How far will house prices fall [volume 4]
Discussion
z4chris99 said:
you would think BTL will die in London, i cant see how the numbers can really stack up anymore as rental yields are pushing towards 2-3% net
It feeds itself. As long as the prices continue to rise, the numbers work. Really work. If the numbers work, people are willing to buy in. Which causes the prices to rise. And so on. People have been predicting the end of that for years, but the market doesn't seem to be listening on London.
Justayellowbadge said:
It feeds itself. As long as the prices continue to rise, the numbers work. Really work. If the numbers work, people are willing to buy in. Which causes the prices to rise. And so on.
People have been predicting the end of that for years, but the market doesn't seem to be listening on London.
true, if you think about the capital growth.. if you look at a stable flat market the numbers dont stack up. People have been predicting the end of that for years, but the market doesn't seem to be listening on London.
on new build off plan stuff for example
2 bed. £1.8m - agents think you can get 1400pw for it.. which looking at new build in the area is b
ks. 650/700pw is about right. knock off service charge, interest, and rental fees and you are below zero
z4chris99 said:
valiant said:
Indeed. It's been reported that many foreign investors are not bothering finding tenants and are simply leaving them empty while the property increases in value.
very true. We have guys who do that.. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/sep/27/one-h...
The Candy brothers' luxury development in the London borough of Knightsbridge has more than 80 apartments, but only 19 are registered as "occupied by individuals" for council tax purposes, it has emerged, following a freedom of information request by the magazine Inside Housing.
Of the rest of the properties, which were marketed at £6m for a one-bedroom flat to £100m-plus for a penthouse, the council treats 16 as empty and 26 as second homes. The remaining 23 are registered as occupied by companies.
The Candy brothers' luxury development in the London borough of Knightsbridge has more than 80 apartments, but only 19 are registered as "occupied by individuals" for council tax purposes, it has emerged, following a freedom of information request by the magazine Inside Housing.
Of the rest of the properties, which were marketed at £6m for a one-bedroom flat to £100m-plus for a penthouse, the council treats 16 as empty and 26 as second homes. The remaining 23 are registered as occupied by companies.
Justayellowbadge said:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/sep/27/one-h...
The Candy brothers' luxury development in the London borough of Knightsbridge has more than 80 apartments, but only 19 are registered as "occupied by individuals" for council tax purposes, it has emerged, following a freedom of information request by the magazine Inside Housing.
Of the rest of the properties, which were marketed at £6m for a one-bedroom flat to £100m-plus for a penthouse, the council treats 16 as empty and 26 as second homes. The remaining 23 are registered as occupied by companies.
Need to read up on squatting law The Candy brothers' luxury development in the London borough of Knightsbridge has more than 80 apartments, but only 19 are registered as "occupied by individuals" for council tax purposes, it has emerged, following a freedom of information request by the magazine Inside Housing.
Of the rest of the properties, which were marketed at £6m for a one-bedroom flat to £100m-plus for a penthouse, the council treats 16 as empty and 26 as second homes. The remaining 23 are registered as occupied by companies.
simoid said:
Discussion on the daily politics at present, quite interesting.
Talking about the international nature of London's market, demand outstripping supply elsewhere, the daftness of stamp duty levels, and the need for supply increases.
Under supply of property or over supply of finance? With empty properties, I'd say the latter maybe?Talking about the international nature of London's market, demand outstripping supply elsewhere, the daftness of stamp duty levels, and the need for supply increases.
Pork said:
Under supply of property or over supply of finance? With empty properties, I'd say the latter maybe?
A recurring theme seems to be that stamp duty is discouraging people from moving, so they extend instead, leading to undersupply, higher prices and therefore higher SDLT, discouraging people from moving and etc etc.I believe the RICS figures today suggest Londoners now move, on average, every 22 years, which doesn't help. Not that long ago it was 8.
Pork said:
Under supply of property or over supply of finance? With empty properties, I'd say the latter maybe?
They basically split London apart, the property chap said that since it's an international market with buyers from across the globe it's separate from even other areas in the southeast.He didn't think that lending was a problem in terms of excess demand, saw it as more supply side issues with not enough housing being built, and since stamp duty is a tax on transactions, it means people are less likely to transact unless geographically necessary.
jonah35 said:
They did in about 2009. If someone was on a base rate minus 1% tracker when rates went to half a percent they got paid to have a mortgage.
Just google negative mortgage rate uk and you will see talk of negative rates.
Some providers lent money for free bp but some reduced capital owed.
I know what negative mortgage rates are.Just google negative mortgage rate uk and you will see talk of negative rates.
Some providers lent money for free bp but some reduced capital owed.
You claimed that'some mortgage providers paying the borrowers in this country"
You havent provided evidence of this yet?! As im almost certain its not true. Yes some lucky folks were on near zero i/r but no banks were paying there capital off.(you cant go lower than zero % interest)
jonny70 said:
You havent provided evidence of this yet?! As im almost certain its not true. Yes some lucky folks were on near zero i/r but no banks were paying there capital off.(you cant go lower than zero % interest)
Agree, it was always Base+ a factor, lowest I have heard is 0.25%.anonymous said:
[redacted]
few guys live there, they are not billionaires, but the have done well.. anything Nick says you put nick tax on it.. he will inflate how much he paid for a coffee just so it sounds expensive. Normal? maybe, in these countries the gov can come and take your company, house, money etc.. to pay a little per year to park it in london which is safe is nothing.
KYC is done by both their lawyers, and the sellers, so it does get done.
RICS reckon house prices will rise by 6% for each of the next 5 years it says here
That's a rise of over a third in total if the back of my fag packet is working OK.
That's a rise of over a third in total if the back of my fag packet is working OK.
turbobloke said:
RICS reckon house prices will rise by 6% for each of the next 5 years it says here
That's a rise of over a third in total if the back of my fag packet is working OK.
lets all jump on the bandwagon incase we miss out , this is what perpetuates a boom the psychologically of FOMOThat's a rise of over a third in total if the back of my fag packet is working OK.
turbobloke said:
RICS reckon house prices will rise by 6% for each of the next 5 years it says here
That's a rise of over a third in total if the back of my fag packet is working OK.
Another Ponzi scheme brought to you by the government - boost property prices, boost share prices, enrich people at the top.That's a rise of over a third in total if the back of my fag packet is working OK.
Are people actually buying property at the prices that it is advertised for? That might seem like a silly question but to put a bit of perspective, I'm 21, earn a bit over the national average and am fortunate enough to have a reasonable deposit. I'd like to buy somewhere (renting with the gf at the moment in Havering) but just can't afford it. I would have hoped that I could afford somewhere vaguely habitable, and yet Warner flats in Walthamstow aren't far off of £300k. Ex-council houses in Dagenham have gone stupid and are now frequently up for well over £200k-220k. Who is buying these places at these prices? I can understand the foreign investment in central London, but surely people can't be paying this money for homes in places like these?
I'm becoming rather disillusioned with London, and I don't even have any intention of living anywhere remotely near the centre.
I'm becoming rather disillusioned with London, and I don't even have any intention of living anywhere remotely near the centre.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff