snowychap Posted August 21, 2008 Share Posted August 21, 2008 Perhaps we could ignore all of the empty houses? Maybe the best thing is to knock down the 800,000 or so empty houses and replace them with 800,000 or so new houses? Norfolk&Holmes In the wake of Britain's desperate shortage of housing, we have discovered there are an estimated 800,000 empty dwellings across the country owned by the government, local councils, the MOD and private companies / individuals. It has become Norfolk & Holmes's mission to track down the owners of these properties, win the instructions and offer empty properties for sale at a price affordable to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 26, 2008 Share Posted August 26, 2008 Looks like they haven't hit the bottom over the pond, yet: US house prices 'see record fall' US house prices were down a record 15.4% in the April to June quarter compared with a year ago, according to a closely-watched report. The decline was recorded by the latest S&P/Case-Shiller survey of US national home prices. The report said the fact that the falls were nationwide was the latest sign the US housing downturn is continuing. Separate government data said sales of new homes hit 515,000 in July, up from June, but still near a 16-year low. Both sets of figures come a day after a study by the main US estate agency body, the National Association of Realtors, said the volume of home sales in July were down 13.2 on the year. 'Mortal enemy' Housing analyst Gary Shilling said a key problem for the housing market was the oversupply of unsold new homes built during the recent boom years, which he estimated still stood at 1.8 million properties. "The key point is we are a long way from bottoming out," he said. "The bulls keep hoping otherwise, but the basic problem is excess inventories. They are the mortal enemy of prices." However, other analysts were less downbeat, pointing to the fact that the month-on-month rate of house price declines appeared to be slowing. The fall in May was 0.85%, compared with 1.28% in April and 2.15% in March. "Prices are still falling but at a progressively lesser pace, this is the slowest decline since last July," said economist David Sloan of 4Cast. "It seems that some areas are now finding a base. It is reasonably encouraging in that it suggests that some parts of the problem are more localised now." The S&P/Case-Shiller survey bases its findings on 20 of the largest US cities. Those that saw the biggest drop in prices from the second quarter of 2007 to that of this year were the sunbelt cities of Las Vegas (-28.6%), Miami (-28.3%), and Phoenix (-27.9%). Falls were also particularly sharp in Southern California, which had previously seen a huge boom. The least affected city was Charlotte, North Carolina, where prices fell only 1%. The continuing falls in the housing market are likely to prove a further headache for the banking sector, which has suffered huge losses as the value of its bonds linked to house prices has fallen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnvillan Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 Worst house prices fall for 18 years Jonathan Prynn, Evening Standard 28.08.08 Related Articles * Taxpayer's Rock bill may rise as repossessions soar * We need a mortgage rescue plan for families, says Cable * Property gloom forces Mayfair agent to sell up after 17 years The property market faces a full-scale collapse with house prices tumbling by more than 10 per cent a year for the first time since 1990. The average price has fallen by 10.5 per cent over the past 12 months, wiping about £30,000 off the value of a typical London home, according to the Nationwide building society. The last time that house price falls were measured in double digits was in the autumn of 1990 during the depths of the last recession, when it took six years for values to recover. The figures confirm there is still no sign of an easing of the credit crunch almost a year on from the collapse of Northern Rock. A leading City forecaster is now predicting a full-blown recession for the British economy next year. Capital Economics said GDP will fall by 0.2 per cent, which would be the first full-year drop in national income since 1991. Officially, the Government is still predicting growth of at least 2.25 per cent next year. Another bleak set of financial results from leading companies this morning added to the growing mood of gloom as the City continued its return to work after the summer break. Property agents and consultants Savills said its profits fell more than 40 per cent to £19.2million in the first half of the year and warned that there was "no sign of improvement" in the financial markets. Chief executive Jeremy Helsby said he expects property prices to fall 25 per cent between January this year and December next year. But he added: "The good news is that in 2012, in London and the South-East, prices will recover to the levels they were in 2007." Car dealer Pendragon said its firsthalf profits dropped 60 per cent from £33.5million to £13.4million and the number of cars it sold to private buyers fell eight per cent in the second quarter. Chief executive Trevor Finn also said there had been "unexpected and significant" falls in second-hand car prices over the summer because of the lack of buyers and warned there would be no recovery until the end of next year. Nationwide's figures showed that house prices fell by almost two per cent in August alone, the 10th consecutive monthly fall. The building society's chief economist Fionnuala Earley said: "Recent activity levels in the housing market remain very subdued. House builders in particular have been reporting significant reductions in site visits and reservations of new properties since