Is Prime London Crashing? - Merged Threads

[This time]

21 minutes ago, Wolfie84 said:

Don't forget that the March 16 volumes are bumped up due to the BTL stamp duty rush.  However, it's great to see the foolishness of this in action.  Massive rush to buy, before the price of what you're getting drops - and more so than the actual tax rise.  Peak stupidity?

I've been waiting for the opportunity to post this beauty I found.

Bought on the 30th of March for £610k, total refurb job:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=39918651&sale=79068576&country=england

Same street, same sale day even, much better condition for £550k:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=34324249&sale=88033071&country=england

So they paid £60k more for a house in a much worse state to save £16.5k. It took them six months and probably about £100k to get it ready to rent out:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-61945568.html

[thewig]

2 hours ago, This time said:

I've been waiting for the opportunity to post this beauty I found.

Bought on the 30th of March for £610k, total refurb job:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=39918651&sale=79068576&country=england

Same street, same sale day even, much better condition for £550k:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=34324249&sale=88033071&country=england

So they paid £60k more for a house in a much worse state to save £16.5k. It took them six months and probably about £100k to get it ready to rent out:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-61945568.html

 

DEBTjunkies be all "I din't see any first time buyers trying to outbid me innit"

 

[Peter Hun]

4 hours ago, Wolfie84 said:

Don't forget that the March 16 volumes are bumped up due to the BTL stamp duty rush.  However, it's great to see the foolishness of this in action.  Massive rush to buy, before the price of what you're getting drops - and more so than the actual tax rise.  Peak stupidity?

Same situation as the 1989 crash

[One-percent]

3 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Same situation as the 1989 crash

Not quite but close.  I lived and lost through the 89 crash.  It felt like bubble territory then but nothing compared to today. The key difference I think is the multiples lent enabled by the ultra low interest rates. I remember when interest rates shot up, just post the crash and worried about being able to afford the 15 percent rates.  They didn't stay their for long but were still high. I could afford as the lending ratio was sensible. It hurt, but could get by.  Now, not only are we in bubbletastic territory, interest rates are at an all time historic and sustained low. I foresee a perfect storm of falling prices and rising rates. Blood on the dance floor time 

[Peter Hun]

The same  from the point of a tax change cause a mad dash to buy, followed by a crash that wiped out the tax saving.

[One-percent]

Agree Peter, it was the change of miras, can't remember if it was abolished completely or whether it was the removal of the joint application, but it brought forward the purchase of homes. Then buyers dried up.

edit to,add lost 20 k on a 72k purchase. Seemed a lot at the time...

Edited December 13, 2016 by One-percent

[Pop321]

4 hours ago, This time said:

I've been waiting for the opportunity to post this beauty I found.

Bought on the 30th of March for £610k, total refurb job:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=39918651&sale=79068576&country=england

Same street, same sale day even, much better condition for £550k:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/detailMatching.html?prop=34324249&sale=88033071&country=england

So they paid £60k more for a house in a much worse state to save £16.5k. It took them six months and probably about £100k to get it ready to rent out:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-61945568.html

I see this in my area too. People 'looking for something to do up' and it is regardless of the numbers.  

If they want to spend £100k and six months for no return they could feel free and just do my house up for me. I may even make them cups of tea all day. 

The amateur nature of the business model, the purchases made and the amount of money involved is bewildering in terms of risk and stupidity. Many have been lucky but this overwhelming sense of HPI forever is so misplaced. 

The stamp duty and C24 will hit the big numbers first (which is why I like this thread and watch what is going on in London).....nice to see an example, good spot. 

[TheCountOfNowhere]

5 hours ago, suntory said:

Kensington and Chelsea now lower than September

2013!!!!!!

Which means they are possibly below 2007 in real terms...inflation linked. 

 

People really need arithmetic and financial planing.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by TheCountOfNowhere

[jiltedjen]

8 minutes ago, Phil321 said:

 

The stamp duty and C24 will hit the big numbers first (which is why I like this thread and watch what is going on in London).....nice to see an example, good spot. 

Booms and crashes always start from the middle of London and wash outwards.
Hench why the booms outside of London take a lot longer to get going, and are generally shorter. 

