How far will house prices fall? [Volume 3]
Discussion
NoelWatson said:
The entire universe is in negative equity as a result, Mars is up for sale and will no doubt go to some enterprising BTL landlord with a bank loan. Bank loans to viable business exist on Pluto apparently.House prices in September fell by a record 3.6 per cent month-on-month according to a closely watched index, although economists cautioned against reading too much into what can be a volatile measure, particularly when turnover is low.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/733d6f8c-d1f0-11df-965c-...
I thought low volume was meant to be fiction and that the latest-stat-theory was flawless?
It's no wonder things are begining to sall out. Take billions out of the economy - I'm talking finance to SMEs, not the public sector 'cuts' now - and it's easy to predict what happens.
Hundreds of thousands of small businesses - 50k here, 25k there, 100k somewhere else - quickly mounts up to a substantial outflow of capital.
Hundreds of thousands of small businesses - 50k here, 25k there, 100k somewhere else - quickly mounts up to a substantial outflow of capital.
Digga said:
The article harps on about consumers preparing for "for the toughest government spending squeeze in generations", but as well all know, the cuts aren't much depper than Darling had already announced - prior to the revival in house prices - and are unlikely to have significant or immediate effects in any case.
Anyone who looks past the headlines knows that.But a good proportion of the country just believes what the BBC/ITV news feeds them, which is that we're about to enter the dark ages and the cuts are (pick one from the following) brutal/swingeing/cruel/hitting the poorest/hitting homeowners/going to result in hordes of homeless public sector workers/going to result in hordes of homeless housing benefit claimants.
hearing that day after day has to have an impact on consumer confidence.....
Mark Benson said:
Digga said:
The article harps on about consumers preparing for "for the toughest government spending squeeze in generations", but as well all know, the cuts aren't much depper than Darling had already announced - prior to the revival in house prices - and are unlikely to have significant or immediate effects in any case.
Anyone who looks past the headlines knows that.But a good proportion of the country just believes what the BBC/ITV news feeds them, which is that we're about to enter the dark ages and the cuts are (pick one from the following) brutal/swingeing/cruel/hitting the poorest/hitting homeowners/going to result in hordes of homeless public sector workers/going to result in hordes of homeless housing benefit claimants.
hearing that day after day has to have an impact on consumer confidence.....
calling Robert Peston
In fear of chicken soup averages I just plugged my hot property details into a totally trusty house price revaluation site and compared to Q1 2009 it's worth 9% more now. Blimey, I'm off out to buy a mahoosive plasma TV and a bling Range Rover Sport on tick. It's another boom I tells ya.
Wurls said:
turbobloke said:
In fear of chicken soup averages I just plugged my hot property details into a totally trusty house price revaluation site and compared to Q1 2009 it's worth 9% more now. Blimey, I'm off out to buy a mahoosive plasma TV and a bling Range Rover Sport on tick. It's another boom I tells ya.
As its gone up 9%, it will obviously continue to rise at the same pace so you may as well get her indoors a bent conti. They are £99 down, £199 pm, with a £150,000 balloon 
Miser! Treat her to another
Fortunately valuing BTLs is done by Amateurs from the World of Cockeye. I say "fortunately", because the much-loved tories have just dealt a healthy kick in the bolls to the value of many many buy-to-lets via their silly tinkering with Housing Benefit. Apparently what they propose is to cut the HB by 10% for recipients who stay out of work longer than 1 year.
Of course, this LOOKS LIKE a "penalty" on the HB recipient, but in REALITY it is the landlords who will lose 10% of their rents. When the landlords howl about it the councils will say "that's between you and your tenant". And the landlord will then have a choice between continuing a (often stable) tenancy at 10% less, or creating a void, a refurb requirement, and an unknown future with a non-HB tenant. The pros will take option 1, trust me on that.
Fortunately surveys don't take much account of rents when assessing values, or else the much-loved tories would have engineered a nationwide price-fall for many properties by this silliness. Of course what they'll CERTAINLY achieve is massive disgruntlement amongst the landlord community, and guess who THEY mostly vote for?
I've believed for many years that Housing Benefit holds up the whole residential letting sector. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the tories manage to destroy HB. Interesting but not necessarily pleasant, or cheap, for Mr Everyman and his house price, especially if low end properties
start value-crashing.
Of course, this LOOKS LIKE a "penalty" on the HB recipient, but in REALITY it is the landlords who will lose 10% of their rents. When the landlords howl about it the councils will say "that's between you and your tenant". And the landlord will then have a choice between continuing a (often stable) tenancy at 10% less, or creating a void, a refurb requirement, and an unknown future with a non-HB tenant. The pros will take option 1, trust me on that.
Fortunately surveys don't take much account of rents when assessing values, or else the much-loved tories would have engineered a nationwide price-fall for many properties by this silliness. Of course what they'll CERTAINLY achieve is massive disgruntlement amongst the landlord community, and guess who THEY mostly vote for?
I've believed for many years that Housing Benefit holds up the whole residential letting sector. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the tories manage to destroy HB. Interesting but not necessarily pleasant, or cheap, for Mr Everyman and his house price, especially if low end properties
start value-crashing.
Edited by groak on Friday 29th October 13:29
Digga said:
Wurls said:
turbobloke said:
In fear of chicken soup averages I just plugged my hot property details into a totally trusty house price revaluation site and compared to Q1 2009 it's worth 9% more now. Blimey, I'm off out to buy a mahoosive plasma TV and a bling Range Rover Sport on tick. It's another boom I tells ya.
As its gone up 9%, it will obviously continue to rise at the same pace so you may as well get her indoors a bent conti. They are £99 down, £199 pm, with a £150,000 balloon Miser! Treat her to another
groak said:
Fortunately valuing BTLs is done by Amateurs from the World of Cockeye. I say "fortunately", because the much-loved tories have just dealt a healthy kick in the bolls to the value of many many buy-to-lets via their silly tinkering with Housing Benefit. Apparently what they propose is to cut the HB by 10% for recipients who stay out of work longer than 1 year.
Of course, this LOOKS LIKE a "penalty" on the HB recipient, but in REALITY it is the landlords who will lose 10% of their rents. When the landlords howl about it the councils will say "that's between you and your tenant". And the landlord will then have a choice between continuing a (often stable) tenancy at 10% less, or creating a void, a refurb requirement, and an unknown future with a non-HB tenant. The pros will take option 1, trust me on that.
Fortunately surveys don't take much account of rents when assessing values, or else the much-loved tories would have engineered a nationwide price-fall for many properties by this silliness. Of course what they'll CERTAINLY achieve is massive disgruntlement amongst the landlord community, and guess who THEY mostly vote for?
I've believed for many years that Housing Benefit holds up the whole residential letting sector. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the tories manage to destroy HB. Interesting but not necessarily pleasant, or cheap, for Mr Everyman and his house price, especially if low end properties
start value-crashing.
Of course, this LOOKS LIKE a "penalty" on the HB recipient, but in REALITY it is the landlords who will lose 10% of their rents. When the landlords howl about it the councils will say "that's between you and your tenant". And the landlord will then have a choice between continuing a (often stable) tenancy at 10% less, or creating a void, a refurb requirement, and an unknown future with a non-HB tenant. The pros will take option 1, trust me on that.
Fortunately surveys don't take much account of rents when assessing values, or else the much-loved tories would have engineered a nationwide price-fall for many properties by this silliness. Of course what they'll CERTAINLY achieve is massive disgruntlement amongst the landlord community, and guess who THEY mostly vote for?
I've believed for many years that Housing Benefit holds up the whole residential letting sector. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the tories manage to destroy HB. Interesting but not necessarily pleasant, or cheap, for Mr Everyman and his house price, especially if low end properties
start value-crashing.
Edited by groak on Friday 29th October 13:29
groak said:
Of course, this LOOKS LIKE a "penalty" on the HB recipient, but in REALITY it is the landlords who will lose 10% of their rents.
In that case, where do I vote for 20% cutgroak said:
I've believed for many years that Housing Benefit holds up the whole residential letting sector. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the tories manage to destroy HB. Interesting but not necessarily pleasant, or cheap, for Mr Everyman and his house price, especially if low end properties
start value-crashing.
Good, less of an artificial bubble created with my money. start value-crashing.
Have to say, the state creates - inadvertantly or otherwise - these nice little wheezes for capitalists to exploit, but it ultimately also closes them down.
I know someone who's gone from zero to (living like) a millionaire on the back of the state sponsored schemes for energy efficiency (and carbon credits) in homes. Long may it continue for him, but...
I know someone who's gone from zero to (living like) a millionaire on the back of the state sponsored schemes for energy efficiency (and carbon credits) in homes. Long may it continue for him, but...
[quote=Bedford Rascal For me, a true capitalist has to be doing something of value, rather than just creaming cash from an over generous state.
I can't see the landlords who overcharge the state for housing benefit tenants as vastly distinct from the benefit spongers themselves.
[/quote]
Both state and local government outsource a vast array of goods and services from the supply of the buildings they themselves occupy to the creation and operation of the IT systems they work with, the operation of prisons and road repairs, the provision of healthcare and housing for millions of people and so many other goods and services that it wouldn't be possible to list them all. And whilst I accept you're probably just a thoughtless and opinionated cock who doesn't really know anything about how these services are allocated arranged and costed, with HB specifically in mind I'd be fascinated to hear how you reckon - given the way it is administered and paid - it is possible to "overcharge the state" for it? How do you fantasise it works? Do you think the landlord just thinks of a high number, puts it on a lease and hey presto! That's the rent? Well, cock, IS that what you think?
I can't see the landlords who overcharge the state for housing benefit tenants as vastly distinct from the benefit spongers themselves.
[/quote]
Both state and local government outsource a vast array of goods and services from the supply of the buildings they themselves occupy to the creation and operation of the IT systems they work with, the operation of prisons and road repairs, the provision of healthcare and housing for millions of people and so many other goods and services that it wouldn't be possible to list them all. And whilst I accept you're probably just a thoughtless and opinionated cock who doesn't really know anything about how these services are allocated arranged and costed, with HB specifically in mind I'd be fascinated to hear how you reckon - given the way it is administered and paid - it is possible to "overcharge the state" for it? How do you fantasise it works? Do you think the landlord just thinks of a high number, puts it on a lease and hey presto! That's the rent? Well, cock, IS that what you think?
groak said:
thoughtless and opinionated cock
You say that like it's a bad thing.Stepping back from the piping hot exchange, it is hard to see how housing benefit isn't a subsidy that props up the bottom end of the rental market. If demand is outstripping supply, any increase in spending power is going to cause prices to rise. In extreme cases like the utterly inelastic rental sector in central London boroughs, damn nearly all of the extra money injected into the market is going to be absorbed by rising prices ... i.e. shoving more money into the market does not lead to an increase in the supply of rental property. Subsidising people in that kind of market excludes just as many people as it helps and the only beneficiaries are the landlords. That isn't the landlord's fault, of course, but it is an exceptionally stupid thing for the state to be doing.
NoelWatson said:
groak said:
Of course, this LOOKS LIKE a "penalty" on the HB recipient, but in REALITY it is the landlords who will lose 10% of their rents.
In that case, where do I vote for 20% cutgroak said:
I've believed for many years that Housing Benefit holds up the whole residential letting sector. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the tories manage to destroy HB. Interesting but not necessarily pleasant, or cheap, for Mr Everyman and his house price, especially if low end properties
start value-crashing.
Good, less of an artificial bubble created with my money. start value-crashing.
....and what exactly IS to be gained from the stress and anxiety millions of downrated properties in negative equity will produce not only for their owners but also for their lenders? Noel, devalued and lowprice properties will just lead to less desire to own and a bigger rental market, like Germany has. Then you'll be angry about a healthy btl market, unless you think everyone will end up on the streets/in a shanty town as may well be the secret tory agenda. Which do you hate most? The idea of people making money from property as a capital investment or the idea of people making money from property as an income producer? Don't think you can have neither, can you?
ATG said:
groak said:
thoughtless and opinionated cock
You say that like it's a bad thing.Stepping back from the piping hot exchange, it is hard to see how housing benefit isn't a subsidy that props up the bottom end of the rental market. If demand is outstripping supply, any increase in spending power is going to cause prices to rise. In extreme cases like the utterly inelastic rental sector in central London boroughs, damn nearly all of the extra money injected into the market is going to be absorbed by rising prices ... i.e. shoving more money into the market does not lead to an increase in the supply of rental property. Subsidising people in that kind of market excludes just as many people as it helps and the only beneficiaries are the landlords. That isn't the landlord's fault, of course, but it is an exceptionally stupid thing for the state to be doing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff