The UK property market has been and still is Nationlised under the Tories.

[haroldshand]

I have looked at the property market closely over the last several years and made many observations, but sometimes you just cannot articulate in a simple way what is so wrong with the property market in the UK. Being educated, hard working and aspirational plays little part in the UK today when it comes to property and so many other things for that matter,  which has made me think that a hard right party is so badly needed in the UK right now to dish out some tough love, but that's another post.

Was talking to someone yesterday about housing etc and he hit the nail on the head with such and simple statement and with something I totally overlooked "The property market in the UK is Nationlised" he came out with, which begs the question for people who want to work their way to a better life, what the f*** do the Tories now stand for?, the loony left calling these Tories "hard right", you must be joking.

[spygirl]

How do you work that out?

~50% of houses have no fiance on them, owned by owner.

 

 

[haroldshand]

7 minutes ago, spygirl said:

How do you work that out?

~50% of houses have no fiance on them, owned by owner.

 

 

And whats left is state run

[spygirl]

5 minutes ago, haroldshand said:

And whats left is state run

No.

20% has always been one form of social housing.

Its only a small percentage of housing that have finances onthem.

[haroldshand]

8 minutes ago, spygirl said:

No.

20% has always been one form of social housing.

Its only a small percentage of housing that have finances onthem.

When I say Nationlised I mean that the value of property in the UK is 100% controlled and set.

1. Right to buy

2. Help to buy

3, self cert(now gone)

4. Historical low interest rates.

5. Debt forgiveness 

6. High population growth

7. Deliberate housing shortage

 

And there is more

[spygirl]

5 minutes ago, haroldshand said:

When I say Nationlised I mean that the value of property in the UK is 100% controlled and set.

1. Right to buy Agreed,but tiny now.

2. Help to buy UKGOV does not set price.

3, self cert(now gone) Long gome. So has IO for OO.

4. Historical low interest rates.

5. Debt forgiveness  No suchthing.

6. High population growth Gormelss but true.

7. Deliberate housing shortage Is there?

 

And there is more

 

[Shits McGee]

26 minutes ago, haroldshand said:

Deliberate housing shortage

I'd say deliberate shortage of quality housing.

They're not making 70s build ex-council places on big plots any more.

Easy to have a surplus of stud wall shoeboxs.

[BurntBread]

34 minutes ago, haroldshand said:

When I say Nationlised I mean that the value of property in the UK is 100% controlled and set.

1. Right to buy

2. Help to buy

3, self cert(now gone)

4. Historical low interest rates.

5. Debt forgiveness 

6. High population growth

7. Deliberate housing shortage

 

And there is more

There are a lot of props, and even if they don't directly affect the majority of houses, "prices are always set at the margin", as they say. I think @spygirl would agree that government intervention puts a floor under rents, which in turn influences the price of BTL, which in turn affects the price for owner occupiers. Is that fair, Spy?

[spygirl]

1 minute ago, BurntBread said:

There are a lot of props, and even if they don't directly affect the majority of houses, "prices are always set at the margin", as they say. I think @spygirl would agree that government intervention puts a floor under rents, which in turn influences the price of BTL, which in turn affects the price for owner occupiers. Is that fair, Spy?

LHA controls ~90% of rents.

LHA goes up, rents go up.

LHA goes down, rents go down.

[spunko]

The "affordable housing" (ethnic cleansing) lie is probably one of the things that point towards a nationalised government scheme. It works like this: central government set a "target" of 40% affordable housing for larger developments, and local authorities buy them up using central government funds/loans. Local authorities then move their problem tenants - druggies, ethnics, gobby bennie fiends - out into the shires, out of sight and mind, all paid for off the back of the taxpayer.

The receiving local authority then gets a kickback for letting this scum move into their area (£££).

It's just the circulation of taxpayer funds, akin to money laundering.

 

[DurhamBorn]

1 hour ago, haroldshand said:

When I say Nationlised I mean that the value of property in the UK is 100% controlled and set.

1. Right to buy

2. Help to buy

3, self cert(now gone)

4. Historical low interest rates.

5. Debt forgiveness 

6. High population growth

7. Deliberate housing shortage

 

And there is more

US long bond sets UK house prices mostly.There is a lag and cross affects,but once the long bond starts to see an increasing yield UK house prices will fall away.

[A tremendous # on the lung]

1 hour ago, DurhamBorn said:

US long bond sets UK house prices mostly.There is a lag and cross affects,but once the long bond starts to see an increasing yield UK house prices will fall away.

Your posts would be much improved if you simplified your language and gave a more comprehensive explanation. It seems like you have a lot of knowledge to impart

[DurhamBorn]

2 minutes ago, A tremendous # on the lung said:

Your posts would be much improved if you simplified your language and gave a more comprehensive explanation. It seems like you have a lot of knowledge to impart

The US long bond price dictates the price of money across the developed world,and now more and more the emerging world.Currency and inflation fluctuate around the edges when countries deviate away,but the longer term affect is the same.Once US long bond yields go up,UK rates will follow (unless you want the £ to go down and down and down) and house prices go down as servicing the debt increases.If our rates dont go up,everything imported goes up in price and less disposable for houses,the same affect.

In simple terms once the Fed sees corporate America re-finance its debt at the present rates and sort out their repayment profiles they will remove their foot off the neck of the long bond.Inflation will be higher than the whole curve for the cycle,but both are heading up with some short term gyrations.

