Have any homebuyers attacked GO's scheme or is it just Economists..
I'm guessing that someone remortgaging a £600k flat who earns £150k a year wil enjoy the state subsidy as much as a miner in the Kent coalfield would've been grateful for a state subsidy. Although the coalfield would've been cheaper to prop up and had far less damaging long term consequences
Let's take that example: a £600K flat, earnings of £150K.
What will the cash cost to the Treasury be of supporting this mortgage be?
It should be zero with no contingent guarantees.
It will be zero (or a rounding error), albeit there is a theoretical cost of contingent guarantees.
*If* this scheme really is temporary then it will be relatively harmless, and will help young people get on the property ladder.
Have any homebuyers attacked GO's scheme or is it just Economists..
I'm guessing that someone remortgaging a £600k flat who earns £150k a year wil enjoy the state subsidy as much as a miner in the Kent coalfield would've been grateful for a state subsidy. Although the coalfield would've been cheaper to prop up and had far less damaging long term consequences
Let's take that example: a £600K flat, earnings of £150K.
What will the cash cost to the Treasury be of supporting this mortgage be?
It should be zero with no contingent guarantees.
It will be zero (or a rounding error), albeit there is a theoretical cost of contingent guarantees.
*If* this scheme really is temporary then it will be relatively harmless, and will help young people get on the property ladder.
If its aim is to get young people on to the property ladder, then the upper limit doesn't need to be £600k.
There's already an Earl of Lincoln (in Australia), a Marquis of Winchester (in South Africa), an Earl of Shrewsbury (occasionally styled as Shropshire). Middlesex is a possibility (subsumed within Dorset, which became extinct).
imo it shows nothing of the sort. You can't take a time of consumer depression and call it normal. People still want houses but they remain for many unaffordable due to banking restraints and shortage of supply. Build more houses and reform the banks and when the bubble deflates don't let it inflate again. Mortgages based above the old fashioned 3x earnings are toppy and only lead to asset inflation. If we want builders to commence on spec we would be better underwriting specific housing projects to directly increase supply.
No one (other than the state which can't afford it) is going to build houses in a falling market. House prices have fallen substantially in real terms which was a useful reduction of the bubble but had serious side effects in terms of housing supply and employment. It is time this stopped and we got some part of our economy back to normal. Of course nothing will be normal until we can get back to real interest rates (should be about 5% at the moment) and government spending back in balance. We are a long way from being fixed but it is wrong to criticise a useful step because it does not complete the journey.
Have any homebuyers attacked GO's scheme or is it just Economists..
I'm guessing that someone remortgaging a £600k flat who earns £150k a year wil enjoy the state subsidy as much as a miner in the Kent coalfield would've been grateful for a state subsidy. Although the coalfield would've been cheaper to prop up and had far less damaging long term consequences
Let's take that example: a £600K flat, earnings of £150K.
What will the cash cost to the Treasury be of supporting this mortgage be?
It should be zero with no contingent guarantees.
It will be zero (or a rounding error), albeit there is a theoretical cost of contingent guarantees.
*If* this scheme really is temporary then it will be relatively harmless, and will help young people get on the property ladder.
£600k and it applies to remortgaging. Yeah, aimed at first time buyers.
It applies to all primary residences up to £600K.
One of the biggest risks to the economy is people unable to refinance out of mortgages that are coming off the initial teaser rates.
We have a choice of (a) letting them sell up in a distressed manner (b) letting them slash all other spending to finance the interest payments or (c) facilitating them to refinance for another period - most likely 3-5 years.
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Don't forget this is a time limited scheme. Where it will be problematic is if it becomes a standard policy on a long-term basis.
Read the OECD reports on the relationship between housebuilding and house prices. Britain has a market with one of the lowest relationships between price and supply Anyone who knows their history of housbuilding in this country knows that.
We have historically had major problems with planning restrictions on house building in this country. In addition the market is materially different since the 80s since it is much more dependent upon owner occupiers and private house builders than it was before. Substantial public building was not related to the price of home ownership and distorted the market.
Do you dispute we will see more houses built this year than last and more next year than this? It really is a basic point. Demand was killed by credit restrictions from the Banks trying to deleverage. More credit in such a situation does not create a boom but a kind of normality.
imo it shows nothing of the sort. You can't take a time of consumer depression and call it normal. People still want houses but they remain for many unaffordable due to banking restraints and shortage of supply. Build more houses and reform the banks and when the bubble deflates don't let it inflate again. Mortgages based above the old fashioned 3x earnings are toppy and only lead to asset inflation. If we want builders to commence on spec we would be better underwriting specific housing projects to directly increase supply. No one (other than the state which can't afford it) is going to build houses in a falling market. House prices have fallen substantially in real terms which was a useful reduction of the bubble but had serious side effects in terms of housing supply and employment. It is time this stopped and we got some part of our economy back to normal. Of course nothing will be normal until we can get back to real interest rates (should be about 5% at the moment) and government spending back in balance. We are a long way from being fixed but it is wrong to criticise a useful step because it does not complete the journey.
regrettably house prices in parts of the country still haven't fallen enough. The only way to deal with a bubble is to get prices down to a level where people can buy again without assistance. Which basically means we need to boost supply, but we're protecting bank balance sheets as Avery has pointed out.
Not one word of complaint from anyone wanting to buy a home..lots of complaints from Labour and so called economists , who no doubt already have a home..how odd
Just a flying visit, but a point of order for Mr. Herdson must be raised: Surely Normandy was independent at the time of the Conquest?
Order .... order .... Mr Morris_Dancer calm yourself man. This is not a Point of Order as .... Ordddeeerrr. The Chair determined the question in terms of modern countries. Order .....
We now move along to the Restriction of Moderated Cheshire Farmers Bill ..... What date ?
Just a flying visit, but a point of order for Mr. Herdson must be raised: Surely Normandy was independent at the time of the Conquest?
I'm pretty sure it was a separate Nation to France, Morris.
Of course, the whole concept of 'Nationhood' was very different then, but basically, yes: the Normans were a very different bunch. (Stretching my memory a bit but I think they may have had Scandinavian origins?)
Last comment before I go out for tea. Here in Florida my adverts are for a government scheme that will allow me to refinance my mortgage of up to $625K with the government substantially reducing my monthly payments.
Adverts would never lie to me and they say that 53% of homeowners have used this "ridiculously easy" scheme to save up to $145K (not entirely clear how). Now that is real state intervention in the housing market and as I indicated yesterday there are clear signs that in Florida at least it is working and new houses are being built.
Smug, know-it-all, knock anything even when it should help get more new houses built which supposedly they think is important, navel gazing, one-eyed, need to get out more, blogging, wonky redsters deserve to be 100% ignored when it comes to do with anything relating to the housing market for 2 important reasons:
1. Self cert, 125% negative equity Northern Crock mortgages, property-fuelled boom all took place on their watch and despite moving from MCCB self-regulation to mortgages brought under FSA regulation by them years in advance of the bubble = Epic fails.
2. HIPS - a folly of massive Labour political ego over the overwhelming industry advice and experts.
Ignore until got something sensible and literally constructive to propose therefore.
I don't know whether you used to read this forum when Seth O'Logue spent two years trying to explain the benefits of Lansleys various health reforms to the more childlike intellects at the bottom of the PB Tory league.
You haven't even got the support Seth had for this insanity
I remember Seth O. Logue well, tim.
Brilliant poster and tipster.
Kept Pork in acorns for years on his 'Lansley for Leader' tip.
Knock it off, Avery.
Your so-called 'cousin' couldn't tip the old lady out of bed.
It didn't bother me, but he was a bit of a menace for any newcomer who hadn't worked out he didn't know his elbow from his weekend pass.
DavidL has made a number of points in answer to you with which I agree so I will not repeat his answers.
I will limit my answer to banking sector reform.
Having worked with the structure of banking sectors in a large number of countries, I have not come across evidence which suggests competition increases in inverse proportion to the concentration of the banking sector (i.e. more banks doesn't automatically lead to a more competitive market).
Retail banks generally value quality of risk management higher than growth of market share. Banks tend to compete through size of balance sheet with implied diversification of product and service portfolios and economy of scale.
Aggressive competition tends to come from new market entrants but can often be short-lived and subject to failure because of the limited scope and heightened exposure to risk of 'single product' operations. Internet deposit taking from Icelandic banks, department stores offering consumer credit (remember Welbeck Finance?), regional banks straining to go national (Northern Rock, Bank of Scotland) etc,
So four large, diverse and functioning banking groups would probably be a better solution in terms of structure and domestic competition than "12 new commercial and retail banks".
I would additionally and (counter to the above argument) encourage niche operations, whether limited by geography or function. I would especially encourage new market entrants, but would be extra cautious in regulatory oversight. The value of the niche players is to force the main groups to respond to competition.
Handelsbanken, an overseas subsidiary of Sweden's second largest commercial bank, is a current example of a successful market entrant in the business of lending to SMEs. Yorkshire Bank was for a long time an example of a successful regional bank until it became a late casualty of the financial crisis.
The problem with aggressive market entrants is that they tend to be financed by overseas banking groups or domestic non-banking enterprises (e.g. supermarkets, post offices etc). When the going is good they make headway, but when the economic cycle turns against their owners they become peripheral businessess first in line for cost cutting or disposal.
So the short term answer for the UK banking sector is to get the existing big groups to function rather than to embark on a wholesale restructuring of the sector.
From AD1000 and in modern terms what countries were our monarchs born and how many were born there ?
I'll start with the two largest :
England 33 .. Scotland 27
France - Williams I & II Germany - Georges I & II Netherlands - William III Denmark - Sweyn, Canute and probably Harold I and Harthacanute
France - Correct but more than 2 Germany - Correct Netherlands - Correct Denmark - Correct but only 2 Cnut and Forkbeard.
Henry VI perhaps as another French-born? The rumours surrounding Edward IV's paternity suggest he was conceived in France, during an English campaign there. I don't know if he was born abroad too?
From AD1000 and in modern terms what countries were our monarchs born and how many were born there ?
I'll start with the two largest :
England 33 .. Scotland 27
France - Williams I & II Germany - Georges I & II Netherlands - William III Denmark - Sweyn, Canute and probably Harold I and Harthacanute
France - Correct but more than 2 Germany - Correct Netherlands - Correct Denmark - Correct but only 2 Cnut and Forkbeard.
Henry VI perhaps as another French-born? The rumours surrounding Edward IV's paternity suggest he was conceived in France, during an English campaign there. I don't know if he was born abroad too?
Henry VI was born in Windsor.
The other French born monarchs are :
Stephen - Blois Richard II - Bordeaux Henry II - Le Mans Edward IV - Rouen
Monarchs born abroad: I arrive late from a lamb curry so apologies if I go over ground already covered but have we had Stephen Count of Blois born in Blois ( unimaginatively maybe ) and for Jacobites Charles Edward Stuart "Charles III " and his brother "Henry IX" both I think in Rome.
Monarchs born abroad: I arrive late from a lamb curry so apologies if I go over ground already covered but have we had Stephen Count of Blois born in Blois ( unimaginatively maybe ) and for Jacobites Charles Edward Stuart "Charles III " and his brother "Henry IX" both I think in Rome.
And.... Henry VII born in Wales ( Pembroke Castle )
Monarchs born abroad: I arrive late from a lamb curry so apologies if I go over ground already covered but have we had Stephen Count of Blois born in Blois ( unimaginatively maybe ) and for Jacobites Charles Edward Stuart "Charles III " and his brother "Henry IX" both I think in Rome.
Fine fellow noting the Jacobites but I sadly had to rule them out .... sob ....
Monarchs born abroad: I arrive late from a lamb curry so apologies if I go over ground already covered but have we had Stephen Count of Blois born in Blois ( unimaginatively maybe ) and for Jacobites Charles Edward Stuart "Charles III " and his brother "Henry IX" both I think in Rome.
And.... Henry VII born in Wales ( Pembroke Castle )
Monarchs born abroad: I arrive late from a lamb curry so apologies if I go over ground already covered but have we had Stephen Count of Blois born in Blois ( unimaginatively maybe ) and for Jacobites Charles Edward Stuart "Charles III " and his brother "Henry IX" both I think in Rome.
Fine fellow noting the Jacobites but I sadly had to rule them out .... sob ....
Well they're an interesting cul de sac. Silly buggers mind, typical Stuarts all principle and no pragmatism. Henry of Navarre reckoned Paris was worth a mass all they had to do was reverse the process for London...........
Monarchs born abroad: I arrive late from a lamb curry so apologies if I go over ground already covered but have we had Stephen Count of Blois born in Blois ( unimaginatively maybe ) and for Jacobites Charles Edward Stuart "Charles III " and his brother "Henry IX" both I think in Rome.
And.... Henry VII born in Wales ( Pembroke Castle )
Monarchs born abroad: I arrive late from a lamb curry so apologies if I go over ground already covered but have we had Stephen Count of Blois born in Blois ( unimaginatively maybe ) and for Jacobites Charles Edward Stuart "Charles III " and his brother "Henry IX" both I think in Rome.
And.... Henry VII born in Wales ( Pembroke Castle )
Monarchs born abroad: I arrive late from a lamb curry so apologies if I go over ground already covered but have we had Stephen Count of Blois born in Blois ( unimaginatively maybe ) and for Jacobites Charles Edward Stuart "Charles III " and his brother "Henry IX" both I think in Rome.
And.... Henry VII born in Wales ( Pembroke Castle )
I've found it interesting that people are mentioning Alexander - perhaps going for a name with Scottish pedigree will be a nod towards hoping that Scotland remains in the Union?
I want one of his names to be Alexander - not because of national or royal reasons, but because it's the first name of the very gorgeous Skandar Keynes and the very gorgeous Alex Pettyfer.
Monarchs born abroad: I arrive late from a lamb curry so apologies if I go over ground already covered but have we had Stephen Count of Blois born in Blois ( unimaginatively maybe ) and for Jacobites Charles Edward Stuart "Charles III " and his brother "Henry IX" both I think in Rome.
And.... Henry VII born in Wales ( Pembroke Castle )
Last comment before I go out for tea. Here in Florida my adverts are for a government scheme that will allow me to refinance my mortgage of up to $625K with the government substantially reducing my monthly payments.
Adverts would never lie to me and they say that 53% of homeowners have used this "ridiculously easy" scheme to save up to $145K (not entirely clear how). Now that is real state intervention in the housing market and as I indicated yesterday there are clear signs that in Florida at least it is working and new houses are being built.
They are always building new houses in Florida because of the hurricanes.
Last comment before I go out for tea. Here in Florida my adverts are for a government scheme that will allow me to refinance my mortgage of up to $625K with the government substantially reducing my monthly payments.
Adverts would never lie to me and they say that 53% of homeowners have used this "ridiculously easy" scheme to save up to $145K (not entirely clear how). Now that is real state intervention in the housing market and as I indicated yesterday there are clear signs that in Florida at least it is working and new houses are being built.
The US building sector is FIVE Times as responsive to price as the UK according to the OECD
Completion of dwellings in the UK fell from 226,420 in 2007 to 137,280 in 2010, a fall of 39.3% in three years. Over the past three years, they have risen to a rate of over 160,000, an increase of 31.1%. These figures seem to show UK housing construction is highly responsive to changes in market demand.
In two years time, it is highly likely that the private sector will be building at pre-crisis record levels of 200,000 dwellings per year. This especially applies given the stimulus to demand provided by the Help to Buy schemes.
What is missing from the housing construction figures is the average of 150,000 dwellings built by local government each year between 1950 and 1975. In the years of Blair government between 1997 and 2009 the average build by local governments had fallen to 501 per annum.
So the private sector is responding perfectly normally to market demand. Over to you tim to provide a political and economic justification for returning to 1950s to 1970s levels of council house building.
Give us the cost justifications and we will listen.
Is the question foreign born monarchs? What about Mary's consort, Phillip? Not technically a monarch, but you may be being cheeky
Edit - well the country would be Spain.
Yup It's Philip of SPAIN .... Again !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Under the terms of the 1554 Marriage Act Philip was joint monarch and King but only in the lifetime of his wife. Acts of Parliament were issued in their joint name as was coinage and all other formal proceedings of the realm were enacted in both names.
When Mary died in 1558 Philip ceased to be King of England and Elizabeth succeeded.
Philip seems to have been recognised at the time as co-ruler with Mary - there was an Act of Parliament about his status. So he probably should be counted.
Not one word of complaint from anyone wanting to buy a home..lots of complaints from Labour and so called economists , who no doubt already have a home..how odd
Bingo - producers not the consumers are the only opinions that matter to the bubblistas.
Bah, I don't recognise the claims of any Spanish prince on the crown!
The world would have been a totally different place had they had a child, and Charles (Phillips first son) died childless. There could have been a union of England, Spain and the HRE!
One of the most bizarre things in life is the way in which parents often believe they're choosing a not overly common (in the sense of numerous) name for their children, when in fact they usually are.
One of the most bizarre things in life is the way in which parents often believe they're choosing a not overly common (in the sense of numerous) name for their children, when in fact they usually are.
Are you thinking of any examples?
I have noticed that in recent years it is now more common for baby boys to be named Jack rather than John, Charlie rather than Charles, Jamie rather than James, Ollie rather than Oliver, Alfie rather than Alfred etc.
Hunchman warmly welcomes another baby into the world......whilst as a republican is completely against positions in society by accident of birth.
I enjoyed reading the comments on the Help to Buy scheme lower down in this thread. Whilst I sympathise with the mess that Mr Osborne has inherited, he shows no understanding of efficient capital allocation when endorsing completely mad schemes like this. And it would be interesting to see where the scheme will be when the credit plug is pulled. The following gives an example of what will happen to UK property prices when credit simply isn't available at any price any more - the 14.25% of principal being guaranteed would be nearly wiped out in one quarter alone!:
Very interesting time on the world markets, we've seen strength into late July exactly as I thought we would. I'm left wondering after todays action whether 1698 on the S&P really is it - looks possible from everything I follow. Tomorrow's action will be very revealing. We've had fresh highs on the US indices, but no other broad world indices are confirming the move, whether you look at Europe, Asia or Emerging Markets - a classic case of bearish divergence if ever you wished to see one.
Royal babies have form at being born around crucial economic turning points - Charles Arthur Philip George (1948) - well 1949 was a major bottom in interest rates and stockmarkets post WW2. And William Arthur Philip Louis was born just 7 weeks before the major August 1982 bottom as well. So we seem well lined up for the treble to come off!
And this speech has to go down as Boris' worst of all time - I'll have to repost this in 6 or 12 months time and people will see what I mean!
Have any homebuyers attacked GO's scheme or is it just Economists..
I'm guessing that someone remortgaging a £600k flat who earns £150k a year wil enjoy the state subsidy as much as a miner in the Kent coalfield would've been grateful for a state subsidy. Although the coalfield would've been cheaper to prop up and had far less damaging long term consequences
Let's take that example: a £600K flat, earnings of £150K.
What will the cash cost to the Treasury be of supporting this mortgage be?
It should be zero with no contingent guarantees.
It will be zero (or a rounding error), albeit there is a theoretical cost of contingent guarantees.
*If* this scheme really is temporary then it will be relatively harmless, and will help young people get on the property ladder.
£600k and it applies to remortgaging. Yeah, aimed at first time buyers.
It applies to all primary residences up to £600K.
One of the biggest risks to the economy is people unable to refinance out of mortgages that are coming off the initial teaser rates.
We have a choice of (a) letting them sell up in a distressed manner (b) letting them slash all other spending to finance the interest payments or (c) facilitating them to refinance for another period - most likely 3-5 years.
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Don't forget this is a time limited scheme. Where it will be problematic is if it becomes a standard policy on a long-term basis.
So you do like state interventions in the economy ?
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Why is it desirable to kick the can? If we need to deleverage in aggregate then some people at the margins will inevitably need to cut their cloth according to their means. As someone once said in another context, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working."
Have any homebuyers attacked GO's scheme or is it just Economists..
I'm guessing that someone remortgaging a £600k flat who earns £150k a year wil enjoy the state subsidy as much as a miner in the Kent coalfield would've been grateful for a state subsidy. Although the coalfield would've been cheaper to prop up and had far less damaging long term consequences
Let's take that example: a £600K flat, earnings of £150K.
What will the cash cost to the Treasury be of supporting this mortgage be?
It should be zero with no contingent guarantees.
It will be zero (or a rounding error), albeit there is a theoretical cost of contingent guarantees.
*If* this scheme really is temporary then it will be relatively harmless, and will help young people get on the property ladder.
£600k and it applies to remortgaging. Yeah, aimed at first time buyers.
It applies to all primary residences up to £600K.
One of the biggest risks to the economy is people unable to refinance out of mortgages that are coming off the initial teaser rates.
We have a choice of (a) letting them sell up in a distressed manner (b) letting them slash all other spending to finance the interest payments or (c) facilitating them to refinance for another period - most likely 3-5 years.
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Don't forget this is a time limited scheme. Where it will be problematic is if it becomes a standard policy on a long-term basis.
So you do like state interventions in the economy ?
No, but sometimes in cases of market failure they are necessary.
The analysis should be similar to that for a just war: essential, proportional, limited, last resort, etc.
Have any homebuyers attacked GO's scheme or is it just Economists..
I'm guessing that someone remortgaging a £600k flat who earns £150k a year wil enjoy the state subsidy as much as a miner in the Kent coalfield would've been grateful for a state subsidy. Although the coalfield would've been cheaper to prop up and had far less damaging long term consequences
Let's take that example: a £600K flat, earnings of £150K.
What will the cash cost to the Treasury be of supporting this mortgage be?
It should be zero with no contingent guarantees.
It will be zero (or a rounding error), albeit there is a theoretical cost of contingent guarantees.
*If* this scheme really is temporary then it will be relatively harmless, and will help young people get on the property ladder.
£600k and it applies to remortgaging. Yeah, aimed at first time buyers.
It applies to all primary residences up to £600K.
One of the biggest risks to the economy is people unable to refinance out of mortgages that are coming off the initial teaser rates.
We have a choice of (a) letting them sell up in a distressed manner (b) letting them slash all other spending to finance the interest payments or (c) facilitating them to refinance for another period - most likely 3-5 years.
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Don't forget this is a time limited scheme. Where it will be problematic is if it becomes a standard policy on a long-term basis.
So you do like state interventions in the economy ?
Lets see how many so called beneficiaries of the Help to Buy scheme are lauding it in 1 or 2 years time. The supply of ever willing debt slaves never ceases to amaze me. There have been some pretty lunatic government economic policies post-WW2, but I'd be hard pressed to name something even madder than this - maybe Brown's FSA regulation, or the 1972 Barber budget, but this is well up there with them.
Does nobody ever learn about building super skyscrapers? They as an indicator of forthcoming economic problems take some beating!
And whilst I haven't got the link to hand, China's electricity consumption grew by just 2.9% in the year to the end of Q1 2013....and then they ask us to believe that their economy is growing at 7.5% - a lot simply doesn't add up in China, not least this!
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Why is it desirable to kick the can? If we need to deleverage in aggregate then some people at the margins will inevitably need to cut their cloth according to their means. As someone once said in another context, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working."
Because the economy is improving.
Delaying the crunch point for 3 years will ensure that it can be worked out in a more gradual fashion. A lot of people will be in a stronger position, the banks will be more able to extend credit and you won't get a a glut of repossessions artificially depressing house prices.
If you dumped everything now, you would end up with a lot of repossessions (or reduction in spending), personal tragedy and capital write offs for banks.
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Why is it desirable to kick the can? If we need to deleverage in aggregate then some people at the margins will inevitably need to cut their cloth according to their means. As someone once said in another context, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working."
Because the economy is improving.
Delaying the crunch point for 3 years will ensure that it can be worked out in a more gradual fashion. A lot of people will be in a stronger position, the banks will be more able to extend credit and you won't get a a glut of repossessions artificially depressing house prices.
If you dumped everything now, you would end up with a lot of repossessions (or reduction in spending), personal tragedy and capital write offs for banks.
Charles - it'll be a scream reading through this post and lots of your other posts in a year or so's time..Mr Smithson will be doing an amazing service to us all to have this in the archive.
Hunchman warmly welcomes another baby into the world......whilst as a republican is completely against positions in society by accident of birth. ...
Royal babies have form at being born around crucial economic turning points - Charles Arthur Philip George (1948) - well 1949 was a major bottom in interest rates and stockmarkets post WW2. And William Arthur Philip Louis was born just 7 weeks before the major August 1982 bottom as well. So we seem well lined up for the treble to come off!
hunchman
I simply can't believe that you are advocating an investment strategy predicated on the correlation between royal births and market lows.
This must be your best yet!
These late eclipses in the sun and moon portend no good to us: though the wisdom of nature can reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself scourged by the sequent effects: love cools, friendship falls off, brothers divide: in cities, mutinies; in countries, discord; in palaces, treason; and the bond cracked 'twixt son and father.
The point about the housing market is not just the effect on housebuilding, but also the fact that the whole market had seized up. Transaction volumes are still about half what they were before the crash:
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Why is it desirable to kick the can? If we need to deleverage in aggregate then some people at the margins will inevitably need to cut their cloth according to their means. As someone once said in another context, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working."
Because the economy is improving.
Delaying the crunch point for 3 years will ensure that it can be worked out in a more gradual fashion. A lot of people will be in a stronger position, the banks will be more able to extend credit and you won't get a a glut of repossessions artificially depressing house prices.
If you dumped everything now, you would end up with a lot of repossessions (or reduction in spending), personal tragedy and capital write offs for banks.
Charles - it'll be a scream reading through this post and lots of your other posts in a year or so's time..Mr Smithson will be doing an amazing service to us all to have this in the archive.
That cuts both ways, hunchman!
Hope you're well. We need Ave it back so you two can argue over his ISA
Does nobody ever learn about building super skyscrapers? They as an indicator of forthcoming economic problems take some beating!
And whilst I haven't got the link to hand, China's electricity consumption grew by just 2.9% in the year to the end of Q1 2013....and then they ask us to believe that their economy is growing at 7.5% - a lot simply doesn't add up in China, not least this!
Idiot.
Just because I've burst your balloon on China once again! I can't wait for the next 12 months, its going to be one epic tale of disproving so many people on China, not least yourself!
Hunchman warmly welcomes another baby into the world......whilst as a republican is completely against positions in society by accident of birth. ...
Royal babies have form at being born around crucial economic turning points - Charles Arthur Philip George (1948) - well 1949 was a major bottom in interest rates and stockmarkets post WW2. And William Arthur Philip Louis was born just 7 weeks before the major August 1982 bottom as well. So we seem well lined up for the treble to come off!
hunchman
I simply can't believe that you are advocating an investment strategy predicated on the correlation between royal births and market lows.
This must be your best yet!
These late eclipses in the sun and moon portend no good to us: though the wisdom of nature can reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself scourged by the sequent effects: love cools, friendship falls off, brothers divide: in cities, mutinies; in countries, discord; in palaces, treason; and the bond cracked 'twixt son and father.
If you think I was seriously pointing to a definitive relationship between the two, then you're very much mistaken!
No, but sometimes in cases of market failure they are necessary.
The analysis should be similar to that for a just war: essential, proportional, limited, last resort, etc.
I wasn't aware of market failure, unless you mean that people now have to earn their wealth instead of just sitting in an armchair watching the bricks and mortar around them accumulate in value.
By the way, since the lenders in this scheme now have a one-way bet, is there anything to stop them bumping up the interest rates?
I am amazed by this poll, I assumed the large majority of union members were Labour supporters, and that tories among them would be virtually non-existent.
Mind you i think I only know 1 person who is in a union and she is a full time activist, paid by the union, so perhaps not representative. There is no union where I work.
Once again i conclude I should get out more...
That would explain why the Tories are constantly poking that chunk of their potential support in the eye with a sharp stick. I could never figure out if it was deliberate or accidental.
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Why is it desirable to kick the can? If we need to deleverage in aggregate then some people at the margins will inevitably need to cut their cloth according to their means. As someone once said in another context, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working."
Because the economy is improving.
Delaying the crunch point for 3 years will ensure that it can be worked out in a more gradual fashion. A lot of people will be in a stronger position, the banks will be more able to extend credit and you won't get a a glut of repossessions artificially depressing house prices.
If you dumped everything now, you would end up with a lot of repossessions (or reduction in spending), personal tragedy and capital write offs for banks.
Charles - it'll be a scream reading through this post and lots of your other posts in a year or so's time..Mr Smithson will be doing an amazing service to us all to have this in the archive.
That cuts both ways, hunchman!
Hope you're well. We need Ave it back so you two can argue over his ISA
LOL. I'm very well thankyou. Hope you are too? Has Ave It been on here at all recently? He still owes me a pint from about 2 years back - I still haven't forgotten about that!
I saw Ave It at the last pb drinks at Dirty Dicks. He was on top form. I think he's posted a little since then but nowhere near enough. If you make it to the next do I'm sure we'll get you that drink
I saw Ave It at the last pb drinks at Dirty Dicks. He was on top form. I think he's posted a little since then but nowhere near enough. If you make it to the next do I'm sure we'll get you that drink
Yep, hopefully I'll be able to get to the next one. Its a bit of a trek from being on Ms Nokes' patch you know!
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Why is it desirable to kick the can? If we need to deleverage in aggregate then some people at the margins will inevitably need to cut their cloth according to their means. As someone once said in another context, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working."
Because the economy is improving.
Delaying the crunch point for 3 years will ensure that it can be worked out in a more gradual fashion. A lot of people will be in a stronger position, the banks will be more able to extend credit and you won't get a a glut of repossessions artificially depressing house prices.
If you dumped everything now, you would end up with a lot of repossessions (or reduction in spending), personal tragedy and capital write offs for banks.
Charles - it'll be a scream reading through this post and lots of your other posts in a year or so's time..Mr Smithson will be doing an amazing service to us all to have this in the archive.
I have a different view on the economy than you do.
I hope that I am right, but I would indulge in laughing at you if you are wrong.
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Why is it desirable to kick the can? If we need to deleverage in aggregate then some people at the margins will inevitably need to cut their cloth according to their means. As someone once said in another context, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working."
Because the economy is improving.
Delaying the crunch point for 3 years will ensure that it can be worked out in a more gradual fashion. A lot of people will be in a stronger position, the banks will be more able to extend credit and you won't get a a glut of repossessions artificially depressing house prices.
If you dumped everything now, you would end up with a lot of repossessions (or reduction in spending), personal tragedy and capital write offs for banks.
Huge capital write-offs for the banks. Enormous. Almost like a toxic black hole.
Whilst I freely acknowledge that I got too bearish too early off the March 2009 lows, one interesting thing that explains the past 4 years demographically is the following - whilst in aggregate people's lifetime spending typically peaks at age 46 (when children are demanding all types of expense in their late teens), if you look at the demographics of the top 10% they typically hit peak spending at the age of 51 on average - its 5 years later as a combination of having their children later (career considerations?) and their children have a much higher propensity to go to university / post-graduate degrees - so they're being maintained by their parents to a higher age than the bottom 90%.
And given our wild inequality, the spending power of the top 10% accounts for an awful lot of expenditure in developed economies today. And it helps to explain why the luxury sectors of the economy have held up so well for so long, as well as the group that accounts for a mammoth proportion of stock / bond ownership. When you consider that the US birth rate topped out in the early 1960's, from about now onwards, we'll fall off the demographic cliff for the top 10% of the population from pretty much now onwards, as well as falling off the cliff for the bottom 90%.
No, but sometimes in cases of market failure they are necessary.
