As it happens, I have a London property decision to make. Do I sell one of my flats or rent it out for a year or two?
antifrank
I don't like the hassle of being a landlord, but the market seems to be going only one way for the next year.
What were the dates of your investment in NI property?
I was thinking about that when looking at the ONS figures. It may well be you bought at the trough and have enjoyed some pretty rapid appreciation in the past couple of years.
Just got back from the UKIP conference (as a non-partisan stallholder), chatted to a lot of delegates. Trying to give a fair impression:
Overall, confirmed my feeling that I disagree with UKIP on almost everything, but I don't see any reason to detest them as I detest the BNP. The people I met generally meant well, and there are worse things than that.
Typically excellent post Nick. The natural UKIP supporter is a casualty of modernity who no longer feels comfortable in their own country.
The interesting thing is most of their supporters and activists are not elderly people born in the 1920s and 30s. They're mostly people who didn't have any problem with the changes Britain went through in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.
I remember reading a book in the 80s called "Future Shock". It was classic sociological mumbo jumbo but one of the things that stuck with me was that most humans have a limit with the amount of change they can cope with after which they start to opt out. I suspect we have more of our society in that situation than ever before.
Rising London property prices should also be a concern to anyone who values the future wellbeing of the City.
Higher property prices means higher costs for the business located there, not just directly but also through having to pay their employees extra so that they can afford to live within commuting distance. Not to mention having their employees gowing increasing complacent because their flats are increasing in value.
Inevitably this brings forward the day when City business relocates to cheaper and hungrier rivals.
But the state subsidises all this through housing benefit otherwise there wouldn't be a workforce. As we've seen on this thread the people who think they are benefiting like Sean will always be trumped by the old money like Charles who's dads pony up as soon as they come down from Oxbridge. And hot money from around the world gets a return of course knowing that politicians will never let the house of cards collapse
My Dad didn't pony up anything. (his core banking relationship is quite flexible on lending ratios for him). .
Charles, that is a truly classic piece of understatement. Superb.
Just got back from the UKIP conference (as a non-partisan stallholder), chatted to a lot of delegates. Trying to give a fair impression:
Overall, confirmed my feeling that I disagree with UKIP on almost everything, but I don't see any reason to detest them as I detest the BNP. The people I met generally meant well, and there are worse things than that.
Typically excellent post Nick. The natural UKIP supporter is a casualty of modernity who no longer feels comfortable in their own country.
The interesting thing is most of their supporters and activists are not elderly people born in the 1920s and 30s. They're mostly people who didn't have any problem with the changes Britain went through in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.
I remember reading a book in the 80s called "Future Shock". It was classic sociological mumbo jumbo but one of the things that stuck with me was that most humans have a limit with the amount of change they can cope with after which they start to opt out. I suspect we have more of our society in that situation than ever before.
The interesting thing is most of their supporters and activists are not elderly people born in the 1920s and 30s. They're mostly people who didn't have any problem with the changes Britain went through in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.
I remember reading a book in the 80s called "Future Shock". It was classic sociological mumbo jumbo but one of the things that stuck with me was that most humans have a limit with the amount of change they can cope with after which they start to opt out. I suspect we have more of our society in that situation than ever before.
I think that's right. But it's reinforced by the scathing coverage by the media of the whole political class (we can debate whether deserved or not). People like that don't just think things have changed too much. They think politicians are either completely incompetent to prevent or slow the changes or, worse, compleletely indifferent to how they feel about them.
I get a few votes from people who would otherwise vote UKIP simply for listening and trying to respond to the issues they raise - they are quite clear that I don't agree with their solutions, but feel that at least they've had an intelligent conversation and I've recognised why they're unhappy. It's a bit sad that that's sometimes enough - they aren't generally nasty-minded (I think we all tend to oversimplify people we don't agree with, like Gordon with Mrs Duffy), just terribly alienated.
Ed Miliband's "We are bringing socialism back to Britain", is either inspired or the worst gaffe in British political history. I know where my money will be going.
Rising London property prices should also be a concern to anyone who values the future wellbeing of the City.
Higher property prices means higher costs for the business located there, not just directly but also through having to pay their employees extra so that they can afford to live within commuting distance. Not to mention having their employees gowing increasing complacent because their flats are increasing in value.
Inevitably this brings forward the day when City business relocates to cheaper and hungrier rivals.
But the state subsidises all this through housing benefit otherwise there wouldn't be a workforce. As we've seen on this thread the people who think they are benefiting like Sean will always be trumped by the old money like Charles who's dads pony up as soon as they come down from Oxbridge. And hot money from around the world gets a return of course knowing that politicians will never let the house of cards collapse
My Dad didn't pony up anything. He used a little bit of theoretical financing capacity in underwriting a loan (with a third party building society). Helpful, but essentially cost free (his core banking relationship is quite flexible on lending ratios for him). It just made Portman feel happier.
