Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Mr Yogi

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mr Yogi

  • Rank
    HPC Veteran

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    NW England
  1. I just heard this while cooking dinner. I couldn't disagree with a word the bloke said and immediately logged on here for the first time in months to see what others thought. I'll try again later!
  2. I am I the only one who makes no link between 'shopping' and 'leisure'? Shopping is a chore that I like to get out of the way as efficiently and quickly as possible. For this reason I do as much as I can online and rarely visit a real shop at all unless I have to. This enables me to have more time for proper leisure activities such as playing golf and drinking alcohol. There is a gross over-supply of 'real' shops.
  3. You're missing my point. Bovey's was a simple - if extreme - case of a businessman going tits-up and escaping debt-free via a combination of limited liability, personal bankruptcy, and sensibly making sure that the family assets were in his wife's name. I've no truck with Bovey himself - he's clearly a slimeball - but his use of the insolvency laws has been perfectly reasonable and lawful. The principles behind these laws regarding personal and company insolvency have developed over many years and are designed to encourage enterprise and risk-taking by entrepreneurs. If company owners and directors bore full responsibilty for the debts of their companies no-one would ever grow a business beyond the level of a corner shop, unless they did it at a snail's pace as profits were re-invested. The subsequent effects on employment levels and the general tax take would be catastrophic. Speedy growth by innovative businesses requires leverage and the taking of risks. If potential failure was rewarded by penury for the rest of one's life very few people would take the risks, to the detriment of society in general. Of course, Bovey's business was hardly 'innovative', nor did it actually create any value other than enriching (temporarily) its owner. As such, it did not serve any common good and its demise is not unwelcome. Bovey is still perfectly entitled to shelter behind the insolvency laws though; it is difficult to see how you could have different laws for different categories of businesses. Ultimately it is banks who take the hit and they who should be more careful about who they lend money to and the quality of the security given against their loans. Back to my point, however. If Bovey had filed for bankruptcy in Switzerland for instance, how would that have given him protection from his UK creditors? A UK court, yes. But a court in the person's home country?
  4. This whole thing puzzles me. How can the juristriction of an English court extend to Ireland - or any other country? If I was Irish, lived in Ireland, and was owed money by another Irishman also living in Ireland how would I react if he waved an English bankruptcy order under my nose? How would the Irish courts react if I persued the debt? Why on earth should an English bankruptcy order mean anything at all in Ireland? Would Barclays Bank write off my overdraft if I told them I'd just gone bankrupt in Burkino Faso?
  5. You only have to surrender assets when you go bankrupt. If your house is in negative equity then it isn't an asset - it's a liability. Generally, so long as you can keep up with the mortgage payments, you will be able to keep the house. Of course, having all your other debts written off makes it a lot easier to make the mortgage payments! Generally, the mortgage will be less than the rent would be on a similar house so it makes sense to stay put, even though there is negative equity. The assumption would be that the equity would eventually return.
  6. Quote from the article: "The conclusion to be reached after 10 years of madcap lending is that house prices are not a function of demand, but are simply a function of how much money the lenders are willing to advance. Almost everything else is immaterial." Too simplistic. House prices (like everything else) are a function of supply and demand. Demand is influenced by many factors, the most important being the availability of credit. It is DEMAND that is a function of how much lenders are willing to advance. Assuming a constant level of supply, as demand increases so do prices. As the availability of credit reduces, so demand reduces, so prices must fall. The reason that prices have not fallen as much as one might expect is that SUPPLY has shrunk too, as fewer people put their homes on the market when they realise that they will not get the price that they think their house is worth. Eventually, supply will increase again as houses are forced onto the market through external factors such as debt, death, and divorce. If credit and therefore demand is still low, prices will fall. While the availability of credit might well be the most impoertant factor in the level of house prices, it is far from being the only significant one.
  7. Ten years ago was 2001. House prices in 2001 were rather affordable even in historical terms. There was no suggestion in 2001 that a downward correction in house prices was either desirable or likely. So why didn't you buy in 2001 when, at age 30, you were probably at the perfect age to be buying your first home? You missed your golden chance. I'll reserve my sympathies for the generation behind you who have not had a chance yet...
  8. They tried that in the '60s... http://manchesterhistory.net/manchester/gone/Fortardwick.html
  9. If every town and village was allowed to expand by 150ft (enough for a couple of houses) all the way round we could build enough houses to fulfil anticipated demand without placing unreasonable strains on the infrastructure or spoiling any countryside. We don't need to concrete over vast swathes of farmland - just spread a little. That way as well, the new houses would be where people wanted them - near existing centres of population and employment.
  10. Just how is restricting one's market in this way going to elicit an early sale? It's madness! If a house hasn't sold within a month or so - THE PRICE IS TOO HIGH! No more discussion needed...
  11. In the current market that is a recipe for staying put for the foreseeable future...
  12. Estate agents really are as thick as pigshit. A property's been on the market for twelve months and the agent gets an enquiry from someone who has a house to sell. Wouldn't you at least think that the agent would show them round and if they looked keen talk to them about their own property and how you they could market it for them? As a salesman, I would see the opportunity for making two sales - unfortunately estate agents are generally not good sales people. How can estate agents hope to restrict viewings to potential buyers who are able to proceed immediately? How do they expect everyone to sell their house before they go looking for a new one? The maths just don't work! Estate agents need to learn that if they are to have any future at all they need to be a lot more imaginative and work an awful lot harder - as hard as everyone else has to work! Most won't learn though, because they're as thick as pigshit!
  13. Apologies if this has been posted before - I just came across it and was gripped. A search of the forum finds no reference to Harry Dent so I want to share it with you all. Enjoy.
  14. 51 and a self-employed cabinetmaker doing bespoke work for private clients. My accountant tells me I earned £40k last year but I'd love to know what happened to it! I bought my first house for £17k in 1984 and was the world's first recorded STR in 1989 when I realised something was wrong with house prices. I sold for £48.5K and rented for 5 years before buying again in 1994 at the bottom of the market. I paid £60k for a fantastic 4 bed house that had been bought for 100k in the late 80s. My run of luck ended in 2004 with a messy divorce resulting in my dream home being sold for £180k only 3 years before it reached its peak value of £350k! :angry: Now living happily with the second Mrs Yogi in a bog standard 3-bed semi on which we have a small mortgage. My experience of the housing market over the last 25 years tells me that prices are bound to plummet and the only surprise is they haven't done so already. Bring it on - I have teenage kids who I hope will have the opportunity I had to buy in their 20s if they so wish.
  15. For the last 80 years or so, each successive generation on average could expect a standard of living as good if not better than its parents. With the western economies now in relative decline and others in the ascendancy this expectation has reversed. As a society we are just going to have to get used to the idea that we are going to struggle to achieve the lifestyle of our parents or grandparents. I see no way of reversing this trend. It is just something we are going to have to deal with.
  • 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.