The analysis should be similar to that for a just war: essential, proportional, limited, last resort, etc.
I wasn't aware of market failure, unless you mean that people now have to earn their wealth instead of just sitting in an armchair watching the bricks and mortar around them accumulate in value.
By the way, since the lenders in this scheme now have a one-way bet, is there anything to stop them bumping up the interest rates?
The market failure is that we need the banks to build up capital, but in order to do so they have severely restricted lending. That is a rational response on an individual level.
However that strategy results in significant negative externalities, creating substantial pain for individuals, potentially putting pressure on consumer spending and, via repossessions creating a risk of downward pressure on house prices (resulting in capital write offs at the banks).
Adding in a limited sovereign guarantee - together with programmes like funding for lending - aim to address the externalities by creating a glidepath so that the issue can be dealt with over time rather than hitting all at once.
A 3 year scheme is ok - I would get seriously worried if it developed into a permanent government intervention in the housing market (like Freddie and Fannie over here) because that would create all sorts of problems in the long term
@JackW Sussex is more likely, although possibly too close to Wessex (although that will be subsumed by Edinburgh in due course)
hmm.
The whole Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh thing isn't all that automatic.
When the DoE dies, Charles will automatically inherit the title as eldest son. The Queen could abolish the title and then create a "new" title of DoE and award it to Edward.
If the present DoE outlived the Queen, the title would be merged with the crown and it's award to Edward would be in the gift of the King.
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Why is it desirable to kick the can? If we need to deleverage in aggregate then some people at the margins will inevitably need to cut their cloth according to their means. As someone once said in another context, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working."
Because the economy is improving.
Delaying the crunch point for 3 years will ensure that it can be worked out in a more gradual fashion. A lot of people will be in a stronger position, the banks will be more able to extend credit and you won't get a a glut of repossessions artificially depressing house prices.
If you dumped everything now, you would end up with a lot of repossessions (or reduction in spending), personal tragedy and capital write offs for banks.
Huge capital write-offs for the banks. Enormous. Almost like a toxic black hole.
You'd need a massive capital infusion to cover the potential losses if house prices were even to fall 20%. It's worth introducing schemes to defray that risk.
Clearly high house prices are not a good thing, but the adjustment would be better achieved through real rather than nominal price adjustments and through increasing building programmes.
@JackW Sussex is more likely, although possibly too close to Wessex (although that will be subsumed by Edinburgh in due course)
hmm.
The whole Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh thing isn't all that automatic.
When the DoE dies, Charles will automatically inherit the title as eldest son. The Queen could abolish the title and then create a "new" title of DoE and award it to Edward.
If the present DoE outlived the Queen, the title would be merged with the crown and it's award to Edward would be in the gift of the King.
I thought that PE/DoE thing had been announced. It would be a brave King Charles who decided not to implement the decision.
France seems to be in the middle of culture wars atm. riots at the weekend on the burqa and now a local mayor says Hitler didn't kill enough travellers.
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Why is it desirable to kick the can? If we need to deleverage in aggregate then some people at the margins will inevitably need to cut their cloth according to their means. As someone once said in another context, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working."
Because the economy is improving.
Delaying the crunch point for 3 years will ensure that it can be worked out in a more gradual fashion. A lot of people will be in a stronger position, the banks will be more able to extend credit and you won't get a a glut of repossessions artificially depressing house prices.
If you dumped everything now, you would end up with a lot of repossessions (or reduction in spending), personal tragedy and capital write offs for banks.
Huge capital write-offs for the banks. Enormous. Almost like a toxic black hole.
You'd need a massive capital infusion to cover the potential losses if house prices were even to fall 20%. It's worth introducing schemes to defray that risk.
Clearly high house prices are not a good thing, but the adjustment would be better achieved through real rather than nominal price adjustments and through increasing building programmes.
Or let the banks fail and use the money saved from bailouts to provide a parachute for individuals with distressed mortgages instead.
@JackW Sussex is more likely, although possibly too close to Wessex (although that will be subsumed by Edinburgh in due course)
hmm.
The whole Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh thing isn't all that automatic.
When the DoE dies, Charles will automatically inherit the title as eldest son. The Queen could abolish the title and then create a "new" title of DoE and award it to Edward.
If the present DoE outlived the Queen, the title would be merged with the crown and it's award to Edward would be in the gift of the King.
I thought that PE/DoE thing had been announced. It would be a brave King Charles who decided not to implement the decision.
The Queen has singled she'd like to see it happen. She can't bind her successor of course.
He may decide that Harry would be a much more suitable DoE. Frankly he seems the more appropriate heir to Phil in terms of military background.
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Why is it desirable to kick the can? If we need to deleverage in aggregate then some people at the margins will inevitably need to cut their cloth according to their means. As someone once said in another context, "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working."
Because the economy is improving.
Delaying the crunch point for 3 years will ensure that it can be worked out in a more gradual fashion. A lot of people will be in a stronger position, the banks will be more able to extend credit and you won't get a a glut of repossessions artificially depressing house prices.
If you dumped everything now, you would end up with a lot of repossessions (or reduction in spending), personal tragedy and capital write offs for banks.
Huge capital write-offs for the banks. Enormous. Almost like a toxic black hole.
You'd need a massive capital infusion to cover the potential losses if house prices were even to fall 20%. It's worth introducing schemes to defray that risk.
Clearly high house prices are not a good thing, but the adjustment would be better achieved through real rather than nominal price adjustments and through increasing building programmes.
Or let the banks fail and use the money saved from bailouts to provide a parachute for individuals with distressed mortgages instead.
Mass bank failure would be a disaster for the economy.
I know you have a very simplistic view of "banksters" but they are an essential part of a functioning economy.
@JackW Sussex is more likely, although possibly too close to Wessex (although that will be subsumed by Edinburgh in due course)
hmm.
The whole Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh thing isn't all that automatic.
When the DoE dies, Charles will automatically inherit the title as eldest son. The Queen could abolish the title and then create a "new" title of DoE and award it to Edward.
If the present DoE outlived the Queen, the title would be merged with the crown and it's award to Edward would be in the gift of the King.
I thought that PE/DoE thing had been announced. It would be a brave King Charles who decided not to implement the decision.
The Queen has singled she'd like to see it happen. She can't bind her successor of course.
He may decide that Harry would be a much more suitable DoE. Frankly he seems the more appropriate heir to Phil in terms of military background.
but yes, brave man required to do so.........
Wessex is running the Duke of Edinburgh scheme though...
Comments
*If* this scheme really is temporary then it will be relatively harmless, and will help young people get on the property ladder.
From AD1000 and in modern terms what countries were our monarchs born and how many were born there ?
I'll start with the two largest :
England 33 .. Scotland 27
Germany - Georges I & II
Netherlands - William III
Denmark - Sweyn, Canute and probably Harold I and Harthacanute
Are you referring to pubs?
Germany - Correct
Netherlands - Correct
Denmark - Correct but only 2 Cnut and Forkbeard.
imo it shows nothing of the sort. You can't take a time of consumer depression and call it normal. People still want houses but they remain for many unaffordable due to banking restraints and shortage of supply. Build more houses and reform the banks and when the bubble deflates don't let it inflate again. Mortgages based above the old fashioned 3x earnings are toppy and only lead to asset inflation. If we want builders to commence on spec we would be better underwriting specific housing projects to directly increase supply.
No one (other than the state which can't afford it) is going to build houses in a falling market. House prices have fallen substantially in real terms which was a useful reduction of the bubble but had serious side effects in terms of housing supply and employment.
It is time this stopped and we got some part of our economy back to normal. Of course nothing will be normal until we can get back to real interest rates (should be about 5% at the moment) and government spending back in balance. We are a long way from being fixed but it is wrong to criticise a useful step because it does not complete the journey.
Surely Normandy was independent at the time of the Conquest?
One of the biggest risks to the economy is people unable to refinance out of mortgages that are coming off the initial teaser rates.
We have a choice of (a) letting them sell up in a distressed manner (b) letting them slash all other spending to finance the interest payments or (c) facilitating them to refinance for another period - most likely 3-5 years.
For the refi market this effectively kicks the can down the road at a limited cost to the government. Reasonably sensible way of managing a problem.
Don't forget this is a time limited scheme. Where it will be problematic is if it becomes a standard policy on a long-term basis.
JackW wants the Queen to behave in a highhanded and dismissive fashion to some of the oldest families in the country.
I smell a Jacobite plot.
Do you dispute we will see more houses built this year than last and more next year than this? It really is a basic point. Demand was killed by credit restrictions from the Banks trying to deleverage. More credit in such a situation does not create a boom but a kind of normality.
No one (other than the state which can't afford it) is going to build houses in a falling market. House prices have fallen substantially in real terms which was a useful reduction of the bubble but had serious side effects in terms of housing supply and employment.
It is time this stopped and we got some part of our economy back to normal. Of course nothing will be normal until we can get back to real interest rates (should be about 5% at the moment) and government spending back in balance. We are a long way from being fixed but it is wrong to criticise a useful step because it does not complete the journey.
regrettably house prices in parts of the country still haven't fallen enough. The only way to deal with a bubble is to get prices down to a level where people can buy again without assistance. Which basically means we need to boost supply, but we're protecting bank balance sheets as Avery has pointed out.
We now move along to the Restriction of Moderated Cheshire Farmers Bill ..... What date ?
I'm pretty sure it was a separate Nation to France, Morris.
Of course, the whole concept of 'Nationhood' was very different then, but basically, yes: the Normans were a very different bunch. (Stretching my memory a bit but I think they may have had Scandinavian origins?)
Adverts would never lie to me and they say that 53% of homeowners have used this "ridiculously easy" scheme to save up to $145K (not entirely clear how). Now that is real state intervention in the housing market and as I indicated yesterday there are clear signs that in Florida at least it is working and new houses are being built.
1. Self cert, 125% negative equity Northern Crock mortgages, property-fuelled boom all took place on their watch and despite moving from MCCB self-regulation to mortgages brought under FSA regulation by them years in advance of the bubble = Epic fails.
2. HIPS - a folly of massive Labour political ego over the overwhelming industry advice and experts.
Ignore until got something sensible and literally constructive to propose therefore.
Your so-called 'cousin' couldn't tip the old lady out of bed.
It didn't bother me, but he was a bit of a menace for any newcomer who hadn't worked out he didn't know his elbow from his weekend pass.
DavidL has made a number of points in answer to you with which I agree so I will not repeat his answers.
I will limit my answer to banking sector reform.
Having worked with the structure of banking sectors in a large number of countries, I have not come across evidence which suggests competition increases in inverse proportion to the concentration of the banking sector (i.e. more banks doesn't automatically lead to a more competitive market).
Retail banks generally value quality of risk management higher than growth of market share. Banks tend to compete through size of balance sheet with implied diversification of product and service portfolios and economy of scale.
Aggressive competition tends to come from new market entrants but can often be short-lived and subject to failure because of the limited scope and heightened exposure to risk of 'single product' operations. Internet deposit taking from Icelandic banks, department stores offering consumer credit (remember Welbeck Finance?), regional banks straining to go national (Northern Rock, Bank of Scotland) etc,
So four large, diverse and functioning banking groups would probably be a better solution in terms of structure and domestic competition than "12 new commercial and retail banks".
I would additionally and (counter to the above argument) encourage niche operations, whether limited by geography or function. I would especially encourage new market entrants, but would be extra cautious in regulatory oversight. The value of the niche players is to force the main groups to respond to competition.
Handelsbanken, an overseas subsidiary of Sweden's second largest commercial bank, is a current example of a successful market entrant in the business of lending to SMEs. Yorkshire Bank was for a long time an example of a successful regional bank until it became a late casualty of the financial crisis.
The problem with aggressive market entrants is that they tend to be financed by overseas banking groups or domestic non-banking enterprises (e.g. supermarkets, post offices etc). When the going is good they make headway, but when the economic cycle turns against their owners they become peripheral businessess first in line for cost cutting or disposal.
So the short term answer for the UK banking sector is to get the existing big groups to function rather than to embark on a wholesale restructuring of the sector.
Clue - 4 nations to find.
The other French born monarchs are :
Stephen - Blois
Richard II - Bordeaux
Henry II - Le Mans
Edward IV - Rouen
3 more nations to find each with 1 monarch.
Just because no-one seems to like those names these days, for some bizarre reason.
David 40/1
Andrew 70/1
Patrick 100/1
Only 2 more nations and one more from Wales
2 more nations.
One nation left.
Still one to go.
In two years time, it is highly likely that the private sector will be building at pre-crisis record levels of 200,000 dwellings per year. This especially applies given the stimulus to demand provided by the Help to Buy schemes.
What is missing from the housing construction figures is the average of 150,000 dwellings built by local government each year between 1950 and 1975. In the years of Blair government between 1997 and 2009 the average build by local governments had fallen to 501 per annum.