Old money, even if never spent but merely guaranteed allows recent graduates to get on the housing ladder/racket before they've had to work and save, it's a big headstart. People born in different beds had to work and pay rent to get themselves into a position to buy.
Thats where help to buy comes in tim - for those without a rich farmer daddy...
Taking a start point of 2002 is daft, go back to the trough (or best affordability point if you were looking at any other commodity) in the mid nineties
It is not me indexing at 2002, tim. It is the ONS.
I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense and I guess they will revise it soon, but I can't be arsed to reindex it all. The actual stats go back to 1968 (UK Index end Q2 1968 = 3.6!).
If you really think there is a distortion due to the indexing, I'll have a look.
You missed of most of the big London rise by using 2002 as a base
Prices in London started to rise steeply in 1995 and it rippled out, which is what will happen again unless someone stops Osborne (and trebles housebuilding)
Looking at that chart the best two dates for indexing would be 1977 and 1992 as these are the two years nearest convergence. So the ONS choice of 1992 is not that odd.
I will look at the stats to see if there should be any significant difference to my commentary as a result of a different indexing date.
One other small point about the chart I posted was that the England figures include the London prices. More recent ONS releases give additional series for 'England excluding London', and an 'England excluding London and the South East'. But I didn't use those for the same reason as using quarterly figures: I wanted to go back to 1997 and the 'England ex' figures were not available that far back.
Rising London property prices should also be a concern to anyone who values the future wellbeing of the City.
Higher property prices means higher costs for the business located there, not just directly but also through having to pay their employees extra so that they can afford to live within commuting distance. Not to mention having their employees gowing increasing complacent because their flats are increasing in value.
Inevitably this brings forward the day when City business relocates to cheaper and hungrier rivals.
But the state subsidises all this through housing benefit otherwise there wouldn't be a workforce. As we've seen on this thread the people who think they are benefiting like Sean will always be trumped by the old money like Charles who's dads pony up as soon as they come down from Oxbridge. And hot money from around the world gets a return of course knowing that politicians will never let the house of cards collapse
My Dad didn't pony up anything. He used a little bit of theoretical financing capacity in underwriting a loan (with a third party building society). Helpful, but essentially cost free (his core banking relationship is quite flexible on lending ratios for him). It just made Portman feel happier.
Old money, even if never spent but merely guaranteed allows recent graduates to get on the housing ladder/racket before they've had to work and save, it's a big headstart. People born in different beds had to work and pay rent to get themselves into a position to buy.
I worked & paid rent for 3 years to build up a deposit, and then borrowed a bunch of money and had to have two lodgers to make the numbers work. The only difference my father made was that I could go to Portman (the most competitive rate) vs Lloyds (the next most competitive)
Rising London property prices should also be a concern to anyone who values the future wellbeing of the City.
Higher property prices means higher costs for the business located there, not just directly but also through having to pay their employees extra so that they can afford to live within commuting distance. Not to mention having their employees gowing increasing complacent because their flats are increasing in value.
Inevitably this brings forward the day when City business relocates to cheaper and hungrier rivals.
I had a very pleasant drink last night with someone who has a lot of insight in these matters.
His view was that since about 2006/7 the property market has not been driven by the City as incomes have been severely compressed, especially the cash portions.
That said, your second point is fair: I know members of my team struggle to afford to buy even a small flat within commutable distance of the office. Cost of living is a real issue for them.
I didn't say that London house prices had been City driven. Clearly they haven't been since 2007.
Although you could make the argument that if the government hadn't bailed out the banks, and with them the City's reputation, then London house prices would be significantly lower today.
Ed Miliband's "We are bringing socialism back to Britain", is either inspired or the worst gaffe in British political history. I know where my money will be going.
Is Ed M going to re-introduce Clause IV ? Or is he a preposterous inheritance millionaire poseur ?
To add to Tim's usual erudite post,it is no longer true that Labour can or should be "extremely relaxed" about the ever-growing rich,the feral rich you could call them,the sort who are on the Sunday Times "Rich List" and have gained £155billion in wealth in just 1 year,because we won't get fooled again by the bankers and their tax havens. Make the bankers pay.
Rising London property prices should also be a concern to anyone who values the future wellbeing of the City.
Higher property prices means higher costs for the business located there, not just directly but also through having to pay their employees extra so that they can afford to live within commuting distance. Not to mention having their employees gowing increasing complacent because their flats are increasing in value.
Inevitably this brings forward the day when City business relocates to cheaper and hungrier rivals.