this time last year, in spite of a big increase in the use of sales incentives." With estate agents around the country reporting very few enquiries from prospective buyers over the summer there is little hope that there will be a September bounce this year. Nicholas Leeming, a director at online agents propertyfinder.com, said: "August was exceptionally quiet and July was also very quiet. There is likely to be an early shut down of the market for Christmas, so November will be dead as well as December. In any down period the quiet times come early." The stream of bad economic news has made a mockery of predictions that the credit crunch, which flared up in the US last summer, would end this year. In April Goldman Sachs chairman and chief executive Lloyd Blankfein said that people "feel like they're seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. We're closer to the end than we are at the beginning." It is bad news for Chancellor Alistair Darling and for Gordon Brown's hopes of capitalising on the Olympic feelgood factor to revive his poll ratings. The last time the housing market was in such a dire state the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was ousted in a party coup and replaced by a younger rival. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 * We need a mortgage rescue plan for families, says Cable So how does he intend to fund this then ? use tax payers money to pay for those people who foolishly over stretched themselves, because let me remind you Interest rates are still low and even though those coming out of fixed rates now may struggle a bit you have to ask if personal resposnbility for how you manage your own money should come in ? the answer to aa lot of the problems of housing is to fund and allow councils to build and increase the quality of their own housing stock, I look at Birmingham and plenty of brown field sites where decent housing could be built. an answer is to reduce the need to actually have a mortgage and force those on borderline salaries to get a mortgage because no council hpousing is available. I said it before but when peopel look back at the Thatcher years the policy of selling council housing will prove to be disasterous and this is one consequence of pushing people into moprtgages who shpuld not have them Now you might say how would you fund it ? simple allow councils to loan the money (I know credit crunch but this is over the long term) backed by the income from rents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 So, Ian, did you take the time to go to the link and then read the article - the headline of which you have quoted in order to deride someone whose knowledge and foresight in this area has been head and shoulders above other people (certainly Gordo)? Here is the article with what Vince Cable proposes: Thousands of families are at risk of losing their homes in the credit crunch unless the Government steps in to help, the Liberal Democrats warned today. Treasury spokesman Vince Cable called for ministers to implement a "mortgage rescue" plan which would help avoid repossessions and tide people over until the global downturn is over. Among the Lib-Dem proposals are moves to let families struggling with repayments sell all or part of the equity in their house and rent it back from a housing association or private firm. Another of the party's ideas is allowing councils and housing associations to borrow money to buy up land and empty new homes. The Lib-Dems also want new court guidelines that would only allow homes to be repossessed in extreme circumstances and the mortgage lenders' voluntary code to be made binding on all lenders. Mr Cable said: "The Government seems obsessed with fighting a losing battle to artificially prop up the housing market, rather than finding ways to deal with its worst effects. "Ministers must act to help the thousands of families struggling to keep a roof over their heads. "The Government should allow councils and housing associations to buy up land as well as empty homes to help replenish Britain's much depleted stock of social housing. "Ministers must also tighten up repossession rules, to ensure that people's homes are only ever repossessed as a last resort." Mr Cable said his plans could be funded using money already committed to social housing but currently unspent because of the collapse in new building. The proposals would also save taxpayers the cost of rehousing the homeless. One million households spend more than two-thirds of their income on housing, according to a recent survey by Shelter, and the number of repossessions has more than doubled in the past five years, reaching a 15-year high in 2007. The party will debate the ideas at its conference in Bournemouth next month So how does he intend to fund this then ? Well, he doesn't seem to be a million miles away from what you suggest (which your party's government is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 he is shying away from the fact how would moving money from social housing ~(note priaavte houasing associations) help int he long term and snowy you have not answered the point about why we shoudl help to fund those who should never have got mortgages tin the first place, it is only delaying what wpould happen Another of the party's ideas is allowing councils and housing associations to borrow money to buy up land and empty new homes. sounds fine but not housing associations just an extension of the thatcher policy which has done so much damage as I said would you not agree that policy is at the heart of the problem, the encouragement of those on borderline wage levels to over borrow, to live the 'dream' decent council housing would be the better 'dream' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 I agree that better social housing is what would be best. However, it appears that you want to have a dig at Vince Cable because he's not a member of the Labour party and because the policies he is proposing are not Labour government policies. They're a country mile nearer what you are proposing than the government. and snowy you have not answered the point about why we shoudl help to fund those who should never have got mortgages tin the first place Where has it said that Cable proposed this? He has proposed that rules about reposessions should be tightened; that rules regarding those responsible for social housing (both councils and housing associations) and their borrowing ought to be relaxed and that there ought to be a scheme for people to sell some of the equity from their homes and rent it back (I'm guessing that he is looking at a better and more reliabole scheme than the idea of doing this with one of the sharkish companies already around). What have the government proposed over the last couple of months? Darling mumbled something about a 'stamp duty holiday' being possible and then the Treasury backtracked and said that nothing had been decided which had the wonderful effect of, apparently, stopping shedloads of transactions taking place until something is decided. As far as I'm concerned the housing market can crash, crash, crash and perhaps our attitude to home ownership might change from that which was initiated in the 80s. This government is not seeking and has never sought to alter that attitude. They are hand in hand with that particular aspirational part of Thatcherite policy and don't you forget it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 oh I agree snowy they have never tried to change it because the majority of the population home owning and thus it is a difficult one to sell. remember it is far easier to sell a policy in opposition than in govern,mment I like some of what Cable proposes I have to say but I am against any support of those in trouble, I knwo it sounds harsh but sometimes the lessons as you said need to be learnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 and snowy you have not answered the point about why we shoudl help to fund those who should never have got mortgages tin the first place, it is only delaying what wpould happen but I am against any support of those in trouble, I knwo it sounds harsh but sometimes the lessons as you said need to be learnt Aren't you making the same argument that you specifically opposed in relation to Northern Wreck, that is to say why should the public have to bail out irresponsible lenders who got themselves into trouble? It's surprising that you back the banks but not the man in the street. Be honest the only thing underpinning [extreme irony mode]Gordon's economic miracle [/off] was a massive debt bubble that they positively encouraged. Trying to blame Thatcher for this governments feck ups is fairly weak mate tbh, yes she started the rot but what have Labour done to address it? Nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 no AWOL take your blinkers off ... the fact of the thatcher swindle changed the countries psyche it encouraged home ownership (intially on the cheap and I have say corrupt) for all when for some it was never the answer, this led to all the decent stock being took off the council's books and my Mrs's confirms now how hard it is for anyone to get an hone. Gradually this led to more demand for priavte rented which led to buy to let and deprived even more people of the chance of an home who cpould afford it prices went up - Demand > Supply a far greater amount of council housing available would have decreased the demand and kept prices under check but the ones who pushed the sell off ocf course never had to worry about finding a cheap affordable house did they ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 oh I agree snowy they have never tried to change it because the majority of the population home owning and thus it is a difficult one to sell. remember it is far easier to sell a policy in opposition than in govern,mment I like some of what Cable proposes I have to say but I am against any support of those in trouble, I knwo it sounds harsh but sometimes the lessons as you said need to be learnt I'm glad that you are beginning to come around to the fact that New Labour were and still are a party based not on principle but on the expedience of what would bring them power. You harsh? Yes. Especially when the lessons need to be learnt by policy makers (who will go untouched) as much as individuals and families who will most certainly not. Unfortunately, it sounds as though you don't care for those people who might actually get hurt at the same time as you'll be renewing your party membership and voting for those who helped to fuel the dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 no AWOL take your blinkers off ... Ian, take yours off, too. the fact of the thatcher swindle changed the countries psyche I agree. However, a labour government has done nothing to attempt to alter that. a far greater amount of council housing available would have decreased the demand and kept prices under check And where is this policy in the current government's list of things to do/being done? but the ones who pushed the sell off ocf course never had to worry about finding a cheap affordable house did they ? And the ones tasked with trying to sort out the current mess are hardly going to be worrying, are they? Yes, one or two might be looking for new homes in London in the next couple of years but, really, they are no different at all in terms of 'need' from those policy makers in the 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 thing is snowy I do believe peopel make open choices in life and if you brought an house on 5X salray mortgages (that should be legislated against BTW and a maxuium multiple applied say 3.5 or 4 at a push) then it is your choice and I don;t see why the tax payer in any form shpould help out. However if someone is ill etc. then I think the government shoudl help ... difficult one because the Tories abolished Mortgage state help because it was so damm expensive OK you can make repossions harder but as I said it only delays the inevitable if you can not afford the mortgage you can not afford it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 thing is snowy I do believe peopel make open choices in life and if you brought an house on 5X salray mortgages (that should be legislated against BTW and a maxuium multiple applied say 3.5 or 4 at a push) then it is your choice and I don;t see why the tax payer in any form shpould help out. Did you support the Nationalisation of Northern Rock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 yes only to stop a total run on all banks and for that reason only it had to be supported but remeber the shareholders have suffered for their barmy policy and money has been paid back to the government,. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 yes only to stop a total run on all banks and for that reason only it had to be supported but remeber the shareholders have suffered for their barmy policy and money has been paid back to the government,. So, how about an argument to prevent a run on all houses and housing markets? Money has been paid back? Only a small amount and part of that has been lent back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 no AWOL take your blinkers off ... the fact of the thatcher swindle changed the countries psyche it encouraged home ownership (intially on the cheap and I have say corrupt) for all when for some it was never the answer, this led to all the decent stock being took off the council's books and my Mrs's confirms now how hard it is for anyone to get an hone. Gradually this led to more demand for priavte rented which led to buy to let and deprived even more people of the chance of an home who cpould afford it prices went up - Demand > Supply a far greater amount of council housing available would have decreased the demand and kept prices under check but the ones who pushed the sell off ocf course never had to worry about finding a cheap affordable house did they ? Thanks for not answering my point at all. You back the banks ( NR) but think individual borrowers should be punished for being stupid. How very socialist of you Ian. I agreed with you that Thatcher started the problem but then said Labour have only deepened the problem which you ignore - blinkers eh? They've had ten years and three election victories to do something about it but they haven't, in fact the situation is worse now than in 97. Stop trying to pass the buck and realise that 10 years in government equals responsibility for the state of things today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 Money has been paid back? Only a small amount and part of that has been lent back. Didn't they effectively right off the first 3 billion a few weeks ago as non-recoverable? Expect there will be plenty more too but the public purse should just keep shelling out according to Ian - unless of course you are, for example, a young couple who felt they had to get onto the ladder 18 months ago and are now facing real trouble. Let's face it they're just mugs, not like those clever men in suits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 yes only to stop a total run on all banks and for that reason only it had to be supported but remeber the shareholders have suffered for their barmy policy and money has been paid back to the government,. So, how about an argument to prevent a run on all houses and housing markets? Money has been paid back? Only a small amount and part of that has been lent back. that argument is not relevant the numbers defaulting will not affect the housing market a fraction as much as a bank collapse would you still not answer my point if those people shoudl never have been given a mortgage, would never in the long term be able to afford it then the inevitable is closure you can only go on for so long and several football clubs have now found that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 Money has been paid back? Only a small amount and part of that has been lent back. Didn't they effectively right off the first 3 billion a few weeks ago as non-recoverable? Expect there will be plenty more too but the public purse should just keep shelling out according to Ian - unless of course you are, for example, a young couple who felt they had to get onto the ladder 18 months ago and are now facing real trouble. Let's face it they're just mugs, not like those clever men in suits. mugs or just competent to realise they were very heavy in debt to something they desired yet could not afford. I would love a £200k detached house but I can;t afford it so I stay at my current one until either I earn more or I get a windfall from my fairy godmother. The thatcher ethos as shown by the selling of council houses of everything is obtainable is being shown to be a shallow lie, you earn only £20k a year thenn live somehwere where you can afford and AWOL and snoy constant references to what labour should or should not have done is irrelevant, yes I would loved to see them crack down on banks and restrict lending, yes I woudl have loved to see them quthorise a massive expanison in public housing but the majority of the public would not sometimes people have to take responsbility for their own lives and descions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts