Big institutions Buying up housing and renting it back (You will own nothing and be happy)

[With a crooked smile]

1 hour ago, Wight Flight said:

I know the daughter of quite a well known artist (works go for about £20k)

She obviously has quite a decent collection of his pieces herself. If any come up at auction, and look like selling at under value, she will buy them herself. a few £k lost to maintain the value of her whole collection.

Probably illegal, but quite canny.

Probably more common that you might think. I believe Damien Hirst did some sort of crystal skull didn't look like it would sell so he purchased it with some PE partners. 

Edit Added from wiki

Hirst said that the work was sold on 30 August 2007, for £50 million, to an anonymous consortium.[14] Hirst claimed he had sold it for the full asking price, in cash, leaving no paper trail. The consortium that bought the piece included Hirst himself.[15]

In the 6 February 2012 issue of Time magazine, Hirst elaborated, in his "10 Questions" interview: "In the end I covered my fabrication and a few other costs by selling a third of it to an investment group, who are anonymous."[16]

[Frank Hovis]

4 hours ago, Wight Flight said:

I know the daughter of quite a well known artist (works go for about £20k)

She obviously has quite a decent collection of his pieces herself. If any come up at auction, and look like selling at under value, she will buy them herself. a few £k lost to maintain the value of her whole collection.

Probably illegal, but quite canny.

 

I don't see why that would be illegal.

I have pondered buying an original by two, extremely different, Plymouth artists whose work I like Robert Lenkiewicz and Beryl Cook. Paying about the £20k you mention.

Obviously Beryl's are more seaside postcard but they are well done and, like Lenkiewicz, are set in places with which I have some familiarity.

However as Beryl was painting for amusement and in a non serious way I think those prices will fall as the years pass and is forgotten whereas Lenkiewicz qualifies as a serious artist so those will be going up.

It really is like the stock market - if it isn't going up it's falling and nobody wants to buy the latter.

[Wight Flight]

14 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

 

I don't see why that would be illegal.

I have pondered buying an original by two, extremely different, Plymouth artists whose work I like Robert Lenkiewicz and Beryl Cook. Paying about the £20k you mention.

Obviously Beryl's are more seaside postcard but they are well done and, like Lenkiewicz, are set in places with which I have some familiarity.

However as Beryl was painting for amusement and in a non serious way I think those prices will fall as the years pass and is forgotten whereas Lenkiewicz qualifies as a serious artist so those will be going up.

It really is like the stock market - if it isn't going up it's falling and nobody wants to buy the latter.

I think Beryl's work should hold their prices. Like Thelwell, Giles and Braaq they are niche but have some very loyal collectors. 

Though I only ever buy art because I really like it (for £20k I would have to REALLY like it), not for any investment return.

 

 

[Frank Hovis]

4 minutes ago, Wight Flight said:

I think Beryl's work should hold their prices. Like Thelwell, Giles and Braaq they are niche but have some very loyal collectors. 

Though I only ever buy art because I really like it (for £20k I would have to REALLY like it), not for any investment return.

 

 

I very much like both, though of course for mostly different reasons with the common one being that they both painted for a long time in Plymouth and with Plymouth scenes. 

Most unlike me I'm not interested in buying for investment purposes but more because I would like another original piece of art on my wall that is primarily there because I want to see it.

I currently have two, one by a local artist of a familiar scene worth maybe £50 and one by a more well known national artist who turns out so many that it keeps the price well down, £800 perhaps.

Neither of them will go up much, more likely to fall if anything, but I like to see originals on my walls and would like to add a couple more for which I would dig a bit deeper.

It's reassuring that you think Beryl's will hold their value; I'm not trying to make money but I don't wish to lose it either.

[Wight Flight]

18 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

It's reassuring that you think Beryl's will hold their value; I'm not trying to make money but I don't wish to lose it either.

If you buy from a gallery you will lose a hell of a lot on day 1.

 

[Frank Hovis]

6 minutes ago, Wight Flight said:

If you buy from a gallery you will lose a hell of a lot on day 1.

 

Noted.

I had thought following auctions.

[spygirl]

14 hours ago, macca said:

 

Lloyds bank buying up homes.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/19/lloyds-plans-big-move-into-uk-rental-market-with-50000-homes

 

6 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

 

That smacks of desperation to me like councils buying half empty shopping centres and John Lewis going into social housing.

It's low interest rates both causing low returns and enabling the taking on of big debt.

Yet interest rates are rising.

Still, when did a bank get their timing wrong 

IME corporate banking staff are time servers like civil servants; they keep their heads down and agree with everything that their seniors suggest.

This again. We/Ive been thru this.

Its not Lloyds bank, its Lloyds bank group. i.e. Scottish Widows.

This is a life hedge not a LL thing.

Annuities need a large lump of assets that rise with wages/inflation.

Shopping centres and offices were, err, shit,.

The think is that rentals will rise with wages and inflation.

They are wrong, as we are looking at falling population and changes to welfare and migrations.

