Sunday, July 26, 2009

Savvy investors benefiting from end of house price crash, apparently

How to cash in on the credit crunch

Two years after “credit crunch” virtually felled the housing market, a group of definite “winners” has emerged from the rubble. A fortunate few have managed to make the most of the downturn thanks to clever dealing, far-sightedness, serendipity. Lower asking prices, low interest rates and higher rents were tempting prospects for investors looking to increase their portfolio or acquire their first buy-to-let. The desire not to miss low-price opportunities has grown — So much so that some parents are using their children as a vehicle to plough money into property. IT consultant Richard invested in two city centre properties in February this year. "I reckon I must have bought on the day the market hit the bottom" he says.

Posted by little professor @ 11:13 AM (2161 views)
Please complete the required fields.



26 thoughts on “Savvy investors benefiting from end of house price crash, apparently

  • little professor says:

    Don’t worry bears, we’ve not missed the boat:

    “Is it too late to cash in on the downturn? Not necessarily. Some agents are predicting a second drop in prices — a so-called “W-shaped recovery” — as the inevitable increase in interest rates hits the housing market. This means the opportunity to take the risk and make money on a second downturn may well present itself again. “

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • what is interesting about this crash the graphs from the 80’s and now seem to mirror each other, almost the same dates too.. then the general issues mirror the great depression, don’t forget the worst part was the 1937 recession… that caught a lot of people out… we have a lot worse to come, no doubt they will revise the latest output figures downward in a month or two..

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Mark/LP,

    The difference between now and the ’80’s or indeed the ’30’s; is the fact that we have virtually no underlying economic growth generators left.

    In the eighties, the computer age was beginning to cut out a lot of tedious paperwork, while the unions’ destructive tendencies were rapidly being tamed. Automation appeared in the motor trade, and other industries.

    In the thirties, we had the emergence of cars and buses as serious means of transport, commercial aeroplanes began to appear, and agriculture became rapidly mechanised (not to mention the appearance of early plastics and radio)

    What have we today? What is the great new technology that will enable us to achieve more for less effort, will enable us to power out of the mire of past mistakes?

    The automation of industry has pretty much run it’s course, information technology is still making leaps and bounds in the field of toys and gadgets, but its role in reducing manpower in commerce is largely spent.

    Medical research still powers ahead, but it’s influence on GDP growth is only marginal.

    We have a huge legacy of excess to address, and no clever, painless way to get away from it…

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • letthemfall says:

    Notice how this article is riddled with anecdotes about people with “guts” and all the usual Times drivel, presumably designed to boost the journalists’ BTL portfolios. The obsession with buying houses has clearly not gone, nor the TV programmes on the subject, which makes me think the refreshed slump is coming shortly.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Many a wise word from Uncle Tom, plus we can add to that the fact that any new technologies and industries that appear will not require large headcounts. I live not too far from the largest bonded warehouse and bottling plant in europe, the size of a car plant it only requires 20 people to operate as it is entirely automated from the point of road tanker entry to palletised delivery collection. Unless we see useless job creation as part of government/european and indeed world policy the days of inflated housing cost as a proportion of per capita income are over.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I think that house prices still have further to drop, but i personally believe that the next technological revolution will be in the renewable energy industry. I think the driver is that the western world is now short on fossil fuels and don’t want to be held to ransom by Russia/Middle east/other resource rich countries. So i expect to see a big drive towards energy and see that as the next potential bubble in maybe 10 years time.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • RE: technoloy producing growth:

    ‘Wired’ produce a list of the top 10 scientific breakthroughs each year. ‘Time’ also do something similar. I haven’t seen a list for 2009 but it promises to be even more astounding

    Here’s some links

    http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/12/YE_10_breakthroughs
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/top-10-scientif/
    http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/11/time-magazine-top-10-scientific-discoveries-of-2008-space-and-physics-dominate/

    The lists are controversial in that many commentators think these lists don’t contain several even bigger breakthroughs. The point is that the breakthroughs are mind blowing in their scope/reach and more importantly are coming thick and fast. Most of them (Large Hadron Collider) are the type of development that cause exponential growth in other scientific fields.

