Coming 'oil Glut' May Push Global Economy Into Deflation

[Venger]

Euro zone deflation is entirely a choice.

Germany refuses to inflate and forcing deflation on PIIGS

Oil prices falling is good for everybody except despots.

This isn't a deflation like we had in '08 caused by a freezing of the credit markets/inter bank lending this is just a normal and very healthy end of the commodity cycle and start of the next secular equity bull market.

China/Japan though...........won't end well. At all.

Yes, and the correct choice. I don't want to dilute my savings with those who've been spending/buying/overpaying for years either. Germany has its own problems and own strains on its economy/finances going forward (growing elderly population - infrastructure needing improving - energy needs), where it may need its reserves and to have a surplus for once.

Err, markets. Other countries EU are attracting investment. Too much about protecting the VI. Sometimes you need to shake out the dead wood. Won't end well for complacent VI hyperinflated asset owners, asset hoarders, those expecting 20 more years racing away hpi.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Venger

[R K]

Yes, and the correct choice. I don't want to dilute my savings with those who've been spending/buying/overpaying for years either. Germany has its own problems and own strains on its economy/finances going forward (growing elderly population - infrastructure needing improving - energy needs), where it may need its reserves and to have a surplus for once.

You're not in a fixed currency union with Germany.

Balances within a currency union must net to zero. German 'savings' must thus = someone else's 'borrowings'. The more they 'save' the more someone else is forced to 'borrow'.

Rather than repeat nonsense you could more usefully spend some time educating yourself.

[bankstersparadise]

Euro zone deflation is entirely a choice.

Germany refuses to inflate and forcing deflation on PIIGS

Oil prices falling is good for everybody except despots.

This isn't a deflation like we had in '08 caused by a freezing of the credit markets/inter bank lending this is just a normal and very healthy end of the commodity cycle and start of the next secular equity bull market.

China/Japan though...........won't end well. At all.

+1

And this is mega bullish for UK property, lower cost of living, less pressure on real wages, excuse for looser for longer monetary policy, easing of our current account worries on the pound etc.

[Venger]

You're not in a fixed currency union with Germany.

Balances within a currency union must net to zero. German 'savings' must thus = someone else's 'borrowings'. The more they 'save' the more someone else is forced to 'borrow'.

Rather than repeat nonsense you could more usefully spend some time educating yourself.

Markets are self-balancing, when they're allowed to be (not when corruption is in play), although it involves not protecting VI / debts / asset values.

Others look for value opportunities to invest in the countries that are experience depression. Others start business which can compete against high-cost competitor EU countries, or seize new opportunies, including retirement/nursing care for Germany's elders, but also throughout the sectors.

Mega bullish for UK property? We make our own decisions; it's been like HPI central on the forum for quite a while.

[bankstersparadise]

Other countries EU are attracting investment. Too much about protecting the VI. Sometimes you need to shake out the dead wood.

Some funny views on what is happening in the EU/EMU these days from HPCers. Definitely way too much of the Brussels Kool-aid being swilled.

The EMU is currently surviving because of VIs in the periphery are wanting to protect their interests in hard currency (ie Euro) rather than take re-basing into old currencies (drachma, lira, peseta etc). This is hurting ordinary folk and the young in these countries.

Yes investment stats in Euro-land will improve but that is because of financial repression announced recently and the QE coming right around the corner.

Now asset poor Germans are going to foot the bill to keep insolvent banks (and countries) afloat just so the German elite can control Europe and keep their own corrupt banks alive. I guess the 25 years of hard work and productivity gains of the German worker wasn't theirs to keep.

[bankstersparadise]

Mega bullish for UK property? We make our own decisions; it's been like HPI central on the forum for quite a while.

Sorry for the OTT language but a deflationary shock of this nature would play into the hands of those VIs you repeatably reference.

[zugzwang]

Sorry for the OTT language but a deflationary shock of this nature would play into the hands of those VIs you repeatably reference.

No it won't. The capital structure supporting shale oil production will be the first victim, with layoffs and industry supply interruptions to follow, and the price of oil will go shooting right back up again.

[Venger]

[..]rather than take re-basing into old currencies (drachma, lira, peseta etc). This is hurting ordinary folk and the young in these countries.

