Is Prime London Crashing? - Merged Threads

[Si1]

What is all this nonsense about Thatcher?

Do any of you really remember what it was like in the 80s?

It was grim, double grim and grim some more. And it was savage, blunt, stupid and unsophisticated. Nobody got anything out of the Thatcher years. The great payout and feel-rich spree began with Blair. The Thatcher years were just tough all over.

??

history disagrees

[billybong]

In hindsight Thatcher probably did what she was told to do by the string pullers and bankers except that her beliefs tied in more or less with their wishes and that's how she came to power. She was also seen to have the self belief and determination to see it through against the opposition (opposition in general terms including trade unions and some from within her own party).

Blair and Brown the same (far less opposition in their days of course including from the Conservatives) but compared to Thatcher's days they were far more inclined to tell the big lie "no more boom and bust", "no more house price boom and bust", "prudence", "a few minutes from Iraq" etc etc etc etc etc etc ......................................................................................................................

The big lies have of course also excelled in recent years under the Conservatives and the Junior Conservatives.

Edited April 21, 2015 by billybong

[thehowler]

Thatcher's moves against social housing/promoting rabid home ownership were small acts in the play compared to smashing the unions - miners strike anyone? - wars and aggressive posturing (tank turret pic), welfare bashing, IRA struggles, poll tax and selling off state industries/privitisation. It was another last, desperate throw of the grand empire dice. The council housing stuff was just a petty scheme to debase the power of certain municipal councils - viewed through the prism of today's housing obsessions, yes, it looks significant, but we had almost 15 years of socialists in response and no effort to redress the drift: it wasn't Thatcher that doomed us to HPI greed, it was the inelecuctable economic sweep of the late 20th C to suck in easy money to make peope feel they were getting rich - rockstar class seating on Virgin airlines and daytime tv borrow-five-grand ads say it all.

[Killer Bunny]

Yes the 1970s were fantastic and Thatcher did nothing to bring our country bavk to 1st World status. Nothing at all.

[Damik]

The real causes of the current HPI and building numbers are the low IRs to win elections and moronic planing regulations to protect equity of "haves". To win elections as well.

It has nothing to do with Tchatcher.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Damik

[Killer Bunny]

No once again those are myths.

The primary of rampant HPI is easy lending. #banHTB

Name one country anywhere anytime in history where there was an HPC where there was massive new build and lending continued.

You can't. Be honest and stop peddling a myth.

[Guest_growlers_*]

No once again those are myths.

The primary of rampant HPI is easy lending. #banHTB

Name one country anywhere anytime in history where there was an HPC where there was massive new build and lending continued.

You can't. Be honest and stop peddling a myth.

Watch that recent panorama documentary on housing benefits. There are not enough homes!

Why keep shifting the argument. Just accept that her housing policies were bat shit crazy.

[Damik]

1/ The primary of rampant HPI is easy lending. #banHTB

2/ Name one country anywhere anytime in history where there was an HPC where there was massive new build and lending continued.

1/ No, the real problem is the economical cycle responsible for causing HPI and HPC. The cycle is caused by CPI and RPI methodology, which excludes the house prices (probably for political reasons). Causing we have had very low IRs from about 2004 and it has generated unsustainable HPI. But this is a political issue caused by election winner: ever growing house prices; dependency of British economy and GDP on it

If the IRs were higher from 2004, the HPI would be in line with the wage inflation, so there would be no crazy unsustainable HPC/HPI.

If we have now 6% IRs HTB or anything would matter. It would not be even demanded as the house prices would be inline with the wages.

2/ All Central Europe has relaxed planning system with affordable building plots in every small village. Especially in small villages to avoid population decrease and related tax intake. Communities are motivated to extend and build more housing. Large proportion of new housing are self builds (your self or sub contractors). The market is less dependant (about 50%) on large builders.

England has a tragic dependency on large builders, which is caused by the planning regulations. As building plots are overpriced and not available as single house plots.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Damik

[Damik]

Watch that recent panorama documentary on housing benefits. There are not enough homes!

Why keep shifting the argument. Just accept that her housing policies were bat shit crazy.

There is not enough homes as there is not enough affordable building plots. Why would anybody need a housing benefit if you can build £30k flat on free government/council land?

The idea we keep house prices high for every body and keep small number of crap places for social housing is just so wrong.

If we live in a normal society only a tiny % of the population should require social housing. In 1995 even McDonald's employees could afford housing without the government help. If the IRs are now 7% and growing a bit it would still be the case.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Damik

[Assume The Opposite]

In hindsight Thatcher probably did what she was told to do by the string pullers and bankers except that her beliefs tied in more or less with their wishes and that's how she came to power. She was also seen to have the self belief and determination to see it through against the opposition (opposition in general terms including trade unions and some from within her own party).

I'd recommend watching the documentary "The century of the self". It explains how Thatcher/banker/neoliberal ideology appealed to people's subconscious desire to consume materialistic things. Credit cards, easy credit, shopping, owning a home all appealed and the sheeple had no idea why and continued to support the Cons. It had been in the making for years with Friedman and other neoliberal nutters. Funny thing is that their ideology used to be laughed at.

