timebandit Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 The article with stock photo of a woman not happy with HPC partner I will let you guys dissect her arguments, but she has just purchased a house. Lana Clements Am i the only person who thinks Help To Buy is a good idea? Writing about it later today. Timebandit @LanaC Yes,policy will only help developers share prices. High house prices=high labour, prod & living costs= uncompetitive in a global econ My linkLana Clements @Timebandit_ ok, well at least it should help debate! Timebandit @LanaC remove all taxpayers funding, allow the market 2 find its own affordability.New council tax banding 4 land with planning permission. PricedOut @robbieds @LanaC #HelpToSell isn't just for FTBs & is for houses up to £600k. If we want to make buy-to-let harder, make buy-to-let harder! Lana Clements @pricedoutuk @robbieds no one will do that = equal political suicide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inflating Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 with stock photo of a woman not happy with HPC partner She was my girlfriend, that's me in the background replying to a post by Bloo Loo, and I can confirm her pained expression is due to wind following one of my kidney bean curries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Prices are rising anywayUltimately, this is because demand outweighs supply. Burn. How do journos keep getting away with this? If they believe and buy at super high prices, it then their not victims, just wilfully ignorant and deserve to be in heavy negative equity. Demand alone doesn't cause house prices to rise. Ability and willingness to pay higher prices makes house prices rise, or to support them at highly inflated levels, thus QE, super low rates, then FLS and Help-To-Buy schemes to push the excess credit that the market itself is not willing to provide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I agree with the idea of help to buy - if someone gave me free money to buy a house then I would take it. But- of course- what this scheme is really about is 'help to take on a gigantic debt beyond your ability to repay' not as catchy a name I know-but it would be more accurate. No one is buying anything with this scheme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I ♥ spreadsheets Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Well I know people buying with this scheme. They're over the moon with their new houses, didn't even need to save a proper deposit and got a low rate on the 75% mortgage. Smaller house than I would want though, and the social housing would worry me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imminent_plunge Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Well I know people buying with this scheme. They're over the moon with their new houses, didn't even need to save a proper deposit and got a low rate on the 75% mortgage. Smaller house than I would want though, and the social housing would worry me. What social housing? I thought that requirement had been scrapped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 She was my girlfriend, that's me in the background replying to a post by Bloo Loo, and I can confirm her pained expression is due to wind following one of my kidney bean curries. Glad it wasnt my post that caused the pain. xxx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Well I know people buying with this scheme. They're over the moon with their new houses, didn't even need to save a proper deposit and got a low rate on the 75% mortgage. Smaller house than I would want though, and the social housing would worry me. seems a bit quick to have already bought on this scheme. Maybe you mean the self same schemes that Councils have been runnin for over a year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I ♥ spreadsheets Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 seems a bit quick to have already bought on this scheme. Maybe you mean the self same schemes that Councils have been runnin for over a year? I'm guessing these developments were already being built regardless. Take a look at the Bovis homes website, in fact any of them, they're all plastered with help to buy ads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Travisher Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Well I know people buying with this scheme. They're over the moon with their new houses, didn't even need to save a proper deposit and got a low rate on the 75% mortgage. Smaller house than I would want though, and the social housing would worry me. Um I think you missed the point wonderpup was making... Yes, they are 'buying' but what they are really buying is a bigger mountain of nothing but debt. The only reason the gubbermint dreamed this one up is that it bails out their builder mates who cannot build on land they grabbed at inflated prices in 2007/8. It allows them to build on and sell that overpriced land so they have money to build on the greenbelt they will get to buy when the planning rules are trashed. The losers will be the suckers who buy and the taxpayers who subsidise their purchase. The builders won't give a monkey's since they will have shed their inventory. The banks won't give a monkey's because they will get a return on their bad loans to builders and at that point the gubbermint won't give a monkey's as they will have a new tranch of debt slaves who dare not say boo to them for fear that the subsidy teat is taken away. Its a trap bated with greed and bolstered by desperation. One that will slam shut just when people think they are safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjw Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Unless this is the new paradigm with a massive loan but next to zero interest rates so the monthly cost is the same as before. And if this is the new paradigm why was this not done decades ago? Well, because the authorities didn't want massive inflation back then - but now they think deflationary headwinds due to the global slump are sufficient to counteract the inflationary effect of using QE to keep interest rates down, or at least they are for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibley's Love Child Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Can people not see that in a normal functioning market these schemes would not be necessary? So the buyers must believe that they are getting a good deal ... and not question why the measure is in place and why property is so much higher in terms of wage multiples that it has been in the past and why interest rates are so low. Unless this is the new paradigm with a massive loan but next to zero interest rates so the monthly cost is the same as before. And if this is the new paradigm why was this not done decades ago? Exactly, it's just another desperate throw of the dice to keep the bubble inflated. Admittedly, Labour and the Coalition have succeeded so far in maintaining nominal house prices. It's not so much that HPCers have been proven wrong, just that we're on the wrong end of the sh*tty stick. With real term falling wages and increasing cost of essentials the boiling frog allagory is very appropriate. Still, it's all about following the money; we all know how the builders' share prices were effected by the newest help to buy scheme. It's one massive