Sorry for the OTT language but a deflationary shock of this nature would play into the hands of those VIs you repeatably reference.

We agree to disagree, although probably agree there is pain.

I've set out the case how some of my associates would love to buy in, at a much lower price, to their firm. A share each, fresh loans/bank lending creating some velocity... to a company run by 4 olds, who've already had decades of long-wave boom, top houses bought cheap years ago, still drawing the biggest of the profits, under some forbearance, over-expanded 2003-2007. A dozen new younger owners taking a slice of the profits each, instead of some olds who already have it all in life. Afterwards selling off non-core parts of the business to other younger entrants to do the same. Creative destruction, and also perhaps leading to hpc.

Falling raw-prices in other sectors, may lead to some boost for companies, but also put pressure on their debt positions reliant on charging end users higher prices. Good for some companies, not so much for others. I recall oil sector cutbacks and job losses with lower oil prices too, on many an occasion.. All in all, it's the level of debt many companies have to service, that might be affected.

[zugzwang]

We agree to disagree, although probably agree there is pain.

I've set out the case how some of my associates would love to buy in, at a much lower price, to their firm. A share each, fresh loans/bank lending creating some velocity... to a company run by 4 olds, who've already had decades of long-wave boom, top houses bought cheap years ago, still drawing the biggest of the profits, under some forbearance, over-expanded 2003-2007. A dozen new younger owners taking a slice of the profits each, instead of some olds who already have it all in life. Afterwards selling off non-core parts of the business to other younger entrants to do the same. Creative destruction, and also perhaps leading to hpc.

Falling raw-prices in other sectors, may lead to some boost for companies, but also put pressure on their debt positions reliant on charging end users higher prices. Good for some companies, not so much for others. I recall oil sector cutbacks and job losses with lower oil prices too, on many an occasion.. All in all, it's the level of debt many companies have to service, that might be affected.

If Shell can't make money out of shale, who can? Only the banksters arranging liar loans to the cowboy outfits, of course.

(Reuters) - Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) will cut spending by a fifth and lay off staff at its American exploration and production business, the company said on Thursday, in another sign that oil majors are struggling to profit from the booming U.S. shale sector.

Oil and natural gas pumped from North American shale have proved a boon for many smaller energy businesses, but the world's biggest oil companies, including BP (BP.L) and Exxon Mobil (XOM.N), have had less success unlocking the prolific rock's full potential.

London-based BP announced last week that it is to spin off its onshore U.S. oil and gas assets into a separate business to improve performance.

"Financial performance there is frankly not acceptable ... some of our exploration bets have simply not worked out," said Ben van Beurden, who was head of refining before being promoted to Shell's top job at the start of the year.

Oil companies active in North American shale have broad exposure to profit-sapping U.S. natural gas, prices of which fell to their lowest in a decade during 2012 but rebounded as a cold winter depleted gas in storage.

Shell, which is already selling more than 700,000 acres of U.S. shale assets, said it will cut permanent staff and contractors in North American onshore oil and gas exploration by 30 percent.

The intent is to reduce headcount this year by about 400 Shell staff to about 1,400 people, many of whom will be redeployed to higher priority projects, a Shell spokeswoman said. The number of contractors working in this area for Shell is smaller than the number of permanent staffers, she added.

The company last year lost $900 million in its upstream Americas unit.

HOUSTON – As major shale plays fuel the nation’s energy production, some aspects of Texas banking are starting to echo the overzealous oil and gas lending of the past, says David Zalman, chairman and CEO of Houston-based Prosperity Bancshares.

Loans have become very cheap for oil and gas companies, Zalman said in a recent interview with FuelFix, and some banks are offering 10-year payout terms for loans that would normally get five-year terms.

Some lenders are “stretching pricing and payout periods, and we’ve lost business because of it,” he said. “What we have seen is some of the banks are even lending money on nonproducing property. That’s where it’s becoming a bigger issue.”

Both federal and state regulators are beginning to take notice. Rumors are trickling out of the market that some banks are loosening their lending standards and extending loan lifespans to undercut their competitors. That defies a pillar of banking: Never let the term of a loan outlive the life of the collateral used to secure that loan, said Robert Bacon, deputy commissioner for the Texas Department of Banking.

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/05/20/bank-loan-standards-bending-for-oil-companies/

[R K]

We agree to disagree, although probably agree there is pain.