[Shits McGee]

@DurhamBorn in your opinion what would have the bigger overall effect on personal wealth

Inflation causing cash devaluation of savings

House price falls causing loss of 'value' of an existing asset

Hope that question makes sense

[DurhamBorn]

52 minutes ago, Loki said:

@DurhamBorn in your opinion what would have the bigger overall effect on personal wealth

Inflation causing cash devaluation of savings

House price falls causing loss of 'value' of an existing asset

Hope that question makes sense

A house provides utility value,so i would say on a house paid for zero affect on wealth if it falls.For the leveraged its a different story.House prices up and down affect the next generation the most.That depends if you will inherit or not and how/where you buy or not.

Inflation will help most asset owners apart from houses.

[Shits McGee]

16 minutes ago, DurhamBorn said:

A house provides utility value,so i would say on a house paid for zero affect on wealth if it falls.For the leveraged its a different story.House prices up and down affect the next generation the most.That depends if you will inherit or not and how/where you buy or not.

Inflation will help most asset owners apart from houses.

Thanks as always!

[goldbug9999]

7 hours ago, haroldshand said:

When I say Nationlised I mean that the value of property in the UK is 100% controlled and set.

1. Right to buy

2. Help to buy

3, self cert(now gone)

4. Historical low interest rates.

5. Debt forgiveness 

6. High population growth

7. Deliberate housing shortage

 

And there is more

LHA housing benefit rates are a massive factor you have omitted

 

[Google247]

What is the usual lag between the bond rates changing and the cost of credit filtering out around the world?

[201p]

I was watching the housing market sector closely while on HPC.

No major house builder went under in 2008.

The home builder sector in the London stock exchange was rejigged to avoid worrying people. No housing sector, no banking sector, no economy. The end of the world as we knew it. 

Whitehall knew it. Alistair Darling wrote in his auto biography (I bought the book, Back from the Brink) that if housing values went down, the consumer confidence would go down, and people wouldn't spend. This would be a deflationary spiral.

The home builder sector was rejigged so it had consumer companies in there such as Reckitt Benckiser which bolstered the group.

EDIT - I tried to look for the FTSE350 group sector constituents which used to be on the London Stock Exchange website just now, it looks like they removed that function now. So you'll just have to take my blinking word for it. 

So yes, you could say the housing sector is effectively nationalised. Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, it wouldn't matter.

Low house prices would be catastrophic (probably), and it would be a real depression. Can you imagine people sitting on housing equity suddenly feeling poorer.

They wouldn't buy cars on finance.

They wouldn't travel abroad.

They wouldn't eat out, or go to the pub as much.

More importantly - They wouldn't look at the EA's windows anymore when they go past and congratulate themselves on their great investment.

[leonardratso]

sounds like the last 5 months to me.

[201p]

I suspect we'll see some more stimulus packages - we've had help to eat out.

Maybe it's time for another Car Scrappage Scheme. Or Electric Car upgrade scheme.

 

[Noallegiance]

3 hours ago, 201p said:

we've had help to eat out.

 

 

I don't need help with this.

[PatronizingGit]

Its a rigged market....corporatism...corporate fascism maybe. ie, much like the US healthcare market. Private ownership but with cartel like market actors and a lack of competition. I guess its more a political estabishment issue than tory issue. Tories like high housing costs to benefit their donors, labour like them to price people out of housing themselves and maybe good old benevolent big government seem essential.

 

I kind of wonder would we have even have had a housing crash in the early 90s were it not for the various de facto currency pegs and then the ERM tieing the governments hands re intervention. 

[PatronizingGit]

5 hours ago, 201p said:

I was watching the housing market sector closely while on HPC.

No major house builder went under in 2008.

The home builder sector in the London stock exchange was rejigged to avoid worrying people. No housing sector, no banking sector, no economy. The end of the world as we knew it. 

Whitehall knew it. Alistair Darling wrote in his auto biography (I bought the book, Back from the Brink) that if housing values went down, the consumer confidence would go down, and people wouldn't spend. This would be a deflationary spiral.

The home builder sector was rejigged so it had consumer companies in there such as Reckitt Benckiser which bolstered the group.

EDIT - I tried to look for the FTSE350 group sector constituents which used to be on the London Stock Exchange website just now, it looks like they removed that function now. So you'll just have to take my blinking word for it. 

So yes, you could say the housing sector is effectively nationalised. Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, it wouldn't matter.

Low house prices would be catastrophic (probably), and it would be a real depression. Can you imagine people sitting on housing equity suddenly feeling poorer.

They wouldn't buy cars on finance.

They wouldn't travel abroad.

They wouldn't eat out, or go to the pub as much.

More importantly - They wouldn't look at the EA's windows anymore when they go past and congratulate themselves on their great investment.

They had like a whole part of a chapter on this in my a level economics textbook. Interestingly, in the 1980/90s bubble/crash it covered it broke it down into regional trends. In that housing cycle, Ulster neither had a boom nor a bust. London and environs had the biggest boom and biggest bust. And yet per capita consumer spending grew fastest in the areas where most were in negative equity (London & SE). Accounting for all regions, there seemed absolutely no link between house price changes and consumption spending. 

 

[Green Devil]

1 hour ago, PatronizingGit said:

They had like a whole part of a chapter on this in my a level economics textbook. Interestingly, in the 1980/90s bubble/crash it covered it broke it down into regional trends. In that housing cycle, Ulster neither had a boom nor a bust. London and environs had the biggest boom and biggest bust. And yet per capita consumer spending grew fastest in the areas where most were in negative equity (London & SE). Accounting for all regions, there seemed absolutely no link between house price changes and consumption spending. 

 

Youd probably find spending has nothing to do with fantasy house price values at all. 

More to do with how much money is left out of the pay check after mortgage/rent, council tax, bills, car loan, credit card is paid off on the 31st.

It not rocket science, if you make the monthly interest less, there is more to spend on tat/restaurants/service industrys/holidays etc.