But the state subsidises all this through housing benefit otherwise there wouldn't be a workforce. As we've seen on this thread the people who think they are benefiting like Sean will always be trumped by the old money like Charles who's dads pony up as soon as they come down from Oxbridge. And hot money from around the world gets a return of course knowing that politicians will never let the house of cards collapse
My Dad didn't pony up anything. (his core banking relationship is quite flexible on lending ratios for him). .
Charles, that is a truly classic piece of understatement. Superb.
Charles obviously didn't finance through a bank located at the sign of the golden bottle. The premium to market rate would have been 2% if he did.
Taking a start point of 2002 is daft, go back to the trough (or best affordability point if you were looking at any other commodity) in the mid nineties
It is not me indexing at 2002, tim. It is the ONS.
I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense and I guess they will revise it soon, but I can't be arsed to reindex it all. The actual stats go back to 1968 (UK Index end Q2 1968 = 3.6!).
If you really think there is a distortion due to the indexing, I'll have a look.
You missed of most of the big London rise by using 2002 as a base
Prices in London started to rise steeply in 1995 and it rippled out, which is what will happen again unless someone stops Osborne (and trebles housebuilding)
Looking at that chart the best two dates for indexing would be 1977 and 1992 as these are the two years nearest convergence. So the ONS choice of 1992 is not that odd.
I will look at the stats to see if there should be any significant difference to my commentary as a result of a different indexing date.
One other small point about the chart I posted was that the England figures include the London prices. More recent ONS releases give additional series for 'England excluding London', and an 'England excluding London and the South East'. But I didn't use those for the same reason as using quarterly figures: I wanted to go back to 1997 and the 'England ex' figures were not available that far back.
England excluding inner London might perhaps be the most relevant these days.
Rising London property prices should also be a concern to anyone who values the future wellbeing of the City.
Higher property prices means higher costs for the business located there, not just directly but also through having to pay their employees extra so that they can afford to live within commuting distance. Not to mention having their employees gowing increasing complacent because their flats are increasing in value.
Inevitably this brings forward the day when City business relocates to cheaper and hungrier rivals.
But the state subsidises all this through housing benefit otherwise there wouldn't be a workforce. As we've seen on this thread the people who think they are benefiting like Sean will always be trumped by the old money like Charles who's dads pony up as soon as they come down from Oxbridge. And hot money from around the world gets a return of course knowing that politicians will never let the house of cards collapse
My Dad didn't pony up anything. He used a little bit of theoretical financing capacity in underwriting a loan (with a third party building society). Helpful, but essentially cost free (his core banking relationship is quite flexible on lending ratios for him). It just made Portman feel happier.
Old money, even if never spent but merely guaranteed allows recent graduates to get on the housing ladder/racket before they've had to work and save, it's a big headstart. People born in different beds had to work and pay rent to get themselves into a position to buy.
Rising London property prices should also be a concern to anyone who values the future wellbeing of the City.
Higher property prices means higher costs for the business located there, not just directly but also through having to pay their employees extra so that they can afford to live within commuting distance. Not to mention having their employees gowing increasing complacent because their flats are increasing in value.
Inevitably this brings forward the day when City business relocates to cheaper and hungrier rivals.
But the state subsidises all this through housing benefit otherwise there wouldn't be a workforce. As we've seen on this thread the people who think they are benefiting like Sean will always be trumped by the old money like Charles who's dads pony up as soon as they come down from Oxbridge. And hot money from around the world gets a return of course knowing that politicians will never let the house of cards collapse
My Dad didn't pony up anything. He used a little bit of theoretical financing capacity in underwriting a loan (with a third party building society). Helpful, but essentially cost free (his core banking relationship is quite flexible on lending ratios for him). It just made Portman feel happier.
Old money, even if never spent but merely guaranteed allows recent graduates to get on the housing ladder/racket before they've had to work and save, it's a big headstart. People born in different beds had to work and pay rent to get themselves into a position to buy.
Thats where help to buy comes in tim - for those without a rich farmer daddy...
Except it applies to remortgaging, so you made a simple error. And geared up to £600k mortgages, I cant see many first time buyers who've had to make it on their own using that facility.
Ed Miliband's "We are bringing socialism back to Britain", is either inspired or the worst gaffe in British political history. I know where my money will be going.
Is Ed M going to re-introduce Clause IV ? Or is he a preposterous inheritance millionaire poseur ?
As it happens, I have a London property decision to make. Do I sell one of my flats or rent it out for a year or two?
antifrank
I don't like the hassle of being a landlord, but the market seems to be going only one way for the next year.
What were the dates of your investment in NI property?
I was thinking about that when looking at the ONS figures. It may well be you bought at the trough and have enjoyed some pretty rapid appreciation in the past couple of years.
The northern Irish property has done OK. The London properties are causing more headaches, in a positive way. I bought my second London flat in 2010 and it has risen in value by about half in that time.
Round where I live is very much in bubble territory.