Having a large, well funded corp LL ,owning a large resi indenti-kit k in large city will suit young working people/couples under 30.

 

 

And they are not *BUYING* homes.

They are going to *BUILD* resi block of flats.

 

 

[spygirl]

https://www.twindig.com/market-views/citra-living

What rental properties will Citra Living buy?

Initially, Citra Living will look to buy and rent out new build properties rather than existing on second-hand homes. Andy Hutchinson, Citra Living’s Managing Director, said that “ Citra Living was born out of the need to build additional good quality, accessible, affordable homes for the rental market, given the increasing demand within the private rental sector.”

This means that Citra Living will look to partner with housebuilders in order to source its rental property stock.

[leonardratso]

banks and insure cos never get the timing wrong.

hahaha, reminds me of all those arseholes in corporates doing the ice bucket challenge for "charidy" months or even years after tik-tok fucked it off, lets hope they find the tide pod challenge soon eh.

[spygirl]

22 minutes ago, leonardratso said:

banks and insure cos never get the timing wrong.

hahaha, reminds me of all those arseholes in corporates doing the ice bucket challenge for "charidy" months or even years after tik-tok fucked it off, lets hope they find the tide pod challenge soon eh.

Its a hedge.

 

[macca]

9 hours ago, Boon said:

This is like old news.

I just don't see banks buying up individual homes and running them like portfolio landlords - seems like a lot of faff with potential for negative publicity.

Most people on here are saying this is 0% interest rates with investors looking for a return.. 

But as interest rates are tipped to accelerate so has the level of finacial institutions buying property.

They have had 12 years of low rates to buy houses and hardly bothered. 

So why now? 

The end of money? With Richie Sunak pushing for central bank programmable controlled digital money maybe they days of money and banks is over? 

With central banks controlling everything they would not be needed. So why not become the world's biggest landlords and turn us all into renters. 

I think there is so much printed money they will print it to zero.. so best buy assets before its gone.. 

They are already making their digital money from hell ready to go, now they just need to destroy paper money. Debt is now not repayable.. The rich have stolen all rhe money. Time to covert that soon to be useless paper to assets.

 

[macca]

2 hours ago, spygirl said:

Its a hedge.

 

Maajid nawab on Rogan.. very very good.. 3 hours long but fascinating.. 

Towards the end he explains how they plan to control us.. 

 

https://rumble.com/vvexre-must-watch-joe-rogan-talks-with-maajid-nawaz-episode-1780.html

[spygirl]

1 hour ago, macca said:

Maajid nawab on Rogan.. very very good.. 3 hours long but fascinating.. 

Towards the end he explains how they plan to control us.. 

 

https://rumble.com/vvexre-must-watch-joe-rogan-talks-with-maajid-nawaz-episode-1780.html

Tin foil hatted.

They cant, without massive kickback.

[macca]

1 hour ago, spygirl said:

Tin foil hatted.

They cant, without massive kickback.

Just call them right wing

Just call them conspiracy theorists 

Then boom. Conspiracy becomes fact.

he quotes governments saying this is coming.. how much evidence do people want.

[macca]

MOD trying to buy back its housing it sold to private equity company.. sold for £1 billion, buy back for £8 billion.. you have to love privatisation.. always fucks the tax payers.. my guess is renting the housing back is crippling the MOD. The total bill for all the rents and buy back costs will have cost the tax payers 10s of billions. 

 

 

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-10557701/MoD-facing-costly-fight-private-equity-tycoon-army-homes-claim.html

[MithrilVest]

43 minutes ago, macca said:

MOD trying to buy back its housing it sold to private equity company.. sold for £1 billion, buy back for £8 billion.. you have to love privatisation.. always fucks the tax payers.. my guess is renting the housing back is crippling the MOD. The total bill for all the rents and buy back costs will have cost the tax payers 10s of billions. 

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-10557701/MoD-facing-costly-fight-private-equity-tycoon-army-homes-claim.html

But what you've described isn't the fault of privatisation.

Someone or team made a decision that they thought it would be better, for whatever reason, to do this, some other person/team committee presumably approved this decision.

Either it was a good decision at the time and circumstances have now changed making it, in hindsight, a bad one. Or it was a bad decision at the time, in which case will person(s) be held accountable for it? It's not the fault of privatisation per se.

If the private sector can do something cheaper and/or better then why not let them? It's no different from a private company outsourcing aspects of it's business to third parties; outsourcing can be done very badly or it can be done very well, you can't simply say outsourcing = bad or outsourcing = good, no more than you can say privatisation = bad or privatisation = good.

Well you can say that but then it reduces your argument to ideology rather than reasoned debate 

[macca]

3 hours ago, MithrilVest said:

Either it was a good decision at the time and circumstances have now changed making it, in hindsight, a bad one. Or it was a bad decision at the time, in which case will person(s) be held accountable for it? It's not the fault of privatisation per se.

If the private sector can do something cheaper and/or better then why not let them?

You are just repeating what rich people tell you.. Because the ever growing need to increase profits it will always cost more.

Councils used to own their housing, to house a family the rent was about £300 to £400 a month to them,, Now the council have to pay private landlords for the same housing £1200 to £1400 a month,,, this fucks the council to death!

When millions of renters retire the cost of paying their rent will fall on the shoulders of the tax payers. Their pensions will not cover their rent, never mind food, council tax, water, gas.. They will probably become one of the statistics of the UK who die every year because they cant afford to heat and eat. 

Despite renters buying 2 houses with all the rent they have paid they will be left destitute because we are run by greedy parasites.

Privatisation is never a good decision.. It is done because of corruption, again,, your repeating what the people who have made billions from it are telling you to think,, Billions which could go back to the tax payers.

YOUR UNDER CONTROL

Why don't we privatise libraries? Simple they have not figured out how to FUCK THE TAX PAYER TO DEATH lending books,, If they do though they will be in touch..

[macca]

World economic forum trained over half of Canadian politicians and other world leaders. The billionaires control the leaders, the leaders control the countries, The billionaire owned MSM control your brains. Time to wake up..

"You will own nothing and be happy"

[Chewing Grass]

4 hours ago, macca said:

MOD trying to buy back its housing it sold to private equity company.. sold for £1 billion, buy back for £8 billion.. you have to love privatisation.. always fucks the tax payers.. my guess is renting the housing back is crippling the MOD. The total bill for all the rents and buy back costs will have cost the tax payers 10s of billions. 

 

 

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-10557701/MoD-facing-costly-fight-private-equity-tycoon-army-homes-claim.html

There is an Emergency, they can just Nationalise them and pay the Cunts who bought them off with a token amount.

If they disagree then HMRC can audit their books and business dealings until they do.

Sorted.

[reformed nice guy]

2 hours ago, macca said:

You are just repeating what rich people tell you.. Because the ever growing need to increase profits it will always cost more.

Councils used to own their housing, to house a family the rent was about £300 to £400 a month to them,, Now the council have to pay private landlords for the same housing £1200 to £1400 a month,,, this fucks the council to death!

When millions of renters retire the cost of paying their rent will fall on the shoulders of the tax payers. Their pensions will not cover their rent, never mind food, council tax, water, gas.. They will probably become one of the statistics of the UK who die every year because they cant afford to heat and eat. 

Despite renters buying 2 houses with all the rent they have paid they will be left destitute because we are run by greedy parasites.

Privatisation is never a good decision.. It is done because of corruption, again,, your repeating what the people who have made billions from it are telling you to think,, Billions which could go back to the tax payers.

YOUR UNDER CONTROL

Why don't we privatise libraries? Simple they have not figured out how to FUCK THE TAX PAYER TO DEATH lending books,, If they do though they will be in touch..

I kinda agree but kinda disagree.

I think housing associations are the best compromise. They are not private but not subject to the direct fuckwittery of the council either.

[macca]

16 hours ago, Chewing Grass said:

There is an Emergency, they can just Nationalise them and pay the Cunts who bought them off with a token amount.

If they disagree then HMRC can audit their books and business dealings until they do.

Sorted.

Unless the cunts that bought them are their mates? Who they sold them to cheaply for a brown envelope or lucrative 2nd job? 

[macca]

https://youtu.be/-b8TBPSTuiM

 

Did you know world leaders and many politicians were trained by the World economic Forum? A group formed of billionaires and CEOs are training people to run countries.. 

 

Watch the video, they just tell you they are doing it. Like it's normal to indoctrinate people and control them, to install into countries power structures. 

 

They want a centrally run world controlled by them.. They want digital IDs and digital money.

 

It's like WW3 but without bullets.. they take control without having to risk war or troops.. They do it trough technology and penetration of governments, they then change laws to implement their control.

[macca]

https://nypost.com/2020/07/18/corporations-are-buying-houses-robbing-families-of-american-dream/

 

[tank]

On 01/03/2022 at 06:07, MithrilVest said:

But what you've described isn't the fault of privatisation.

Someone or team made a decision that they thought it would be better, for whatever reason, to do this, some other person/team committee presumably approved this decision.

Either it was a good decision at the time and circumstances have now changed making it, in hindsight, a bad one. Or it was a bad decision at the time, in which case will person(s) be held accountable for it? It's not the fault of privatisation per se.

If the private sector can do something cheaper and/or better then why not let them? It's no different from a private company outsourcing aspects of it's business to third parties; outsourcing can be done very badly or it can be done very well, you can't simply say outsourcing = bad or outsourcing = good, no more than you can say privatisation = bad or privatisation = good.

Well you can say that but then it reduces your argument to ideology rather than reasoned debate 

In most cases, privatisation is a massive con.

The transfer of a state asset into private hands with all the profits milked and the costs lumped back onto the taxpayer is not remotely free market capitalism. It is socialism for the cronies and donors.

Good old Maggie knew. 😀😃

[goldbug9999]

On 08/02/2022 at 08:58, Frank Hovis said:

If base rates go to 5% ...

Haha, good one.