The public are now realising this generation and country is ******ed. If your very rich and enjoy social cleansing/hunger games vote Tory in May. If not, don't kid yourself that they care about you. They don't. Then ask yourself why Murdoch attacks Milliband? Is the old fart scared? Probably, because the Labour manifesto mentions breaking up the media empire.

[MarkWeston]

You guys are again trying to make out as if one single thing is responsible for high prices. It is ALL OF THEM. Why do humans persist in putting a stake in the ground and defending it to the death despite evidence that the stake no longer exists?

But that is off topic. I'll try stick to the topic:

Another month goes by and prices in my little area of SW London continue to stay static or drop slightly. Nothing coming on the market below the price I paid in July last year but they do appear to have found some sort of ceiling.

[Damik]

You guys are again trying to make out as if one single thing is responsible for high prices. It is ALL OF THEM. Why do humans persist in putting a stake in the ground and defending it to the death despite evidence that the stake no longer exists?

But that is off topic. I'll try stick to the topic:

Another month goes by and prices in my little area of SW London continue to stay static or drop slightly. Nothing coming on the market below the price I paid in July last year but they do appear to have found some sort of ceiling.

I can guarantee you if the IRs were 7% from 2004 till now this website would even exist!

But perhaps BoE forgot that they are responsible by law to keep the inflation between 2% and 3%. Why they exclude housing is a crazy mystery ...

[MarkWeston]

I can guarantee you if the IRs were 7% from 2004 till now this website would even exist!

But perhaps BoE forgot that they are responsible by law to keep the inflation between 2% and 3%. Why they exclude housing is a crazy mystery ...

No. If IRs were 7% prices would be much much lower but you'd still have high rents and high mortgage repayments. IRs are a primary driver of house prices but have no affect on rents, which are also high.

[FreeTrader]

Watch that recent panorama documentary on housing benefits. There are not enough homes!

Why keep shifting the argument. Just accept that her housing policies were bat shit crazy.

Rather than derailing this thread with your claims about Margaret Thatcher and housebuilding, why not start a new one and make your case there?

Here's a starting point that you might like to consider. The table below shows the annual change in UK population since 1970 (source: ONS series DYAY, UK mid-year population estimates) and the number of homes built each year (source: DCLG Table 209, permanent dwellings completed).

[Damik]

No. If IRs were 7% prices would be much much lower but you'd still have high rents and high mortgage repayments. IRs are a primary driver of house prices but have no affect on rents, which are also high.

Nope, you are wrong. In 1995 both house prices and rents were low and majority could afford them.

[MarkWeston]

Nope, you are wrong. In 1995 both house prices and rents were low and majority could afford them.

We have 15 million more people in the country. I give up though, your stake is safe.

[Damik]

We have 15 million more people in the country. I give up though, your stake is safe.

In 1990 house prices and rents were less affordable than in 1995. With less people!

The real cause is the unsustainable HPI/HPC cycle based on wrong IRs policy. And restrictive planning.

BoE is required by law to keep inflation (including housing as the largest family cost) between 2% and 3%. For political reasons and political idiosyncrasy they fail ...

Edited April 22, 2015 by Damik

[Damik]

No once again those are myths.

The primary of rampant HPI is easy lending. #banHTB

Name one country anywhere anytime in history where there was an HPC where there was massive new build and lending continued.

The lack of landing and credit is caused by the topping of the HPI cycle. When all market players understand that the current price is overinflated, unrealistic and not repayable -> pure speculation.

If the asset price is low and stable (2%/3% HPI max in line with the wage inflation) all the banks would lend for this asset forever; no question asked.

The economical cycle and unsustainable inflation cause the lack of landing and credit. No the other way around.

You could argue that some HPCs were caused by oil shock or some other economical shocks. But this is not the real cause. The real cause is the unsustainable inflation and overinflated pricing.

If you have 20% pa HPI like London 2013 sooner or later you will get the HPC as the wage inflation is only 2% pa. Even with perfect economy and unlimited credit. Even with 0% IR and HTB1,2,3,x. It can be triggered by some economical event, but this is not the real cause. The real cause is the high price of the asset.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Damik

[Killer Bunny]

Not one example where high building and high interest rates brought down HPs. Not one. And you're all saying that I'm wrong. Too funny.

In Japan where IRs were 0% and mortgage lending collapsed so did HPs.

Believe what you want but those are facts guys. I've long lost beliefs and hopes re the markets.

For me I'm now done for the mo.

[FreeTrader]

From today's Bank of England Agents' Summary of Business Conditions:

Housing market

Housing market transactions had picked up modestly over the
year to date, but remained lower than a year earlier. Buyer
enquiries had increased more strongly than instructions to sell,
so supply was still short in some regions. Activity was
expected to remain sluggish until after the general election,
especially in central London, where prices had continued to
fall. House price growth had remained modest in most other
regions.

Construction

Construction output growth had remained robust, although
the pace of increase on a year earlier had eased a little
further. Growth had remained strong across a range of
sectors, especially higher education. Speculative development
was still largely concentrated around London, with limited
activity in a few other geographical areas generally restricted
to distribution and warehousing. Growth in private new house
building had slowed on a year ago, reflecting a combination of
factors, including skills shortages and large house builders
concentrating on improving margins.

