Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

lets get it right

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by lets get it right

  1. Basically there are some places a lot of people want to live, others where very few want to live, & the price discrepancy between the two is rising.

    Spot on. In some areas you can't sell a house for love nor money, a quarter of a mile away they still fetch the money asked. When times are tight and prices harden, all the money chases the property in the nice areas and, as we all know, prices are set at the margins and, currently, those sales are of nice houses in nice areas at top prices.

    I've had several agents say to me that FTB stuff is unsaleable at the moment. Yet,although prices are falling, most people seem to be able to stay put.

    I blame it on the insane rents still being achieved.

  2. Just seen Newsnight's look at tommorrow's front pages of the papers.

    The only one they showed that is covering the hpc on their front page is The Guardian.

    Their headline reads. "Housing crash fear after record price fall."

    Good to see the words "housing crash" on the front page on one of our papers at last. :D

    It's on the front page of the Guardian so they can blame the Coalition for it - particularly the nasty Tories.

  3. Yes, I comprende. It's actually quite easy to understand when someone is totally wrong :P

    When the Tories took over after the one before last Labour government, in 1979, basic rate income tax was 33p in the pound. They got it down to 22p over 18 years.

    Labour got in on a promise not to raise income tax. So they raised it for a good few years by freezing the tax threshold - and jacked up every other tax known to man. And invented a load more.

    Between 1997 and 2007 the amount of money raised in taxation doubled.

    Labour is congenitally unfit to govern. They have proved that on numerous occasions. Every Labour government ends in disaster.

    No doubt history will repeat itself. The Tories (and Liberals, this time) are in the process of clearing up the mess. No doubt they will be hated by the time of the next election - just in time for Labour to take over and feck it all up again.

  4. Isn't your argument that 'socialism' caused the housing bubble, the banking collapse and the UK fiscal deficit?

    If socialism is indeed dead, which appears to be the point that Ken Loach was arguing (though it was difficult to make out quite what he was saying with Hezzer ranting like a lunatic) then doesn't that suggest it wasn't socialism that caused the UK to be hollowed out with the exception of bankstering and the landowners flogging their land at a premium? Or am I missing something :unsure:

    Edit: As far as I can make out Ken Loach was positing that since it is the top 10% who have benefitted the most from the increase in land and property values, it is fair and reasonable that they ought to be the ones contributing the bulk of the reduction in the deficit - rather than the poor who have relatively lost out. Isn't that what this site is arguing for to? That housing wealth ought to be transferred from those that have it to those that don't? I'm not quite sure why this causes such a problem for the millionaire bankers on here - seems very reasonable.

    But of course a lot of the money owned by the top 10% isn't money - it's land and property. Which isn't money until someone borrows a load of it to buy it off you (generally speaking).

    Loach's idea that you just tax the top 10% a certain amount and pay off the deficit is just plain daft. Where are they going to get the money from? Answer: by selling land and property. Where is the money going to come from to buy it? From other rich people - who will have their own tax bills to pay?

  5. Is the day coming when films are made by small, independents and distributed on the internet.

    Is the day coming when one of the main planks of our celebrity culture - 'actors' paid millions of dollars to stand in front of a camera and speak whilst pretending to be someone else - is about to disappear?

    When people like Tom Cruise get paid $500 a week instead of $20 million per film?

    One can but hope.

  6. +1

    He lost me when he said that taking money from a household on 45k and giving it to one on 80k was "fair"

    I'm struggling to see what's different between this lot and the previous shower.

    The difference is that Gordon Brown would have spent months devising an incredibly complex way of dealing with it - such that the savings were lost in the cost of administering it.

    'This lot' have just made a simple rule - it's not perfect but it won't take millions of civil servant man hours to implement.

    Charles Clarke on Newsnight last night was bleating on about how he agreed in principle but that the detail needs to be looked at, the anomalies worked through, more care taken etc. etc. - i.e. he likes the idea but he wants to waste billions thinking about it and implementing it. Typical Labour thinking.