This thread really is starting to show real early signs of a crash, which should start to make its way to my part of the world in 6-12 months time. Thankfully due to the shear numbers involved in London, it will drag the national average prices down very quickly indeed. 

This is the thread to watch. 

[One-percent]

5 minutes ago, satch said:

Essentially the MIRAS change was the removal of the second person when buying a property, so instead of getting tax relief on 60k (2 x 30K) it was reduced to a per property ie 30k. So people over paid to get a bit of tax relief on the mortgage interest .... then prices fell so these people over over paid!

Cheers satch.  That rings a bell. Even living through it I'm not sure whether it was worth much. It certainly galvanised people into getting in before it was removed. 

[frederico]

1 hour ago, One-percent said:

Not quite but close.  I lived and lost through the 89 crash.  It felt like bubble territory then but nothing compared to today. The key difference I think is the multiples lent enabled by the ultra low interest rates. I remember when interest rates shot up, just post the crash and worried about being able to afford the 15 percent rates.  They didn't stay their for long but were still high. I could afford as the lending ratio was sensible. It hurt, but could get by.  Now, not only are we in bubbletastic territory, interest rates are at an all time historic and sustained low. I foresee a perfect storm of falling prices and rising rates. Blood on the dance floor time 

Well yes , I survived 89 and did well in the end. The market was pretty dead for 10 years after that, not sure why it took of in 2000

[One-percent]

2 minutes ago, frederico said:

Well yes , I survived 89 and did well in the end. The market was pretty dead for 10 years after that, not sure why it took of in 2000

I would imagine the loosening of lending rules.  In 1993, I didn't have much of a deposit (negative equity) and wanted to borrow just over 3x +1 by a couple of thousand. I found it incredibly difficult to get my lender to agree. 2000 onwards, I guess that they were lending on my h larger multiples and then there were the liar loans. 

[frederico]

12 minutes ago, One-percent said:

I would imagine the loosening of lending rules.  In 1993, I didn't have much of a deposit (negative equity) and wanted to borrow just over 3x +1 by a couple of thousand. I found it incredibly difficult to get my lender to agree. 2000 onwards, I guess that they were lending on my h larger multiples and then there were the liar loans. 

Yes I remember now, up to about 1999 they had this self regulating financial health check they did, they introduced it to avoid the bubble they had in 1989. Round about 2000 they sort of forgot about it and went a little bit mad.

[Tapori]

[bear.getting.old]

10 hours ago, satch said:

Osborne was going on about the poor saver before he became Chancellor and through his entire term he did nothing for them. First action from the May / Hammond  team ... a cut in the base rate. May will not want a property crash on her watch and will doubtless go on about 'supply and demand' and introduce measures to help builders .... supported by 'portfolio property man' Hammond.

Very true. They both were full of bull before they got in, then carried on with Labours tax and spend but worse.

[Bland Unsight]

5 hours ago, thewig said:

DEBTjunkies be all "I din't see any first time buyers trying to outbid me innit"

You got game.

[thewig]

13 minutes ago, Bland Unsight said:

You got game.

Word fam

[Bland Unsight]

3 hours ago, frederico said:

Well yes , I survived 89 and did well in the end. The market was pretty dead for 10 years after that, not sure why it took of in 2000

This is basically when central banks switched from a kind of rule of thumb approach to financial stability and sound money (which included a commitment to taking away the punch bowl) to an explicit and communicated policy of targeting inflation (and crucially targeting consumer prices, CPI). As the inflation of house prices wasn't captured by CPI it had no impact on policy. In the fullness of time the central banks came to a policy of essentially ignoring the financial stability consequences of bonkers asset price bubbles, including bubbles in house prices (they knew they could Ctrl+P and bail).

One way of looking at things right now is that present events are a story of how central banks cannot ignore the political consequences of responding to financial instability by bailing out daft, over-leveraged c**ts and screwing everyone else.