I've set out the case how some of my associates would love to buy in, at a much lower price, to their firm. A share each, fresh loans/bank lending creating some velocity... to a company run by 4 olds, who've already had decades of long-wave boom, top houses bought cheap years ago, still drawing the biggest of the profits, under some forbearance, over-expanded 2003-2007. A dozen new younger owners taking a slice of the profits each, instead of some olds who already have it all in life. Afterwards selling off non-core parts of the business to other younger entrants to do the same. Creative destruction, and also perhaps leading to hpc.

Falling raw-prices in other sectors, may lead to some boost for companies, but also put pressure on their debt positions reliant on charging end users higher prices. Good for some companies, not so much for others. I recall oil sector cutbacks and job losses with lower oil prices too, on many an occasion.. All in all, it's the level of debt many companies have to service, that might be affected.

you fail to recognise or understand (or perhaps don't wish to believe it) that 'creative destruction' and 'asset price' destruction = destruction of 'savings'.

That's precisely what you are arguing for.

At the same time as arguing that it mustn't be your savings.

you apply this nonsensical view of the world to the UK economy, to the Euro economy and to the world economy.

Rather than keep repeating these inane falsehoods your time would be better spent googling what 'savings' are. What 'consumption' is. How the 2 relate to one another. What a country running a trade surplus or deficit means, and what it means for other countries who must either be importing or exporting demand/supply.

Once you've googled that, take a look at Target2 to see how the Eurozone handles these imbalances and what that means for German 'savings'.

When you've done all that you'll be able to come back with something more informed than 'we can agree to disagree' You're disagreeing about something you don't understand nor wish to understand so that you can maintain your lack of comprehension about what 'savings' actually means.

You're doing the equivalent of telling an accountant that credits don't equal debits and balance sheets don't have to balance.

This site is not well served by this sort of ignorance, and it leads people into making very poor, misinformed choices. Not least you.

[Venger]

you fail to recognise or understand (or perhaps don't wish to believe it) that 'creative destruction' and 'asset price' destruction = destruction of 'savings'.

That's precisely what you are arguing for.

At the same time as arguing that it mustn't be your savings.

[..]This site is not well served by this sort of ignorance, and it leads people into making very poor, misinformed choices. Not least you.

Nonsense / inane falsehood - rofl.

My position is proven with crashes, down the decades and centuries in the Western Word - bad positions shaken out, good money/good lending to replace at much lower prices. With only a couple of exceptions, including the current situation (so far).

There has been creative destruction many times over, down the ages, with asset price destruction, where savers have eventually found themselves in a better situation vs holders/debtors of overvalued assets.

At the same time as arguing that it mustn't be your savings. = You're arguing it must never be overvalued housing to correct.

It seems to me you fail to see just how extremely overvalued house prices are, versus younger earners in some of the most senior positions in our area (who don't have bomad).

As far as I see your position, it's the young independent sensible people who must always suffer, chase the carrot, against forever hpi, and 'fairly priced houses' outside of London and SE (moderately overvalued).

Our positions are completely the opposite of one another. Your yield chasers, and forever hpi-ers are setting themselves up for a big fall, imo. I can't find the post you made about our area having "always been in demand" going back hundreds of years. Maybe so, but demand doesn't buy house prices. Credit is tightening again, and velocity has dropped for ages, negative lending vs repayments.

At some point the banks will want to lend. Houses owned outright/high equity, more or less dead money for the banks. HTBers/big debtors will be swept aside; just have to pay what they owe - perhaps still riding it out with low rates. Rest of us savers (not destroyed) will leap over to the mid-to-higher end houses on the market, at much more affordable prices, in a HPC, and choice business assets at lower prices too. We make our own decisions and I've made mine.

It ought not come as a surprise then that nominal house prices have also risen (and imo over the long run will continue to do so).

We know this isn't 1980. We're not coming off high inflation rates, and we know demographics aren't the same as they were post war, so another real terms bubble seems unlikely. Moreover in real terms houses, especially in London/SE are moderately overvalued still. They're clearly not 'cheap'. Against that, this government has done nothing to resolve the supply problem, in fact they've made it worse and wasted 5 years to boot. If a 1 in 100 year collapse in the banking system, and the longest depression in history isn't sufficient to prevent above target nominal price rises then I'd venture that nothing short of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalpyse is likely to do it. Even then, I'd still bet on a Carney put.

You do accept that period, media pump, bull market, 120% LTVs, banks overleveraged, historically high transactions, selling > asking etc etc was 03-07 and not now don't you?

Now it's high deposits, high unemployment, historically low transactions, tighter credit, banks deleveraging, households deleveraging, fiscal tightening, negative real wage increases, selling < asking and so on.

This is the accumulation phase. The buyers are those with strong credit histories, large deposits and/or cash. The boom phase will be when those factors above go into significant reversal, the banks are recapped, wages are rising strongly again and so on.......

That's the macro position. It's puzzling to find anyone who thinks it is otherwise frankly.

As for anecdotals, you can find those to suit any outcome. My sense is bids are getting closer to asking and more recent asking prices appear to have jumped. One friend selling has had competitive bidding from developers, which was a surprise, so they appear to be getting funding again.

It's difficult to see how this is any different to prior consolidation/accumulation phases that we've experienced in the early 80s or mid 90s.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Venger

[Venger]

Your posts are the cause of my bad sleep and nightmares, RK - if that really is the way policymakers/authorities force the market.

(via QE/FLS/0.5%/Asset-purchases/ Global £Trillions stimulus etc)

I think I can understand how you see the market.

It seems stagnant and very closed market, to me, whilst inflicting misery on younger entrants all of the time + savers/rents who did not overstretch... so many landlords out there who are as dumb as anything, who think they are genius.

My hope is you're wrong, and all the stimulus measures, massive reflation, is not sustainable, but bolstering most important financial institutions in a pump-and-dump, for highly profitable new lending against crashed asset prices, of which they have ever less overall exposure to.

[interestrateripoff]

Now asset poor Germans are going to foot the bill to keep insolvent banks (and countries) afloat just so the German elite can control Europe and keep their own corrupt banks alive. I guess the 25 years of hard work and productivity gains of the German worker wasn't theirs to keep.

Ah you mean the Germans keeping the German Landesbanken solvent? The bailouts are to save the German banks from collapse who helpfully lent money to the periphery.

[Ash4781]

Exactly. Simple commodity price falls helps improve demand for other goods and services boosting the economy.

That is entirely different from a declining money supply driving price reductions of goods and services in the economy.

Price falls for oil will act as a boost to the general economy and removes a 'tax on living standards'.

Where do you see wage and productivity growth trends ?

[interestrateripoff]

you fail to recognise or understand (or perhaps don't wish to believe it) that 'creative destruction' and 'asset price' destruction = destruction of 'savings'.

Or revealing malinvestment.

Creative destruction happens all the time in the economy. When was the last time you sent a telegram?

[crashmonitor]

Disappointingly we appear that we may not now benefit from this global deflation....guess it is all subject to the referendum. Basically the pound is imploding and we have economic chaos in store from the Mother of all Messy divorces. I thought we only had the half a trillion pound re-structuring of our public sector and economy at large to worry about. Didn't think the pound was heading for junk status and a complete collapse of the UK economy as well.

Guess the pound at $1.72 is looking like a bloody steal now.

Edited September 9, 2014 by crashmonitor

[R K]

Or revealing malinvestment.

Creative destruction happens all the time in the economy. When was the last time you sent a telegram?

Yes of course it does and it's a wonderful thing. Investment drives productivity, that's basic stuff and is irrelevant.

The destruction youre referring to is destruction of savings. Savings arent some wondrous moral rectitude. Theyre simply an accounting identity. Theyre the residual of income less consumption. Theyre deferred consumption.

An increase in savings = a reduction in consumption = a reduction in demand

If youre germany and you reduce your demand (increase savings) but dont reduce supply (increase unemployment) you must export supply. i.e. your lack of consumption (savings) are forced onto someone else. Youre exporting supply (unemployment) onto other countries (Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy etc).

Those countries are in a currency union with Germany, so their trade deficits imported from Germany (Germany's surplus) is balanced by capital flows. A trade a/c deficit MUST equal a capital a/c surplus. They're accounting entries. Nothing more. Those German 'savings' flow to te defict countries. That's what German 'savings' means. Nothing more.

