BearNecessities

If we see £150K by the end of 2011, and £135K by the end of 2012, I think everyone on here will be happy. We will then have 30% off nominals from the top and over 50% in real terms over 5/6 years - which would be on a par with 1989-1995. I don't think the above figures are too ambitious given most of the indicators are and will remain negative through the period.

David Blanchflower Dartmouth College 6106 Rockerfeller Hall Hanover NH 03755 USA Dear Dave Didn't your wife turn bean flicker and go off with another woman? Yours sincerely BN

It's a big if. Although the BoE is supposed to be independent, I don't think the tories are natural printers and political will has a knack of feeding into the MPC. In any event, QE wasn't really the catalyst for a recovery in house prices, it was the ZIRP, that saved so many (particularly BTL) from mortgage oblivion. In someways QE might hasten a HPC, because if it did stoke inflation and adversely affect sterling too much, we might see much higher interests rates much sooner in an attempt to put the fires out.

Anecdotally from someone within the business. Prices fell upwards of 40% from 2007 through to early 2009. Since then there has been something of a recovery, although not throughout the sector. Prime London property with excellent covenant strength has probably recovery over half it losses as either cash rich or foreign investors have returned to the market. Secondry property in secondry locations have improved but not by nearly as much. Yields have hardened a little under ZIRP and QE and rents are pretty stable. Banks have retained property that they have repossessed and have actually become Landlords as they are not financially strong enough for their balance sheets to take the losses at present. Had they put everything to the market in 2008/2009, the losses would have been a lot more than 40%. Not sure what will happen in the future but this is where we are now.

There was a time that the £ was worth more than $4 and was worth more than 9 deutche marks (about 6 euros in todays currency) During that period we went from being a manufacturing powerhouse economy to the basket case we see today Please explain to me what long term benefit devaluation has apart from allowing foreigners to pick off our best assets as is happening today and as happened in 1992 after Black Wednesday.

Simple question Does the end of QE automatically mean that the ZIRP will also end. What are the implications of no QE and ZIRP continuing?

www.ipd.com is not a bad place to look for data Most of it is subscription but the news items are good for research.

I doubt it's trillions of trillions because that would be a bazillion which hasn't been invented yet

Apologies for multiple posts earlier in the thread Mods - please delete the duplicates

BTL in itself wasn't such a bad idea, given we had experienced 6 years of falling values at the time. Many people who suffered repossession in the early 90s had no means or desire to purchase property again any time soon. The glut of prospective tenants and shortage of properties to rent was creating a bubble in rents (yields were commonly 15%+ as opposed to around 5% now) However, when it became rampant around the turn of the decade it should have been heavily restricted and regulated to remove much of the speculation from the market. Or course, the new bosses at the time (Messrs Brown and Blair) were quite happy to see it rage out of control as it fuelled Brown's deluded perpetual boom

BTL in itself wasn't such a bad idea, given we had experienced 6 years of falling values at the time. Many people who suffered repossession in the early 90s had no means or desire to purchase property again any time soon. The glut of prospective tenants and shortage of properties to rent was creating a bubble in rents (yields were commonly 15%+ as opposed to around 5% now) However, when it became rampant around the turn of the decade it should have been heavily restricted and regulated to remove much of the speculation from the market. Or course, the new bosses at the time (Messrs Brown and Blair) were quite happy to see it rage out of control as it fuelled Brown's deluded perpetual boom

BTL in itself wasn't such a bad idea, given we had experienced 6 years of falling values at the time. Many people who suffered repossession in the early 90s had no means or desire to purchase property again any time soon. The glut of prospective tenants and shortage of properties to rent was creating a bubble in rents (yields were commonly 15%+ as opposed to around 5% now) However, when it became rampant around the turn of the decade it should have been heavily restricted and regulated to remove much of the speculation from the market. Or course, the new bosses at the time (Messrs Brown and Blair) were quite happy to see it rage out of control as it fuelled Brown's deluded perpetual boom

BTL in itself wasn't such a bad idea, given we had experienced 6 years of falling values at the time. Many people who suffered repossession in the early 90s had no means or desire to purchase property again any time soon. The glut of prospective tenants and shortage of properties to rent was creating a bubble in rents (yields were commonly 15%+ as opposed to around 5% now) However, when it became rampant around the turn of the decade it should have been heavily restricted and regulated to remove much of the speculation from the market. Or course, the new bosses at the time (Messrs Brown and Blair) were quite happy to see it rage out of control as it fuelled Brown's deluded perpetual boom

BTL in itself wasn't such a bad idea, given we had experienced 6 years of falling values at the time. Many people who suffered repossession in the early 90s had no means or desire to purchase property again any time soon. The glut of prospective tenants and shortage of properties to rent was creating a bubble in rents (yields were commonly 15%+ as opposed to around 5% now) However, when it became rampant around the turn of the decade it should have been heavily restricted and regulated to remove much of the speculation from the market. Or course, the new bosses at the time (Messrs Brown and Blair) were quite happy to see it rage out of control as it fuelled Brown's deluded perpetual boom

BTL in itself wasn't such a bad idea, given we had experienced 6 years of falling values at the time. Many people who suffered repossession in the early 90s had no means or desire to purchase property again any time soon. The glut of prospective tenants and shortage of properties to rent was creating a bubble in rents (yields were commonly 15%+ as opposed to around 5% now) However, when it became rampant around the turn of the decade it should have been heavily restricted and regulated to remove much of the speculation from the market. Or course, the new bosses at the time (Messrs Brown and Blair) were quite happy to see it rage out of control as it fuelled Brown's deluded perpetual boom

BTL in itself wasn't such a bad idea, given we had experienced 6 years of falling values at the time. Many people who suffered repossession in the early 90s had no means or desire to purchase property again any time soon. The glut of prospective tenants and shortage of properties to rent was creating a bubble in rents (yields were commonly 15%+ as opposed to around 5% now) However, when it became rampant around the turn of the decade it should have been heavily restricted and regulated to remove much of the speculation from the market. Or course, the new bosses at the time (Messrs Brown and Blair) were quite happy to see it rage out of control as it fuelled Brown's deluded perpetual boom

BTL in itself wasn't such a bad idea, given we had experienced 6 years of falling values at the time. Many people who suffered repossession in the early 90s had no means or desire to purchase property again any time soon. The glut of prospective tenants and shortage of properties to rent was creating a bubble in rents (yields were commonly 15%+ as opposed to around 5% now) However, when it became rampant around the turn of the decade it should have been heavily restricted and regulated to remove much of the speculation from the market. Or course, the new bosses at the time (Messrs Brown and Blair) were quite happy to see it rage out of control as it fuelled Brown's deluded perpetual boom

BTL in itself wasn't such a bad idea, given we had experienced 6 years of falling values at the time. Many people who suffered repossession in the early 90s had no means or desire to purchase property again any time soon. The glut of prospective tenants and shortage of properties to rent was creating a bubble in rents (yields were commonly 15%+ as opposed to around 5% now) However, when it became rampant around the turn of the decade it should have been heavily restricted and regulated to remove much of the speculation from the market. Or course, the new bosses at the time (Messrs Brown and Blair) were quite happy to see it rage out of control as it fuelled Brown's deluded perpetual boom

BTL in itself wasn't such a bad idea, given we had experienced 6 years of falling values at the time. Many people who suffered repossession in the early 90s had no means or desire to purchase property again any time soon. The glut of prospective tenants and shortage of properties to rent was creating a bubble in rents (yields were commonly 15%+ as opposed to around 5% now) However, when it became rampant around the turn of the decade it should have been heavily restricted and regulated to remove much of the speculation from the market. Or course, the new bosses at the time (Messrs Brown and Blair) were quite happy to see it rage out of control as it fuelled Brown's deluded perpetual boom

BTL in itself wasn't such a bad idea, given we had experienced 6 years of falling values at the time. Many people who suffered repossession in the early 90s had no means or desire to purchase property again any time soon. The glut of prospective tenants and shortage of properties to rent was creating a bubble in rents (yields were commonly 15%+ as opposed to around 5% now) However, when it became rampant around the turn of the decade it should have been heavily restricted and regulated to remove much of the speculation from the market. Or course, the new bosses at the time (Messrs Brown and Blair) were quite happy to see it rage out of control as it fuelled Brown's deluded perpetual boom

BTL in itself wasn't such a bad idea, given we had experienced 6 years of falling values at the time. Many people who suffered repossession in the early 90s had no means or desire to purchase property again any time soon. The glut of prospective tenants and shortage of properties to rent was creating a bubble in rents (yields were commonly 15%+ as opposed to around 5% now) However, when it became rampant around the turn of the decade it should have been heavily restricted and regulated to remove much of the speculation from the market. Or course, the new bosses at the time (Messrs Brown and Blair) were quite happy to see it rage out of control as it fuelled Brown's deluded perpetual boom

BTL in itself wasn't such a bad idea, given we had experienced 6 years of falling values at the time. Many people who suffered repossession in the early 90s had no means or desire to purchase property again any time soon. The glut of prospective tenants and shortage of properties to rent was creating a bubble in rents (yields were commonly 15%+ as opposed to around 5% now) However, when it became rampant around the turn of the decade it should have been heavily restricted and regulated to remove much of the speculation from the market. Or course, the new bosses at the time (Messrs Brown and Blair) were quite happy to see it rage out of control as it fuelled Brown's deluded perpetual boom

BTL in itself wasn't such a bad idea, given we had experienced 6 years of falling values at the time. Many people who suffered repossession in the early 90s had no means or desire to purchase property again any time soon. The glut of prospective tenants and shortage of properties to rent was creating a bubble in rents (yields were commonly 15%+ as opposed to around 5% now) However, when it became rampant around the turn of the decade it should have been heavily restricted and regulated to remove much of the speculation from the market. Or course, the new bosses at the time (Messrs Brown and Blair) were quite happy to see it rage out of control as it fuelled Brown's deluded perpetual boom

Saw very little above 6% unless it had loads of voids and was very difficult to let. Prime was about 3% Client of ours bought recently on a property that will eventually yield 13% (after some defective leases fall out of the equation) - they will have to spend £0.5m doing it up though. That said, excellent long term investment for them

8%ish maybe 10% for stuff very secondary With regard to the opening poster, I will give this opinion from someone inside the commercial property business. Values are generally 40% to 55% off peak. It looks like the banks are looking to protect their balance sheets by not flooding the market which should prevent values falling sharply in the near future, however recovery in value looks a way off at present. Another consideration is that rents are falling and are considered likely to continue falling, also on new contracts considerable rent free periods are generally available. Falling rents are one of the reasons yields have become so soft. Overall commercial leases are not as favourable for tenants as residential ASTs as there can be a large dilapidations bill at the end of a lease and if the building is multi let, the service charge can be high especially if the landlord decides to do refurbishments. On balance, I would come down just in favour of buying your own, although you should exercise caution and make sure your figures double stack up