Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Neverwhere

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Neverwhere

    Climate breakdown and housing strategy

    FreeTrader had a great thread on current coastal erosion and house prices/sales:
  2. Neverwhere

    A Goodbye To All That Buy To Let

    I think that as Ah-so notes it's likely to improve their understanding of what's going on, rather than to pursue or support a specific policy. As they've started to collect borrower level data, and the PRA have been asking lenders to assess borrowers' portfolios and not just the individual property they're lending against, it makes sense that they would be looking to see whether this information provides any new insight into the behaviour of a sector (BTL) which the Bank has previously expressed concern about.
  3. Neverwhere

    A Goodbye To All That Buy To Let

    What do you think might explain the difference in relationship between LTV and distress at BTL loan level and at BTL borrower level? It seems like the method for assessing LTV at borrower level could conflate BTL borrowers who've experienced a slight drop in LTV across the board, BTL borrowers who've experienced a significant drop in LTV on a single rental property, and BTL borrowers who've experienced a significant drop in LTV on their own homes, all of whom might be expected to behave somewhat differently?
  4. Neverwhere

    A Goodbye To All That Buy To Let

    It seems that (over the relatively stable period they've looked at) they've confirmed the LTV-distress relationship at individual BTL loan level, but not at combined portfolio-and-main-residence level: I'm not sure why they wouldn't conclude that the difference between the two might indicate an unwillingness or inability on the part of BTLers to even out financial difficulties across all of their properties, in contrast to the way that the authors have evened out LTVs across all of their properties?
  5. I hadn't thought things through to that extent myself, but those are both brilliant points.
  6. And as it's landlords causing the problem it's only fair that it's landlords that pay the tax to cover it, with the added benefit that reducing their still-generous tax breaks might encourage them to sell their properties and reduce the size of the problem in the first place
  7. Agreed. Their unwillingness to address even the most visible manifestations of the problems caused by their own aggregate actions is just a symptom of how poorly equipped they are to engage in effective lobbying.
  8. It seems likely that this will also be the conclusion of anyone in a position of influence, should they - by some unlikely miracle - actually come to their attention. Great advertisement for everything that's wrong with having amateur speculators controlling other people's access to housing and security of tenure.
  9. Virtue signalling about not claiming a salary which doesn't actually exist for them to claim, because they don't have any funds with which to pay it, whilst seemingly looking forward to having enough incoming funding to claim a salary in the future:
  10. I think something which BTL speculators often overlook is that if those wages have been spent providing landlords (or their banks) with income then they are no longer available to be spent purchasing property. This may seem simple and obvious but I don't think the implication - that pent up demand for homeownership will support lower prices than if the wages backing that demand hadn't been redirected into landlord "pensions" in the first place - has really sunk in.
  11. A 2012 estimate from The Strategic Society Centre has it as an extra £8.3 billion annually by 2060.
  12. Setting aside the silly feuding with Shelter, this strikes me as the dumbest of the dumb claims: A significant way in which normal people provide for themselves in retirement is through paying off much of their housing costs during their working life, i.e. through access to homeownership. Because the majority of landlords don't provide homes, but instead use their greater access to tax breaks and loose credit to monopolise the existing housing stock, and force people who would otherwise be homeowners into renting from them or other landlords instead, what they are in fact doing is redistributing retirement provision to themselves and away from people who are already less well off than them. The end result of this, if allowed to continue, would be that the would-be homeowners whom landlords have excluded from homeownership end up forced to rent throughout retirement, with the government covering much of the cost via housing benefit. As a means of "pension" provision buy-to-let is fundamentally an exercise in scamming the state into providing the buy-to-letter with a massively higher state-funded "pension" than they or anyone else would otherwise have access to.
  13. / Their Twitter feed is a delight - impotent and bonkers.
  14. Neverwhere

    Climate breakdown and housing strategy

    Sorry I probably phrased that badly above, I wasn't meaning to suggest that the loft should be uninsulated, but that other aspects of the property (especially south-facing) may also need to be if one of the aims is to keep the property cool (and not just cooler) in summer.

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.