Hence exciting politics.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Bland Unsight

[dances with sheeple]

5 minutes ago, Bland Unsight said:

This is basically when central banks switched from a kind of rule of thumb approach to financial stability and sound money (which included a commitment to taking away the punch bowl) to an explicit and communicated policy of targeting inflation (and crucially targeting consumer prices, CPI). As the inflation of house prices wasn't captured by CPI it had no impact on policy. In the fullness of time the central banks came to a policy of essentially ignoring the financial stability consequences of bonkers asset price bubbles, including bubbles in house prices (they knew they could Ctrl+P and bail).

One way of looking at things right now is that present events are a story of how central banks cannot ignore the political consequences of responding to financial instability by bailing out daft, over-leveraged c**ts and screwing everyone else.

Hence exciting politics.

It went from a banking crisis, to a sovereign debt crisis, to a political "crisis" (depending where your VI is) and the elites know that they over-reached with the bail outs for elites and F8ucked up. IMO.

[wherebee]

It's an interesting discussion point I can use to piss off Democrats (US) and Labour luvvies (UK) even more - if the governments of the day had acted sensibly on house prices, Trump and BREXIT would probably not have happened.

 

[Bland Unsight]

14 minutes ago, dances with sheeple said:

It went from a banking crisis, to a sovereign debt crisis, to a political "crisis" (depending where your VI is) and the elites know that they over-reached with the bail outs for elites and F8ucked up. IMO.

The inter-relationship between the government and the banks (and in particular the solvency of the latter) is enormously significant, and much ignored. When it comes to the question of inflation, be it consumer prices or asset prices, then the fact that the private banks are the only game in town when it comes to the creation of money means that the private banks are an integral part of the system in which the government seeks to order its own finances.

Bankrupting the banks requires the government taking control of the money supply. Politicians might be radicalised by events but they are not inherently radical (well certainly not time-serving Conservatives, Labour politicians and Lib-Dems, and when push comes to shove I doubt that economically speaking UKIP MPs would be any different, if there ever was such a thing, for real).

For politicians the way in which the private banks and the state sit hand in glove is invisible and therefore unquestionable. They swim through that reality as a fish swims through water. They don't perceive the water and argue for greater aridity; the water is all that there is.

[stormymonday_2011]

14 minutes ago, dances with sheeple said:

It went from a banking crisis, to a sovereign debt crisis, to a political "crisis" (depending where your VI is) and the elites know that they over-reached with the bail outs for elites and F8ucked up. IMO.

Unfortunately, history suggests that when the elites get in this position they look to start serious shooting wars to deflect the anger of their own populations and to create the opportunity to steal from other elites. The 'steady drummer' has been beating out the rhythm of conflict today in both the media and Parliament. I expect we will be hearing a lot more of it over the next 12 months

 

[Peter Hun]

Back on-topic please.

[frederico]

6 hours ago, wherebee said:

It's an interesting discussion point I can use to piss off Democrats (US) and Labour luvvies (UK) even more - if the governments of the day had acted sensibly on house prices, Trump and BREXIT would probably not have happened.

 

Yes, all they had to do was keep house prices and rents at sensible levels.

[dances with sheeple]

8 hours ago, Bland Unsight said:

The inter-relationship between the government and the banks (and in particular the solvency of the latter) is enormously significant, and much ignored. When it comes to the question of inflation, be it consumer prices or asset prices, then the fact that the private banks are the only game in town when it comes to the creation of money means that the private banks are an integral part of the system in which the government seeks to order its own finances.

Bankrupting the banks requires the government taking control of the money supply. Politicians might be radicalised by events but they are not inherently radical (well certainly not time-serving Conservatives, Labour politicians and Lib-Dems, and when push comes to shove I doubt that economically speaking UKIP MPs would be any different, if there ever was such a thing, for real).

For politicians the way in which the private banks and the state sit hand in glove is invisible and therefore unquestionable. They swim through that reality as a fish swims through water. They don't perceive the water and argue for greater aridity; the water is all that there is.

Eventually who creates and controls money will become mainstream discussions, don`t know how long though, but the public have the power to control how much they dip into the credit trough, although so far it is dipped or not dipped due to "Fear" or "Greed" (for the most part) not activism against the ruling banking elite (although I would relish seeing the public en masse taming and controlling the reach of the banks.