Just how are Ed Miliband and Ed Balls going to be able to sell exactly the same Brownite economics a second time after the toxic economic legacy they left the country just three years ago? Its like that scene from Dallas when Bobby comes out of the shower to find the last series was all just a bad dream! Good luck selling this one. And again, its going to make the two Ed's look bl**dy daft if a far more balanced economic recovery continues apace under this Government all the way up until the next GE.
I am beginning to wonder if Brown, Balls and Miliband are having some sort of competition to see who can make the stupidest economic claim that will come back later to haunt them?
Last time the labour lot were in power, my consistent issue with them was them taking too much in tax and then hosing it down the drain by either spending it on the unworthy or by their complete incompetence with money. As none of them had ever run a real business, they simply could not comprehend that you can improve most activities of government by spending less and being efficient.
So the "new" policies of Ed is to do it all over again. I know the great electorate general dont understand numbers, but how do labour expect more of the same old rubbish that created most of the problems in the first place to win an election?
Vote UKIP, get a socialist government who lets the EU walk all over us surely must help Cameron.
Just how are Ed Miliband and Ed Balls going to be able to sell exactly the same Brownite economics a second time after the toxic economic legacy they left the country just three years ago? Its like that scene from Dallas when Bobby comes out of the shower to find the last series was all just a bad dream! Good luck selling this one. And again, its going to make the two Ed's look bl**dy daft if a far more balanced economic recovery continues apace under this Government all the way up until the next GE.
I am beginning to wonder if Brown, Balls and Miliband are having some sort of competition to see who can make the stupidest economic claim that will come back later to haunt them?
Last time the labour lot were in power, my consistent issue with them was them taking too much in tax and then hosing it down the drain by either spending it on the unworthy or by their complete incompetence with money. As none of them had ever run a real business, they simply could not comprehend that you can improve most activities of government by spending less and being efficient.
So the "new" policies of Ed is to do it all over again. I know the great electorate general dont understand numbers, but how do labour expect more of the same old rubbish that created most of the problems in the first place to win an election?
Vote UKIP, get a socialist government who lets the EU walk all over us surely must help Cameron.
Generally the Cons have to have made everything completely better again and the last Lab c*ck up a distant memory before people vote in Lab again.
Miss Fitalass, Labour will benefit from a media that failed to explain why they were so shit (and can't even tell the difference between a debt and a deficit now) and being allowed to get away with their 'insurgent' bullshit last election instead of having to actually explain what their deficit reduction plan was, and defend their record.
tim seems to think that everyone who is successful /well off,achieved that because of Daddy...what a pr*t His tag team buddy SO seems to have made the transition all by himself .. with a little help from the state...but I guess mainly by his own efforts
Comments
I was thinking about that when looking at the ONS figures. It may well be you bought at the trough and have enjoyed some pretty rapid appreciation in the past couple of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shock
I get a few votes from people who would otherwise vote UKIP simply for listening and trying to respond to the issues they raise - they are quite clear that I don't agree with their solutions, but feel that at least they've had an intelligent conversation and I've recognised why they're unhappy. It's a bit sad that that's sometimes enough - they aren't generally nasty-minded (I think we all tend to oversimplify people we don't agree with, like Gordon with Mrs Duffy), just terribly alienated.
I will look at the stats to see if there should be any significant difference to my commentary as a result of a different indexing date.
One other small point about the chart I posted was that the England figures include the London prices. More recent ONS releases give additional series for 'England excluding London', and an 'England excluding London and the South East'. But I didn't use those for the same reason as using quarterly figures: I wanted to go back to 1997 and the 'England ex' figures were not available that far back.
Although you could make the argument that if the government hadn't bailed out the banks, and with them the City's reputation, then London house prices would be significantly lower today.
Or is he a preposterous inheritance millionaire poseur ?
Make the bankers pay.
Unless of course you own the bank.
I don't try to hide who I am, but would rather not make it obvious!
Round where I live is very much in bubble territory.
Sunday's YouGov{ will Labour lead be > or < 5?
EdM focusing on living standards. Gasps of shock. Will it mean more to voters than the giveaway they will get from GO in the run-up to GE2015?
Probably not. He and Lynton have got it covered.
I am beginning to wonder if Brown, Balls and Miliband are having some sort of competition to see who can make the stupidest economic claim that will come back later to haunt them?
We're not quite there yet.
Miss Fitalass, Labour will benefit from a media that failed to explain why they were so shit (and can't even tell the difference between a debt and a deficit now) and being allowed to get away with their 'insurgent' bullshit last election instead of having to actually explain what their deficit reduction plan was, and defend their record.
They'll suffer from having Miliband and Balls.
His tag team buddy SO seems to have made the transition all by himself .. with a little help from the state...but I guess mainly by his own efforts