Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by roadtoruin

  1. I think the financial indusry has created its own narrative re bonuses to justify maintaining scales of pay outside reality. I don't believe someone peforms better for 5 million rather than 2 million - and what does it say about them as a person if that is necessary? Of course you do want top talent, but how much of that involves real foresight or ability to think out of the mainstream balance sheet? These groups of top performers have demonstrated their collective ability to destroy the global economy through 'not seeing it coming'. What else more important were they paid to do but notice impending disaster? Hester was in charge of Abbey National in 2004, now a spanish bank in trouble with a very poor reputation. Then he jumped ship to British Land until that was going nowhere. Seems like his main qualification was simply having been there and done it - like football managers - string of mediocrity in their CV but somehow keep being given top jobs.
  2. Character my @rse, like handing back a million of the £7-8m he's had in the last couple of years is any hardship whatsoever. He's a grasping piece of tory sh1t and has been all his career (shame on labour for appointing him, but then all bankers are tories almost by definition so what's the diff...). Best thing would be if the slimy fat **** would fall off his horse while out hunting and break his neck, save us all a few quid.
  3. Ahhh, the anti-taxation mantra comes again, dressed up with a few bits of homespun doggerel - do you pick these up from homilies printed on souvenir tea towels or something?
  4. And stats show that long-term benefit recipients are one of the lowest voting group. I suspect eventually they will get hammered by both parties for that very reason.
  5. What's it got to do with the councils getting a look in, they're not buying them. And what's with labelling everyone who criticises anything cretins all the time - I happen to be equivocal about this scheme and doubt the councils would lose money; if long-term they do I'll openly say I was wrong. IMO, the idea that a totally free market in housing can operate in the UK with the restricted supply and unequal access to capital that pertains is fanciful. But I wouldn't call you a cretin for believing that.
  6. So you're asserting that if the Govt/Council thought these properties could be purchased by BTLs, then they wouldn't have bothered to set up this scheme. Well you're endowing them with an omniscient power of prediction I very much doubt they possess. And given the hype and cheerleading coming out from the pro-BTL camp in the past few weeks, I'd say price discovery is occurring at the 5-6% yield for them. If prices drop (as they should), then expect to see even more BTL activity competing for affordable housing until some action is taken to curtail them.
  7. It's not spent though, it's lent, and I'd be very surprised if they lost 5% of it through defaults. Might also save money in subsidised rentals and housing benefit. If we were talking propping up 400K mortgages in London, that's a different matter, but isn't this scheme targetted at cheaper housing? The stuff that BTL parasites will hoover up otherwise.
  8. How are they picking? Are the mortgages not open to all applicants? And letting the market decide - that's the market that allowed all the crazy lending to get out of hand because they were insufficiently regulated is it ? - you think they should be handed back total responsibility? The one that's decided that preferential lending to BTLs is the best way to go? Yes, that'll work.
  9. Although an uber-pessimist and a believer in lower prices, I just don't accept that the whole raison d'etre of this scheme is to prop prices up, and plenty of homeowners do not want prices propped up. The HPC argument/mantra is that if schemes like this do not exist, prices will drop because of the unavailable credit. But we have had 'unavailable credit' for months or years now with high deposits required - and with little effect on house prices. I believe if they are going to fall, house prices will, regardless (they did in the early 90's despite easy 95% mortgage availability). It's not the risk of default stopping banks lending 90-95%, but the requirement for higher reserves imposed by Basel II. I see nothing wrong with this scheme provided the lending criteria are prudent; the council will probably save money from their housing budget through not having to give quite so many wedges of cash to private landlords.
  10. It would be interesting to compare how the buyers costs compared vs renting in this lower-priced area. Perhaps the council are counting on saving some money on their outlay on overpriced rents. If there's outbidding to be done, I suspect it will be by the BTL brigade. After all, 5-10% deposits reflect the historical norm for FTBs, not 20-25%, so this scheme could be argued levels the playing field somewhat.