    A golden age of science and technology is probably already upon us (or will be soon). The inner Luddite tells us that not everyone will benefit and that resources are already too stretched. However this reflex reaction fails to understand the purpose of these breakthroughs, which is to create and utilise new resources. We will not forever be fretting about running out of oil and wheat. The argument that robotic production will render most of the population redundant is Victorian in origin and it fails to understand the benefits of cheaper and cleaner energy, cheaper and more abundant food, cheaper and more effective medical treatment etc etc. Science and technology has a record of making things cheaper and cheaper always benefit the poor more than the rich. Certainly, manufacturing will no longer employ so many people (thankfully) but as shipbuilder points out, scientists always require engineers and engineers still need a haircut, their plumbing fixed and a new pair of boots.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Flashman – I agree there are lots of scientiffic discoveries to keep people busy but why should this help lift us out of recession? Recessions are either (a) inevitable or (b) caused by economic mismanagement depending on your politics. They are certainly not caused be a lack of scientific innovation which has moved on through boom and bust.
    The main problem for the UK is a gradual loss of competitiveness compared with other countries.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • cyril: It’s about the proper use of capital and re-focusing on real production. Science and technology attracts the right type of investment and creates real jobs. Real Estate attracts the wrong type of investment because it leaches money from real production. The real estate bust has fortunately caused money to seek other outlets and consequently money is pouring into technology and science. The real estate and credit boom sucked the life out of technology investment but governments are starting to look for strategic ways of rebuilding their economies and technology is therefore attracting incentives and preferential treatment. I am thinking globally rather than locally but there is no reason that Britain should not benefit if we embrace the future rather than trying to revisit old bubbles

    For years, I have subscribed to several technology magazines. At first I did it to keep up with events but I admit I now find them entertaining. One thing I have noticed over the last two years is a massive build up of excitement. I am very hopeful that this will be good for us. Of course it rather relies on our government being competant

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • letthemfall says:

    If we had a golden age of science, it was probably about 100 years ago. Technology is another matter, and there have been substantial material benefits over the last 50 years, but also environmental degradation in its wake. The progress in IT has some drawbacks in my view; certainly not everyone has benefited, and some are worse off. Up to now standards of living have risen steadily, but these improved standards have been unequally shared. The approaching age of leisure forecast in the 60s has not come about for that reason: long hours and high incomes against no work and low incomes.

    I’m not all that optimistic about technology heralding a bright future. I believe global warming is almost certainly happening, but technology can only do something about that if people want it, and I’m not sure they do. Perhaps cheap energy will turn up but I am sceptical, despite the potential of fusion, which has kept its potential now for 50 years.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • The inner luddite – Flash glad to see the battle lines are drawn!

    I sense you see a purity in science , the flip side of your relative disillusionment in what you do to earn a living.

    For example you cite the purpose of breakthroughs as creating and utilising new resources, where the true reasons (and there will be manyu) are likely to be less pure and more self centred than that.

    I also looked at the first couple of links and saw nothing in the inventions which would provide an obvious leap forward in an ecomomic sense, and nothing that even seemed particularly innovative, smaller chips are just a refinement and advances in dna treatment also refinements in relation to discoveries that are 50 years old. I think of real progress as something like written word, printing press, creating engines, computing capacity, or nuclear power. I see nothing comparable in the stuff I looked at, although I might be missing advances in my scant reading. I guess at some level I feel that science had promised things all my life and hasn’t really delivered where it matters, life today is not that different from life in the 1970’s/80’s. It’s reminds me of watching the programme “tomorrows world” as a child and always feeling the reality fell short of the vision

    I was going to go on to point out that alot of these breakthroughs will simply increase the human population and further threaten other species and the essential ecological balance, I’m not big on climate change which seems politicized but I do sense that we Ilike any species) need to be subject to limits or we will threaten the whole ecological balance. At its most lurid we could become a bit of a plague.

    But actually my main point is that all of our advancements are doomed to fail when not combined with a shift in conciousness, something which we show little or no interest in. For all our progress we are irreducibly primitives and operate on primitive criteria.

    We also hope to achieve happiness through progress but even at the most prosaic level this seems doomed to fail. It is often said that people become less happy, and more isolated, as they become wealthier and this seems consistent with what I have observed.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Lighten up guys!

    Solar/Wind/Wave/Geothermal energy is limitless and can be used in manufacturing and food production. It’s only VI’s that like to give the impression of “shortages” or “lack of natural resources”, this planet can handle a much larger population than we currently have. I don’t buy into all this doom and gloom stuff.

    Anyway, back on topic, the bottom is not here yet as much as the media are talking things up.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • shipbuilder says:

    alan_540 – how many people the Earth can handle is not just a numbers game, not just a matter of how much food or energy we have. Unfortunately too few people understand that our survival depends on a delicate balance of nature. For example, over 80% of the food crops grown around the world require pollination by animals and insects, such as bees. No pollinators, no crops. No matter how unpleasantly and inconveniently ‘green’ that might sound to many people, it is a fact nonetheless that we do not exist independently from nature. Unfortunately the very basis of our society in its current state is separation from nature and indeed reality.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Bellwether: What battle lines??? The use of the word ‘inner’ clearly refers to something we all have inside us. Did you somehow think it was aimed at you?