So those deficits forced on the other countries MUST be recycled. In te EU these flows are accounted for in the Target2 payments system (ultimately). The EZ as a whole MUST be in balance (simple accounting - not debateable) because it's a currency union.

Thus PIIGS deficits are German surpluses (in this simple example).

Thus destruction of these PIIGS deficits = destruction of German savings.

It's the 'savings' which have caused and are the root of the problem in the EZ and thus calling for 'creative destruction', reduction in deficit 'countries 'deficits' is exactly the same as calling for destruction of German savings.

Savings don't exist in isolation from debts. Credits = debits. Creditors = debtors. They are accounting entries that MUST balance.

Hence in the EZ Germany should stop exporting her savings. She's cheating. More so because she's the dominant country in the EZ. She does this by increasing domestic consumption (reducing savings by consuming her own production rather than exporting it) by increasing the domestic inflation rate which has the same effect or by consuming exports of the deficit countries i.e. reversing this process - running deficits with them or if they refuse to do any of these things the German savings MUST be defaulted upon by the PIIIGS to wipe them out. There's nothing moral in this it's just simple maths.

If you want creative destruction then it's destruction of German savings. The root of the problem.

The same applies to all global savings/deficits imbalances of course since global trade works through exactly the same mechanism. Global trade MUST ultimately 'balance' in this way. The financial crisis was in essence a global trade imbalances crisis brought about by imbalances in savings/consumption. Notably in Germany and China.

[R K]

Your posts are the cause of my bad sleep and nightmares, RK - if that really is the way policymakers/authorities force the market.

(via QE/FLS/0.5%/Asset-purchases/ Global £Trillions stimulus etc)

I think I can understand how you see the market.

It seems stagnant and very closed market, to me, whilst inflicting misery on younger entrants all of the time + savers/rents who did not overstretch... so many landlords out there who are as dumb as anything, who think they are genius.

My hope is you're wrong, and all the stimulus measures, massive reflation, is not sustainable, but bolstering most important financial institutions in a pump-and-dump, for highly profitable new lending against crashed asset prices, of which they have ever less overall exposure to.

That's how it is, rather than how I see it.

QE/FLS etc etc is a mechanism to prevent the immediate write down of savings.

Creative destruction is always the destruction of savings/investments. In IRRO's telegram example or the South Sea Bubble, or railways or whatever it is the savings which are destroyed.

It thus doesn't make sense to argue for the destruction of everyone's savings but the security of your personal savings.

Personally I'm all for the destruction of malinvested 'savings' beyond a certain limit. But it seems to be others, including yourself, who want to see destruction of asset prices but protection of savings, which is a nonsense. The two things are indistinguishable. Disorderly cascading deleveraging really wouldn't be the wondrous solution you imagine it to be. See the Great Depression for details.

[onlyme2]

RK.

"Investment drives productivity"

Sometimes,

Sometimes it destroys it. This country's productivity growth is shite, there has been what you call "investment" in pushing up land values; as a result large parts of the manufacturing economy have been paid (or forced) to bog off abroad.

[onlyme2]

RK,

As an example, take a country that can persuade (maybe by force, or threat of releasing a virus that would wipe out the human race) the rest fo the world to take its printed currency in exchange for goods of every kind. It could exist, it would have every good you could imagine but it would not be productive, it would have possibly no productivity at all.

[Sour Mash]

RK.

"Investment drives productivity"

Sometimes,

Sometimes it destroys it. This country's productivity growth is shite, there has been what you call "investment" in pushing up land values; as a result large parts of the manufacturing economy have been paid (or forced) to bog off abroad.

That's not investment - that's speculation and malinvestment.

Investing properly, in productive enterprises, drives productivity and creates wealth.

[onlyme2]

That's not investment - that's speculation and malinvestment.

Investing properly, in productive enterprises, drives productivity and creates wealth.

Exactly, and that is pretty much all this govt and central bank have created and encouraged since they took over the economy with their artificial low rate policies. They are destroyng the economy and productive activity, but they don;t care as they only thing they have any interst in is their own and their chosen beneficiaries.

[Venger]

That's how it is, rather than how I see it.

QE/FLS etc etc is a mechanism to prevent the immediate write down of savings.

Creative destruction is always the destruction of savings/investments. In IRRO's telegram example or the South Sea Bubble, or railways or whatever it is the savings which are destroyed.