[Damik]

Not one example where high building and high interest rates brought down HPs. Not one. And you're all saying that I'm wrong. Too funny.

In Japan where IRs were 0% and mortgage lending collapsed so did HPs.

I miss your point here:

- if the IRs are high house prices would never get high or if they are high already they would collapse

- Japan house prices collapsed as there got so high people (market players) could not afford them; this caused the lending collapse; not the other way around

- If Japan house prices were stable and low with 2%/3% inflation per year max, the banks would always provide landing for it. As its safe and reasonable.

- you stop lending for asset if you believe the price will fall

For example lending/financing for cars (new/2nd handed) is always there and available as car prices are stable and relatively affordable.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Damik

[richc]

Not one example where high building and high interest rates brought down HPs. Not one. And you're all saying that I'm wrong. Too funny.

In Japan where IRs were 0% and mortgage lending collapsed so did HPs.

Believe what you want but those are facts guys. I've long lost beliefs and hopes re the markets.

For me I'm now done for the mo.

I'm not sure that I would agree with your premise that IRs and building have never lowered house prices. The Federal Reserve in the US increased interest rates at the end of the 1980s which ended the housing boom in states like California and Texas, in the midst of high levels of new construction. Prices declined by about a third in California between 1987 and 1995.

[Damik]

From today's Bank of England Agents' Summary of Business Conditions:

Housing market

Housing market transactions had picked up modestly over the

year to date, but remained lower than a year earlier. Buyer

enquiries had increased more strongly than instructions to sell,

so supply was still short in some regions. Activity was

expected to remain sluggish until after the general election,

especially in central London, where prices had continued to

fall. House price growth had remained modest in most other

regions.

Construction

Construction output growth had remained robust, although

the pace of increase on a year earlier had eased a little

further. Growth had remained strong across a range of

sectors, especially higher education. Speculative development

was still largely concentrated around London, with limited

activity in a few other geographical areas generally restricted

to distribution and warehousing. Growth in private new house

building had slowed on a year ago, reflecting a combination of

factors, including skills shortages and large house builders

concentrating on improving margins.

I am waiting for the LR data this week/next week. The LR tweeted yesterday they are 0.8% down. I assume that England is going up a bit. And the 0.8% drop is purely caused by Primish London ...

[Damik]

I'm not sure that I would agree with your premise that IRs and building have never lowered house prices. The Federal Reserve in the US increased interest rates at the end of the 1980s which ended the housing boom in states like California and Texas, in the midst of high levels of new construction. Prices declined by about a third in California between 1987 and 1995.

What troubles me is that Governments and Central Banks indeed use the IRs to manage the economical cycles. But somehow they always miss the housing price cycles, which very often destroy the whole economies when they pop.

As this is just so wrong and moronic I start to believe it is caused by a political pressure to "grow for ever" to win elections ...

[Venger]

I'm not sure that I would agree with your premise that IRs and building have never lowered house prices. The Federal Reserve in the US increased interest rates at the end of the 1980s which ended the housing boom in states like California and Texas, in the midst of high levels of new construction. Prices declined by about a third in California between 1987 and 1995.

With other buyers here-and-there, in a solid financial position, able to negotiate much lower transaction prices, in a market, leading to big market entry by many younger people... opportunity to finally upsize for others.

According to some of the yelping HPC Poodles though, we should be campaigning against HPC, and instead supporting the flippers of £1m houses in nice suburbs, houses left empty, when same flippers have their main homes in Kensington bought for £3.6m in year 2000 and similar homes on market for £9m+. (reduced from £10M asking).. enjoy our lives as willing forever renters to prevent any market shakeup.

www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-46092169.html

Paul

October 4, 2014 at 4:18 pm

….EXACTLY CORRECT ….

This spike in escalating home prices was due to temporary lack of inventory,

but the prices and sales are declining slowly.

Once the reductions TAKE HOLD .. the price reductions will escalate …. WHY?????

Because the REAL ESTATE SALES PEOPLE (Agents/Brokers)

MUST MAKE A LIVING .. THEY WILL TELL THE SELLERS ANYTHING …

” Sorry — I can’t get you Top Dollar for your house… Sales are DECLINING”

What the R.E. Agent/Broker is really saying is :

” I really need to SELL SOMETHING, I have bills to pay and I need to make

a quick sale on your p.o.s. House — I need my money FIRST … You can take

your FANTASY PROFIT that we promised you when you signed the Listing Agreement

and just “eat your heart out” ….. TOUGH LUCK FOR YOU…. I NEED MY COMMISSION,

IT’S TIME TO DISCOUNT YOUR damn PROPERTY”.

*** AND THAT IS EXACTLY HOW THIS WILL PLAY OUT.****

Just go back and take a look at 1991 to 1996 California R.E. Statistics,

I lived through it and bought a house at 75% discount. I saw how

desperate and hungry the Agents and Brokers were — THEY ONLY CARED

ABOUT THEIR COMMISSION….. REALITY RETURNS TO US AGAIN.