    Anyway, what’s with the insulting fabrications again? I am not remotely disillusioned with what I do for a living and in quite moments, I thank my lucky stars. You have to remember that outside HPC, it’s a well regarded profession (amazing though that might sound).

    What difference does it make, why we create new resources and come to think of it, why the incessant cynicism and morbidity? I am completely bewildered by your bristling animosity to the idea that technology and science might help the economy. By all means disagree but being irritated or feeling embattled is a bit OTT? It’s as if I suggested clubbing baby badgers or giving BTL landlords a million quid each. How about if I stayed away from the esoteric …. what if Britain built enough nuclear plants, clean coal plants and wind farms to be energy positive. Would it create 20 years worth of jobs building these things and would it help our balance of payments? I wont go on with endless other examples of this nature because I’m sure you can think of them.

    To paraphrase Ali G: Is it because I is happy? I’ve often wondered if I was inappropriately encroaching on a site of this nature and I think my recent bout of optimism is (inadvertently) just too out of sync. I genuinely though it would be a fairly gentle subject and can’t really summon up the ‘fire’ to continue with it.

    letthemfall: usable small scale fusion is much more of a reality now, but yes, it was just a pipe dream for decades. Dr. Seth Putterman at UCLA is leading one of several teams who have finally managed to make it a reality. The 1989 claims gave the subject a bad name which is why people have a residual cynicism

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Flash I guess because we don’t know each other it is difficult to put comments into context. Generally this might be why pointless arguments can tend to break out in this medium. I really want to stress though that there is, and never has been, any animosity in my posts, and if there was I’d be pretty explicit about it. Really all of this is just a bit of fun to me, and an opportunity to engage in other points of view. I actually quite like a bit of amicable conflict and see it as a productive.

    Probably in order that things don’t get too dull I probably tend to sensationalise to make a point, but essentially I believe in the point I’m making. I also

    As for what you do, I have utmost respect for it, in the sense that I have respect for anyone who makes something of their life. The people on this site who irritate me are the moralists, which is just passive agression.

    I sense you are quite a happy person and there is nothing wrong with optimism in my book, but it does have to earn its living in an environment where greed and irriational exuburance has gotten us into a place where structural issues are so intractable.

    I think also that wanting to be optmistic too soon, as I think this market wants, is symptomatic of the old mania, and that worries me. In my opinion we have not had the lows yet, or the creative destruction, that would let us build from a solid foundation, and this concerns me.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • letthemfall says:

    flashman
    Well, I’ll wait and see. Plenty of groups have created fusion, but doing so for longer than a nanosecond or two and commercially (more energy out than in) has been the problem.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • “(George Franks, area director for the London-based estate agency Douglas & Gordon) His clients are buying property for or with their children. “This generation is old enough to remember how quickly the market recovered after 1992,” he says. “They can now afford to invest and profit from the imminent upturn.” ”

    And how quickly _did_ the market recover after 1992, George? Clearly they’re also old enough for their memories to be going, too… Even in nominal terms it didn’t start rising again until 1996.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • bellwether: No problem at all. I am a generally happy and optimistic person but that is down to what I perceive to have been a ridiculously long streak of luck. My career is incidental but to be honest, that has been a bit of a cakewalk as well. I though that maybe you had inferred something by my talk of retirement but I am only considering it because I am enchanted with my family life and want to spend every possible moment with my wife and kids. Pathetic, isn’t it!

    I have often felt guilty posting here because WTF do I know of the spirit that created this site? My current position of renting is my membership badge but even that is a bit of a cheek because I only STR’ed to avoid tax on a massive development profit (hopefully this scrolls off soon!).