reach-around between the rent seekers and backed up with state mandate. Much love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I ♥ spreadsheets Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't purchase using this scheme...I just don't see the value in the property. But plenty of people do, particularly now they don't need to save a proper deposit. They genuinely see it as a good opportunity, so I can see plenty of young people conditioned to high house prices getting snagged here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibley's Love Child Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't purchase using this scheme...I just don't see the value in the property. But plenty of people do, particularly now they don't need to save a proper deposit. They genuinely see it as a good opportunity, so I can see plenty of young people conditioned to high house prices getting snagged here. Be that as it may, if previous incarnations of these 'schemes' are anything to go by, the take-up will be somewhere in the double or - at most -treble digits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habeas Domus Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 If prices were going to drop to an affordable level, surely they would have done so already. Well that sounds like sound financial advice, time to rush out and buy a house I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
200p Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 (edited) He won't let us buy a slave box. Edited June 1, 2013 by out2lunch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 (edited) The article with stock photo of a woman not happy with HPC partner I will let you guys dissect her arguments, but she has just purchased a house. This is one of the most stupid, full of basic errors articles I've read in a long time! Incredible. I would understand if it had been published on some some air-headed magazines such as "Grazia" or "heat", but that site pretends to be a financial site! Is Yahoo! "Finance" actually paying this "Lana Clements" for this rubbish?? Why?? What are her qualifications?? Who is the editor?? What are HIS/HER qualifications?? Jesus fecking Christ. . Edited June 1, 2013 by Tired of Waiting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 (edited) The article with stock photo of a woman not happy with HPC partner I will let you guys dissect her arguments, but she has just purchased a house. 'helping debate', if that's the best the author can say about their work when it's pretty obvious what the underlying strength of the argument is. Besides, where did she get the idea that theaverage salary in the 50s was knocking on £10k?! Just total garbage. Nice to see you, timebandit btw! Edited June 1, 2013 by cheeznbreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Another article full of contradictions and mistakes. Then It’s undeniable that property prices in the UK are too high. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) suggests that prices are 20% too high in comparison to earnings and 30% higher in comparison to rent. Ultimately, this is because demand outweighs supply. No mention that ultimately demand is being created by cheap money along with banks' security being guaranteed by taxpayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Is Yahoo! "Finance" actually paying this "Lana Clements" for this rubbish?? Why?? What are her qualifications?? Who is the editor?? What are HIS/HER qualifications?? Jesus fecking Christ. When house prices do begin sliding back hard, let's hope there won't be a massive outcry of excuses for those who chose to buy with even more debt via FLS and Help-To-Buy. Remember the conviction of their belief system in house prices, as evidenced in this story. And no pitying the the clones who just read it and believe it without question, take developer assist schemes and Help-To-Buy. It was the same with the buying masses of 2004-2007. They weren't lured into anything. Renting was dead money and those not getting on the ladder were the stupid ignorant ones. Lana Clements @pricedoutuk @robbieds no one will do that = equal political suicide This is one of the most stupid, full of basic errors articles I've read in a long time! Incredible. I would understand if it had been published on some some air-headed magazines such as "Grazia" or "heat", but that site pretends to be a financial site! Is Yahoo! "Finance" actually paying this "Lana Clements" for this rubbish?? Why?? What are her qualifications?? Who is the editor?? What are HIS/HER qualifications?? They're all at it Tired of Waiting. http://www.cityam.com/article/it-s-good-time-buy-despite-house-price-high Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diver Dan Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 This is one of the most stupid, full of basic errors articles I've read in a long time! Incredible. I would understand if it had been published on some some air-headed magazines such as "Grazia" or "heat", but that site pretends to be a financial site! Is Yahoo! "Finance" actually paying this "Lana Clements" for this rubbish?? Why?? What are her qualifications?? Who is the editor?? What are HIS/HER qualifications?? Jesus fecking Christ. . As usual, the perspicuity of analysis at the bottom half of the internet is better than the bit at the top which was written by a 'professional journalist' who actually gets paid for writing this sort of carp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 As usual, the perspicuity of analysis at the bottom half of the internet (...) Oi! :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 The excrement might be rather too close to the ventilator, for my comfort! What will happen when interest rates go up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 The excrement might be rather too close to the ventilator, for my comfort! What will happen when interest rates go up? no problem, the Government mortgage has a payment escalator if the mark doesnt pay it back in 5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Um I think you missed the point wonderpup was making... Yes, they are 'buying' but what they are really buying is a bigger mountain of nothing but debt. The only reason the gubbermint dreamed this one up is that it bails out their builder mates who cannot build on land they grabbed at inflated prices in 2007/8. It allows them to build on and sell that overpriced land so they have money to build on the greenbelt they will get to buy when the planning rules are trashed. The losers will be the suckers who buy and the taxpayers who subsidise their purchase. The builders won't give a monkey's since they will have shed their inventory. The banks won't give a monkey's because they will get a return on their bad loans to builders and at that point the gubbermint won't give a monkey's as they will have a new tranch of debt slaves who dare not say boo to them for fear that the subsidy teat is taken away. Its a trap bated with greed and bolstered by desperation. One that will slam shut just when people think they are safe. Agree, but I guess the state will let the equity liability slide over time. By that stage the borrowers will have started families and the press reaction will be severe if the state tries to reel in the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.