all and think a lot of the stuff talked about various indcators is uter tripe,but the reality is that sometimes -particualrly when the downward/upward trend has been strong,they are a useful tool BT have been shrinking staffwise for years since the mid 80's.Crucially,they generate lots of cash .At soem point -how can I out this politely-their demogrpahic problems will ease. 3/1/18 https://www.jltemployeebenefits.com/our-insights/publications/ftse-reports/dec-2017-ftse-100-and-their-pension-disclosures 'There are a significant number of FTSE 100 companies where the pension scheme represents a material risk to the business. 11 FTSE 100 companies have total disclosed pension liabilities greater than their equity market value. For International Airlines Group, BT and Sainsbury total disclosed pension liabilities are around double their equity market value.'
  20. Even for a BT bear (no offence) there comes a point where it's too cheap.I haven't got there yet but under £2 they're very interesing indeed.
  21. A safe haven isn't Boeing at $352 and Goldman at $227. I questioned this Armstong thesis earlier in the thread and never received a satisfactory answer-ie how can you recomend a price weighted index with variable selection criteria as a safe haven.
  • 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.