    As you know, I can be well over the top in my attacks on someone who gets too personal or insulting but I studiously avoided that in this case because I judged myself to be the guilty party and I don’t think you have any bad intent. Being optimistic is not a crime but there is a time and a place. On this site it is a bit like telling jokes at a funeral. I was far more comfortable with my stance on trading because I was thought that my attempt to prevent people losing money was more in keeping with the site and was therefore indignant at some of the dangerous advise being pedaled. Incidentally have a look at the Telegraph ‘personal finance’ section. There is a piece on trading there. Several traders (and one illiterate fake trader) have weighed in on the comments. It seems that I am not the only city boy who is angered by some of the flimflam being aimed at the public. You may have thought that I was (and am) being unfair re my harsh trading criticisms but you will have to take my word for it, that if I can put up a roadblock to some of the cobblers, then I consider it to be my good deed for the day.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • lethemfall: I know what you mean. I only became convinced because I have an in-law who works in that field. They overcame my skepticism but I am not up to the job of explaining the technicalities. Incidentally, I am entirely convinced by global warming but am also convinced that science will help us (partially) solve it. Up until now, science has caused it but we were entirely ignorant until quite recently and despite the denials, I think it is widely accepted as a problem now.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • clean coal? pull the other one. I saw a poll recently of industry insiders recently, most of whom thought workable CCS is at least 20 years away IF it’s viable at all, and that still remains to be seen. Early trials have not been encouraging apparently. Neuclear – it would keep the lights on for a while, but if peak oilers are right this while is not going to be very long as it is non-renewable and others will substitute into neuclear too. So is it worth the long term costs of hazardous waste storage and associated catastrophe risks (stretching out practically for ever) for a single ‘next fix’ of unsustainable living? Seems to me it’s not a question of being an optimist or a pessimist, but of realism. The thing that worries me most is teh prevalence of a blind faith in technology without looking at the gory details.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Cheers Flash, the comment re disillusionment were related to comments you had made previously when talking about, I think, a battery system you are working on. I did OTT the illusions about science comment as a bit of sport, although I do think that advances in science are always a double edged sword for as long as we remain, as a species, unaware of our huge tendancy to be egotistical. I’m not advocating an absence of ego which I see as necessary, but a I wonder if a greater awareness of the state and a capacity to have some humour about it, might make us wiser (better able to use our progress in the best way possible) rather than merely technologically more advanced.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • nickb: The Vattenfall plant in Schwarze Pumpe was fired up in September 2008. It has been a success and has thus far exceeded its targets. It is still early days but costs are roughly equivalent to wind power and they think they can improve things. It seems I have inadvertently tapped into a seam of angry technophobes. Throughout history there have been flat-earthers who have tut tutted at every development. Expert testimony has always been abundantly available to claim that every advance made was either unfeasible or somehow morally reprehensible. The sooner this thread is buried the better.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • bellwether: The ‘battery’ thing was actually an Eco bike project with a few friends of mine. We supplied the contacts and made some calls but ultimately it was someones else’s baby. I tried to get involved in desalination once because I thought that a breakthrough in that would have a fantastic impact. I am not entirely altruistic in my interest. I have made some good dosh finding tech start-ups

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Flash, what does one plant operating at one scale in one location with a whacking great subsidy, evaluated so far over an eyeblink duration, prove exactly? And is this information independently verified? I doubt it. I’d rather go with a survey of people in the business. Am I an “angry technophobe”? Whether I am or am not is beside the point – ad hominem really is ducking the issues, just as it would be were I to say “crazed technophile.” “Throughout history” there have also been abundant industrialists willing to profit from every kind of environmental damage and human rights abuses in order to make a fast buck. We should evaluate each technology on its merits and in context.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Flash, what does one plant operating at one scale in one location with a whacking great subsidy, evaluated so far over an eyeblink duration, prove exactly? And is this information independently verified? I doubt it. I’d rather go with a survey of people in the business. Am I an “angry technophobe”? Whether I am or am not is beside the point – ad hominem really is ducking the issues, just as it would be were I to say “crazed technophile.” “Throughout history” there have also been abundant industrialists willing to profit from every kind of environmental damage and human rights abuses in order to make a fast buck. We should evaluate each technology on its merits and in context. And I suggest if we do that many of those that are touted as solutions look counterproductive.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • nickb: The site accepts visitors and it has been widely reported in the press (mainstream and industry). The EU authorities have also independently inspected it several times, so I guess that makes it verified. My ‘ad hominem’ argument was not aimed at you (although I can see how you thought it was). It was really an exasperated pot shot at the manic depressive nature sometimes exhibited on this site. I’ve been indulging in a broad based science and technology argument for a few days now and not one poster thinks there is value, in even the smallest component part of a single technology. They are all mal-intentioned and will ruin our lives. I though I had mistakenly logged on to an Amish site.

    I understand the downsides to the ‘clean coal’ technology but as an economist, I like the idea of creating jobs in the coal mining (boo hiss) and power generation industries. There will be plenty of people left behind in this country and I appreciate the benefits of employing them and making the country ‘energy positive’ into the bargain. People are part of the environment and they need equal consideration.

    I quite like the thought of being labelled a “crazed technophile.” You have to admit it sounds kinda cool.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>