It thus doesn't make sense to argue for the destruction of everyone's savings but the security of your personal savings.

Personally I'm all for the destruction of malinvested 'savings' beyond a certain limit. But it seems to be others, including yourself, who want to see destruction of asset prices but protection of savings, which is a nonsense. The two things are indistinguishable. Disorderly cascading deleveraging really wouldn't be the wondrous solution you imagine it to be. See the Great Depression for details.

Savings on deposit, are not the same thing as investments/house prices which are subject to value change.

You, as a market participant, choose to hold on to houses at these values, or invest in your shares. I hold cash on deposit for I believe they are extremely overvalued. It's not just a world and multiple lifetime of win for one set of investors.

I accept some QE/rates drops have been to protect savers... but now it's time for asset-values which had already ballooned in value in Bubble 1.0, before QE/yield chasers began Bubble 2.0 to extremes, to fall back vs power of savings. Not for this wage inflation / Germany gives back all the money it earnt to the spendaholic debtors.

Great Depression? What like top end New York houses that were selling for upto $1million in 1929, being bought for $90,000 in 1932 onwards? Tell your theories to those bubble-heads who paid $1million in the belief of forever hpi/wage inflation. It was a rebalancing. Like Serpico in early 90s, and the savers who were destroyed that time (err actually they weren't - they were rewarded for those who wanted to upsize at cheaper house prices), as he lost his mansion and all of his businesses (after a life of hard spending, private plane in own hangar, Bentley, live in staff, own race-horses). At times, malinvestment has to be found out.

When the volume of credit is large, investors can perceive vast sums of money and value where in fact there are only repayment contracts, which are financial assets dependent upon consensus valuation and the ability of debtors to pay. IOUs can be issued indefinitely, but they have value only as long as their debtors can live up to them and only to the extent that people believe that they will.

The dynamics of value expansion and contraction explain why a bear market can bankrupt millions of people. At the peak of a credit expansion or a bull market, assets have been valued upward, and all participants are wealthy — both the people who sold the assets and the people who hold the assets. The latter group is far larger than the former, because the total supply of money has been relatively stable while the total value of financial assets has ballooned. When the market turns down, the dynamic goes into reverse. Only a very few owners of a collapsing financial asset trade it for money at 90 percent of peak value. Some others may get out at 80 percent, 50 percent or 30 percent of peak value. In each case, sellers are simply transforming the remaining future value losses to someone else. In a bear market, the vast, vast majority does nothing and gets stuck holding assets with low or non-existent valuations. The “million dollars” that a wealthy investor might have thought he had in his bond portfolio or at a stock’s peak value can quite rapidly become $50,000 or $5000 or $50.

The rest of it just disappears. You see, he never really had a million dollars; all he had was IOUs or stock certificates. The idea that it had a certain financial value was in his head and the heads of others who agreed. When the point of agreement changed, so did the value. Poof! Gone in a flash of aggregated neurons. This is exactly what happens to most investment assets in a period of deflation.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Venger

[Venger]

Sep 8, 2014

Global Oil Glut Brings Back an Old Trade

[..]Abundant global oil supplies have been a major factor in driving the price of Brent crude below $100 a barrel. [..]estimates there are 50 million barrels of oil in floating storage at the moment, the highest level since 2008-2009, the last time this pricing pattern emerged. Recently, tankers of crude from northern and Western Africa were circling around the Atlantic, looking for buyers.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/09/08/global-oil-glut-brings-back-an-old-trade/

Traders/buyers putting it into storage...

[Venger]

Personally I'm all for the destruction of malinvested 'savings' beyond a certain limit. But it seems to be others, including yourself, who want to see destruction of asset prices but protection of savings, which is a nonsense. The two things are indistinguishable. Disorderly cascading deleveraging really wouldn't be the wondrous solution you imagine it to be. See the Great Depression for details.

Where were you from 2000? Protesting against savers having value of their savings towards building a deposit destroyed in value? I somehow doubt it.

So savers get wiped out during the boom, and in your world should be wiped out in a correction from mental prices too? Jog on.

Take another look at, what you consider reasonable value in your area. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Altrincham.html?displayPropertyType=houses&oldDisplayPropertyType=houses&includeSSTC=true&_includeSSTC=on