    Same with the limit on Benefits. He agreed with the principle but rattled on about the practice - safety nets had to be in place etc. Again, spend billions to save millions. This is New Labour all over. And there's not much point having a limit if you want to put in place a complex system to make sure some people can exceed it. (I have to say the idea that people get the equivalent of a 35k salary to sit at home all day really bugs me - surely they can be asked to make some contribution to society.)

    Have to say I like - don't know her name - the Chairman of the Conservative Party - Baroness someone or other. Before the election she used to be sweet reasonableness on Question Time, now she sounds like the sort of ferocious, no-nonsense woman who talks sense and gets things done.

  7. I presume that the bloke would be able to prove he'd paid cash - getting a receipt would probably have been a wise move - and would be able to wave it at the court officers at the foreclosure hearing or at a consequent appeals hearing.

    Fake documents are one thing, but what about cases where people have actually signed their name on a loan agreement with Bank of X, and that loan has been sold on in bits to other organisations? Is there any way of deciding who can actually demand the money?

    Doesn't matter whether you paid cash or have a receipt - or anything else - if some b a s tard has forged a title document showing they have a charge on the property. You're in the ball game then where YOU have to prove the title document is a fraud. When you're up against a judge who wants to simply rubber stamp a foreclosure that's not an easy thing to do.

    The other situation, where loans have been sold on etc. - who knows? My understanding of these things is that banks parcelled up mortgages and used them as security for loans, rather than actually selling them to someone else. So they collect the interest and forward it to whoever lent them money with the loan(s) as security. Must take a lot of tracking and managing - maybe that's why they award themselves millions in bonuses.

    The s h i t s.

  8. Isn't it the case in the US that there are doubts about the ownership of the loans rather than the house? I.e. they know whose name is on the house deeds (just as here) and who that person took out the loan with originally, but they don't know exactly who that person owes the money to now, today, after all the paper shuffling.

    Why couldn't that happen here?

    Someone posted a link here the other day to a speech made by a member of Congress in the States.

    In the speech he stated as plainly as you would like that systematic fraud is taking place in the States. Firms have been set up to create fake title documents for firms of lawyers which, in association with certain lenders, are using fake documents to foreclose properties they have never lent a penny on.

    One example was given of a bloke who paid cash for his house, only to have it foreclosed a while later due to forged documents. Foreclosure hearings in the States take about 90 seconds apparently. This seems to be a major scandal and one of those things of which one finds oneself muttering; 'It could only happen in the States'

  9. I suppose some credit should be given that the Express is reporting it at all... and they are using words like 'slump' too!

    Slump today, glorious boom tomorrow, nothing for 2 days, then another boom, then a 'housing market consolidates', then a boom, then a boom then - mass suicides amongst the younger generation - tired of renting, waiting, debt and being priced out.

    Then they might realise what they've done.

    The feckers.

  10. Their index is based on approved mortgages with themselves rather than UK house prices in general.

    If they don't lend, it doesn't get into this index.

    If they tighten their LTV criteria, it is more likely that only mortgages on price-reduced properties will get through.

    So, given that mortgage approvals are very low, this 3.6% price fall is maybe not based on much data.

    And something I've always wondered, what on earth do they compare with what to get their figures?

  11. I think that's gone in this skin. However there is a little icon at the right hand side of your posting name - click on it and it has an icon for view all content.

    You can choose view all posts/ view all threads/ view all threads you have posted in. Some of it is new and it is very good.

    Thanks for that. Never realised that was an icon - not sure I've ever noticed it to be honest - must get my glasses. Be handy if the icon could be a bit bigger and if the mouseover said 'View Profile and Posts' - it just says 'View Profile' at the moment.

  12. Since Nationwide was up last month and HaliLloyds is down and their indexes are based on approvals, I'm now pretty sure the most likely cause is that HaliLloyds has changed their mortgage underwriting policy in the last month. There was talk of "no more IO mortgages" and limited total BTL lending per person at Lloyds recently as examples.

    A 3.6% change due to sentiment looks unrealistic to me, this looks more like a policy decision within the bank.

    Why would a policy change at the bank, to limit IO mortgages and/or restrict total BTL lending, affect their House Price Index? If they don't lend on a property, it doesn't affect its price. The borrower just goes somewhere else to get their head in a noose.

  13. The shepple will get more and more used to low interest rates and live accordingly so when a 2% rise comes along they will not be able to cope

    That's the real tragedy of the government's reaction to the credit crunch. More lambs are being led to the slaughter enticed by low interest rates and the promise from politicians that they will stay low. Cameron mentioned that in his speech yesterday.

    Where, oh where, are the warnings to young people to take care?

    This is part of what I have realised is man's essential optimism. Most people genuinely think 'it will never happen' and, if it does, 'I'll deal with it then.'

  14. What I find interesting about this is the fact that no-one, absolutely no-one, has any real idea what is going on.

    Sitting out here in the shires I have sensed for the last few months that the market was stalling and turning down. But I kept reading that people like Halifax and Nationwide, with actual, real house price and lending data to hand, were reporting modest rises.

    But surely Mervyn King and his bunch of half-wits at the BOE ought to have an idea what is going on.

    If they think more QE is the answer to everything, it would appear they are 6 months too late. Even if they QE2 now, it won't affect the market for 6 months to a year.

    When those in power with the raw data to hand have no idea what is going on, you get the feeling the ship has no rudder.

  15. You got it.

    Every Tory government comes with a free crash and a recession. Sometimes you even get two, if they hold on to power long enough.

    Fixed that for you.

    In the sense that, over the last 60 years or more, every Tory government has come after a Labour government, it is true. Free crash and a recession while Labour's inevitable mess is cleared up.

  16. All around the country property owners are puzzled. 'Hmmm, prices haven't gone down around here, must be the North, South, East, West, Somewhere Else definitely not here'

    On the other hand, what would the reaction on this site be if the figure had been 3.6% up.

    It's regional, it's skewed by only big houses selling, it's wrong, it's VI bull, it's not what I'm seeing etc.

    Trying to remain dispassionate for a moment - the reaction here proves the old adage ... 'people believe what they want to believe'

  17. I'm sure most people would regard it as a meaningless statistic - a blip. If Nationwide concurs and then there is 'another' 3%+ fall in October, I'm sure many buyers will be withdrawing from sales or renogiating the price.

    It is at this point that estate agents should jump in and manage the situation - at least where someone is buying a property where the vendor is relying on his sale to buy another property. At this point Estate Agents should jump in and manage the chain so the person at the top takes a hit and it is spread out below.

    But they won't. Because most of them are useless.

  18. I am losing interest just at the point when I could feasibly buy. Getting cold feet if you will.

    I look around and see that I could rent a nicer place than I could buy, and keep all of the flexibility that that entails.

    I am ready to pull the trigger depending on how the market moves in the next six months, but will hang on for now whilst we keep on dragging on in this state of limbo.

    This idea of enjoying the rest of life whilst we wait is a good one. It's moving so slowly, what's the point of spending the next year feeling bitter :)

    There really isn't rental yield to be made. 5% if that compared with 3% or so for a 'capital risk free' 2 or 3 year deposit at the bank.

    Considerable risks are still live in property - house prices, housing benefit, interest rates, personal unemployment, taxation.

    Mortgages are uncompetitive and hard to get.

    Whatever you're view on HPC, leveraged BTL would be an odd choice of investment right now.

    Not if you can borrow 200k out of 300k at some daft tracker rate from HSBC at 2.99% (or whatever it is at the moment, last time I walked past the local branch I was 'staggered' to see the interest rates and can then rent that 300k house out at £1000 a month when you're paying 6k interest and losing 1.5k after tax on the 100k you put in.

    This is what has been happening in my area for at least a year and a half now. Just because you don't think BTL is viable, you're just one person. Loads of other people still think property is a one way bet. They might be wrong, but they are making the market at the moment.

  • 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.