  11. Where's the lie? These are loans of comparatively small size that will be scrutinized (i.e. no self-cert)
  12. Why exactly? More (even if only a few) would-be FTBers are enabled to buy rather than continue renting, so that helps BTLers?
  13. No intrinsic value in your narrow terms perhaps. In mine there is, because I believe generalities, esp. at 99%, are admissible, even necessary to oil human discourse. Otherwise there is never a funny film, an entertaining football match or an irresponsible banker, is there?
  14. When anyone talks about objects emitting value, my heart sinks... Even if I were to argue it, you could only be talking about intrinsic property, not value (the latter having a human context). For though the sun shines on all in it's path, the photosensitive or parched and waterless person detests it and attributes it no value.
  15. No, we simply can't find agreement here. Intrinsic value is not used like that in many situations. With such a restricted and pedantic vocabulary, you must find having any conversations with mere humans difficult.
  16. Ther is no premise to invalidate. Intrinsic does not in this context mean universal.
  17. Proof for intrinsic value would be an object or item that was valued equally at all places and at all times by most humans. And they are too innumerable to count.
  18. That's just a rant because you don't like the political implications of any collectivist system that seeks a common good or utilitarian decision. To say you try to estimate the values of bilions of minds with CBA is either to completely misunderstand or more likely misrepresent the methodology - that posits no such thing. BTW, You don't get to decide what's a waste of time or anti-human. Humans elect to use the CBA system largely because they find the free market makes crap decisions about intangibles like clean air that humans value and corporations don't.
  19. The whole field of cost-benefit analysis and environmental impact analysis is all about doing this ranking of value - it's used in assessments for just about any large public infrastructure project you can mention, and has been for 30 years. There are hundreds of scientific papers written about the various methodologies. Now you can argue about the methodologies used, and vehemently. But when you say "pretty safe to say that it isn't measurable" I sit in awe at your intellect as yet unleashed upon this academic field. If indeed you can prove this, the Nobel prize for philosophy awaits.
  20. Austrian economists? Completely superceded and nothing to do with scientific method. You need to do much better than that.
  21. Most use of the term intrinsic value operates in systems where human involvement is key - it is nothing to do with emissions or reproducible values. What on earth is wrong with intrinsic relating to human preference. You appear to be completely unaware of the methodologies of green economics, pricing intangibles, environmental impact analysis. To think that intrinsic value (in relation to natural resources) is anything to do with emissions is just crass.
  22. There was no theory to falsify. If I said something had intrinsic value, that's not a theory but an observation or an opinion. You can't test it for it's verity. It would be possible to take an object (say a waterfall) and establish that say 96% of people valued it and would pay £x to keep it. On that basis I'd say it had intrinsic value. I don't know where you get the idea that you have to have 100% agreement or a cast-iron system of measurement to establish that something has intrinsic value.
  23. That really is like saying there is no such thing as religious belief. If intelligent people talking to each other about a concept understand what each is going on about, then it exists - even if you say it is a human construct. Most words don't exist in your narrow phsical terms, they describe something mutually understood. Well that's OK because I said I didn't want a unit for intrinsic value because it would have different dimensions for different people. Glad we can agree on this. If you forced me (reluctantly) onto a physical example I'd say a hot spring that conferred heat to a people living in an otherwise cold climate had intrinsic value. If you disagreed it would probably be because some people liked the cold - so OK for them it's a negative value. I think most people undestand the concept, call it intrinsic property if you must...
  24. We're talking about an attribute of one thing, choice doesn't come into it. One could choose between the intrinsic value of two things, but that's not what we were doing here. That is an unrelated statement to my contention - that the value a human placed on a thing could not be measured in SI units. There are underlying physical laws (to the human brain), but we don't have a universal unit for love, hate. intelligence or malice - so I'm guessing one for measuring the beauty of a landscape is a while off yet.
  • 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.