So the private sector is responding perfectly normally to market demand. Over to you tim to provide a political and economic justification for returning to 1950s to 1970s levels of council house building.
Give us the cost justifications and we will listen.
Clue - This fellow has already popped up today.
Edit - well the country would be Spain.
An excellent name for the baby. Not least because I have a quid or two on.!
Under the terms of the 1554 Marriage Act Philip was joint monarch and King but only in the lifetime of his wife. Acts of Parliament were issued in their joint name as was coinage and all other formal proceedings of the realm were enacted in both names.
When Mary died in 1558 Philip ceased to be King of England and Elizabeth succeeded.
Baby boomers - or their well funded offspring.
The world would have been a totally different place had they had a child, and Charles (Phillips first son) died childless. There could have been a union of England, Spain and the HRE!
............................................................
However the most important business is that a young couple have been safely delivered of a healthy child.
God Bless Baby Cambridge.
..................................................
Good nite all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_peers_and_baronets
and apparently Canadian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_peers_and_baronets
I have noticed that in recent years it is now more common for baby boys to be named Jack rather than John, Charlie rather than Charles, Jamie rather than James, Ollie rather than Oliver, Alfie rather than Alfred etc.
I enjoyed reading the comments on the Help to Buy scheme lower down in this thread. Whilst I sympathise with the mess that Mr Osborne has inherited, he shows no understanding of efficient capital allocation when endorsing completely mad schemes like this. And it would be interesting to see where the scheme will be when the credit plug is pulled. The following gives an example of what will happen to UK property prices when credit simply isn't available at any price any more - the 14.25% of principal being guaranteed would be nearly wiped out in one quarter alone!:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-23/cyprus-real-estate-prices-post-record-plunge
Very interesting time on the world markets, we've seen strength into late July exactly as I thought we would. I'm left wondering after todays action whether 1698 on the S&P really is it - looks possible from everything I follow. Tomorrow's action will be very revealing. We've had fresh highs on the US indices, but no other broad world indices are confirming the move, whether you look at Europe, Asia or Emerging Markets - a classic case of bearish divergence if ever you wished to see one.
Royal babies have form at being born around crucial economic turning points - Charles Arthur Philip George (1948) - well 1949 was a major bottom in interest rates and stockmarkets post WW2. And William Arthur Philip Louis was born just 7 weeks before the major August 1982 bottom as well. So we seem well lined up for the treble to come off!
And this speech has to go down as Boris' worst of all time - I'll have to repost this in 6 or 12 months time and people will see what I mean!
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/82440/boris_johnson_speech_to_the_british_bankers_association.html
The famous passage will be 'banks are the lifeblood of the economy' - change "lifeblood" for "parasites" and you'd be right Boris. Epic fail indeed.
The analysis should be similar to that for a just war: essential, proportional, limited, last resort, etc.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-23/presenting-worlds-tallest-skyscraper-whose-construction-was-just-halted
Does nobody ever learn about building super skyscrapers? They as an indicator of forthcoming economic problems take some beating!
And whilst I haven't got the link to hand, China's electricity consumption grew by just 2.9% in the year to the end of Q1 2013....and then they ask us to believe that their economy is growing at 7.5% - a lot simply doesn't add up in China, not least this!
Delaying the crunch point for 3 years will ensure that it can be worked out in a more gradual fashion. A lot of people will be in a stronger position, the banks will be more able to extend credit and you won't get a a glut of repossessions artificially depressing house prices.
If you dumped everything now, you would end up with a lot of repossessions (or reduction in spending), personal tragedy and capital write offs for banks.
I simply can't believe that you are advocating an investment strategy predicated on the correlation between royal births and market lows.
This must be your best yet!
These late eclipses in the sun and moon portend
no good to us: though the wisdom of nature can
reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself
scourged by the sequent effects: love cools,
friendship falls off, brothers divide: in
cities, mutinies; in countries, discord; in
palaces, treason; and the bond cracked 'twixt son
and father.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2091110/UK-house-sales-fell-11k-year-lowest-totals-record-HMRC-reveals.html
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/transactions/val-40000-or-above.pdf
This has a major knock-on effect on the rest of the economy, since a lot of spending is linked to house moves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biqFa_Fs3uQ
Hope you're well. We need Ave it back so you two can argue over his ISA
By the way, since the lenders in this scheme now have a one-way bet, is there anything to stop them bumping up the interest rates?
I saw Ave It at the last pb drinks at Dirty Dicks. He was on top form. I think he's posted a little since then but nowhere near enough. If you make it to the next do I'm sure we'll get you that drink
I hope that I am right, but I would indulge in laughing at you if you are wrong.
And no early YouGov. I fear the 3% Tory bounce has not been sustained.
And given our wild inequality, the spending power of the top 10% accounts for an awful lot of expenditure in developed economies today. And it helps to explain why the luxury sectors of the economy have held up so well for so long, as well as the group that accounts for a mammoth proportion of stock / bond ownership. When you consider that the US birth rate topped out in the early 1960's, from about now onwards, we'll fall off the demographic cliff for the top 10% of the population from pretty much now onwards, as well as falling off the cliff for the bottom 90%.
However that strategy results in significant negative externalities, creating substantial pain for individuals, potentially putting pressure on consumer spending and, via repossessions creating a risk of downward pressure on house prices (resulting in capital write offs at the banks).
Adding in a limited sovereign guarantee - together with programmes like funding for lending - aim to address the externalities by creating a glidepath so that the issue can be dealt with over time rather than hitting all at once.
A 3 year scheme is ok - I would get seriously worried if it developed into a permanent government intervention in the housing market (like Freddie and Fannie over here) because that would create all sorts of problems in the long term
Sussex is more likely, although possibly too close to Wessex (although that will be subsumed by Edinburgh in due course)
hmm.
The whole Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh thing isn't all that automatic.
When the DoE dies, Charles will automatically inherit the title as eldest son. The Queen could abolish the title and then create a "new" title of DoE and award it to Edward.
If the present DoE outlived the Queen, the title would be merged with the crown and it's award to Edward would be in the gift of the King.
Clearly high house prices are not a good thing, but the adjustment would be better achieved through real rather than nominal price adjustments and through increasing building programmes.
He may decide that Harry would be a much more suitable DoE. Frankly he seems the more appropriate heir to Phil in terms of military background.
but yes, brave man required to do so.........
I know you have a very simplistic view of "banksters" but they are an essential part of a functioning economy.