Property crash, just maybe it really is different this time (Part 2)

[nirvana]

2 hours ago, Wight Flight said:

Perhaps they got divorced and didn't inherit a house?

that's me bruv

[Wight Flight]

1 minute ago, nirvana said:

that's me bruv

I managed to fuck up but kept the missus.

not sure if that is better or worse 

[nirvana]

Just now, Wight Flight said:

I managed to fuck up but kept the missus.

not sure if that is better or worse 

we all fuk up......it's the level that counts........you can fuk up every day and still make money lol

it's not really important though, well it sort of is I suppose but you're better off finding an inner peace and calm.....

think I've had enough of reading and researching UK house prices.....I don't need it, it's just another fekkin chain innit? lol

need to go and talk to the Angels this year

[jamtomorrow]

13 hours ago, apples said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/mortgages/homeowners-drain-pensions-to-survive-mortgage-crisis/ (full article text in quote)

Homeowners drain pensions to survive mortgage crisis

Isn't this partly the effect of legislative chickens from the Brown/Osbourne era coming home to roost?

That was when the legislation that made PCLS universal came in, and that's when the first schemes under the new regs would have been set up and members started paying in.

It's no surprise at all it's taken this long to show up in the stats at the other end of the pipeline.

[jamtomorrow]

Can transactions fall any further? This looks like a proper Mexican standoff between buyers and sellers.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/property-lawyers-handling-40-fewer-cases-as-market-reverts-to-mean/5118503.article

[sancho panza]

On 24/01/2024 at 03:30, Ash4781b said:

to me this suggests low volume of business and nationwide wanting to capture more of the market. Nationwide have also committed to not closing branches which will impact profitability.

Personally feel this is a bit of gamble. Especially as peers are doing opposite. I think Nationwide are gambling that swap markets don’t move further higher / deteriorating in coming weeks. Otherwise it will be a mad scramble to pull products and yo-yo re-price and probably bad PR. 

as @spygirl suggests Natiownide need to keep issuing new and larger laons to dilute the mrotgage book of hsitorical toxic assets and also their BTL loan book is 91% IO (a not inconsiderable £40bn of their circa £200bn loan book-more than enough to tkae them down if our general assessment is anywhere near the moeny)

We've established in tut banking therad that it seems incredible but these smaller BS's particualrly have levered up into the top.then as per @Kendo suggests,when you look at the loan books that we get access to,the bulk of the detbs are going stage 2 are historical.

now either those historical laons were all badly lent at the time or,as common sense suggests,the aginign of a loan is intrinsically linked to an increasing risk of deteriroration(job losses/poor health etc).

sadly the reporting stanrdards fro small BS's are dogsh1t comapred to big banks so we dont get the rdetail we get in Nat Wrest/Barclays annual accounts which break down stage 2s by region/loan type.

as a betting man,I'd say these BS's are up to their necks in dog poo laons and the annula balance sheet expansion is a necessary ritual to maintian the illusion of their capital ratios.

19 hours ago, Democorruptcy said:

I get the impression Nationwide must have a lot of numpties with money in saving accounts accepting poor rates. That gives them a pot of money for a free arb even on low mortgage rates. Why else would their easy access savers be only 2.25% or 3.25% (if you have a current account)?

Nationwide easy access rates

Market easy access rates

I think thats a really excellent ,well thought out point DM.I didnt think of it till you said it.When you think about it,it makes perfect sense.

theyre the big boy in the BS sector,there are a lot of accounts that have given up looking at their deposit rates and jsut take whats given.

 

[sancho panza]

On 23/01/2024 at 20:52, Kendo said:

Well, Nationwide still going hell for leather on cutting - one analyst claiming they’ve timed their move to perfection with others raising. 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/23/nationwide-intensifies-mortgage-price-war-with-its-lowest-rates-for-8-months

I think there's an element of NAtiownide taking the opportunity identified by @Democorruptcy to bascially hoover up the punters who are good bets.

I suspect the best rates will be avaialable to 60% LTV/high cerdit score,over 80% LTV on a 2021(looks like peak) laon will be a no go.

These laons will be sued to dilute the dodgy stuff.

On 24/01/2024 at 07:46, jamtomorrow said:

I find anomalies like this very interesting. I wonder if this is the "tide goes out" moment, and we find out who has been swimming naked?

Do we know how Santander's loan book and balance sheet health compares to Nationwide @sancho panza?

personally it hink theyre all at the same game of purging balance sheets one way or another.I'll have a look at santander(weve not covered them yet iirc),insticnt would suggest that Snatander have got the option to lend commercially and are takiing it as a better route to solvency.

NW are on a direction of travel they cant change. the only commercial lending the BS's haev done iirc is BTL and FHL as @spygirl has oft pointed out and that will be collaterialsied with an overpriced terraced in a seasifde town.

[ccc]

Few flats near me been up for sale for a while. One just went under offer. The other still up for sale must be close to 6 months. 

I checked on Zoopla and its now on for £310k fixed price when it started off at £310k offers over. 

That's roughly equivalent to a 10-15% drop. Very popular area near central Edinburgh. I believe we still have a good 18 months at least left of people with fixed rate mortgages coming to an end and suddenly seeing their monthly costs up by 50% or so. 

I firmly believe that the mass immigration desperation is mainly for this purpose. To try and shore up the collapsing market. 

Remove mass immigration and house prices in the UK would fall 50-70% easily. Oh how terrible that would be. Young folk could maybe dream of one day owning their own wee house. How awful. It must be stopped. 

[sancho panza]

18 hours ago, apples said:

Matthew Colwell, 59, plans to withdraw £20,000 of cash from his pension next month to pay for the extra £1,000 in mortgage repayments he will have to stomach after moving from a 1.86pc rate to a 4.69pc rate.

17 hours ago, One percent said:

Are there really that number of people over 55 who are struggling with their mortgage?   Wtf have they been doing since 2008?  Oh, yeah, right, they thought that historically low interest rates were the new normal and have been spunking what they should have been using to pay down the mortgage on fancy holidays and pcp cars.  No sympathy.  

 

I think apples example is intrcutive.the fact that the bloke isnt using the £20k to clear the debt but rather enable him to make repayments suggests there's an even bigger debt still to clear.

I was chatting to a very good friend the otehr night.One I usggested get a ten year fix back in 21 at 2% and he did.The sort of person I spend my time on..ANyway,we were chatiing the otehr night and he told me him and his Mrs still have £180k to go on a £300k mrotgage and he's 50.

This lad had some debt problems when we wer younger and he got himself out of it so he's been wary ever since about big debt.such that when him and his mrs bought their first house,they were offered £200k but only borrowed £100k.

I think you'd be really surprised how many people have big mrotgage detbs at 50.but then if you run a basci mdoel you cane see it entirely easy to happen

couple marry at 30 buy a £130k hosue and pay 10 years at 4%.after ten years they've cleared £38k.then at 40 they uprgrade to a £300k pad,they have £38k equity and £30k deposit and £70k profit less £30k on renovations so in total £118k in depotis for £300k pad

say they then borrow at 3%,after antoher ten years they've 50 and have cleared (180-117)=£63k, and still owe £117k.

at 60 they wills till have £38k to clear accoridng the to the claclcuotr

https://www.themoneycalculator.com/mortgages/calculators/mortgage-balance-calculator/#!/dealfinder/mortgages/

it doesn't tkae much in terms of ill health/renovations/job losses to run that timeline into the sea.

and thats a conservative set up.

I know people whove sold their terrace with £100k equity and bought a £500k pad at 40.

and people laugh at me and MRs P renting our hosue with the income from our tobacco/oil stocks(if we need to,we currently pay oru bills out of slaaries.....jsut clarifgying)

as someone said intereign timtes

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/814493/mortgage-interest-rate-united-kingdom/

 

 

Edited January 25 by sancho panza

[Sue Lowe]

On 24/01/2024 at 08:26, Wight Flight said:

Checked my previous place using the actual sold price when we moved out and it was 555. More if you capitalised the stamp duty.

 

Those are crazy figures.

We are buying in prime NE England (not Stockton) and paying about 180. Still probably a bit too much but not much choice in the area.

(Buying to live I should add, not to let)

Edited January 25 by Sue Lowe

[Democorruptcy]

2 hours ago, sancho panza said:

I think thats a really excellent ,well thought out point DM.I didnt think of it till you said it.When you think about it,it makes perfect sense.

theyre the big boy in the BS sector,there are a lot of accounts that have given up looking at their deposit rates and jsut take whats given.

At the time of the GFC Nationwide complained in the media about the FSCS levy and suggested their bill was too high when they had been more prudent than other lenders. Maybe because of that a lot of people think they are a safer place for their money? Particularly the older end. Since then I've thought the Nationwide execs must have realised they had been mugs before the GFC, should have lent more and gone for bigger bonuses. It seems to be what they have done since. All the GFC 'disgraced' execs still walked away with their cash and pensions.

[MrXxxx]

Call me cynical but is this an issue that successive government do not want to fix?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/housebuilders-accused-of-cynical-ploy-as-build-starts-fall-68/ar-BB1hegwH

To solve the issue of 'landbanking'/purposely reducing supply all the government need to do is to put a time limit on completion from 'breaking ground', this could be approached in a two spike approach based around planning permission:

1. You have x number of years to start a build from permission being granted AND once ground is broken you have a specific time to complete the build. If you fail to start within this time period then the permission becomes 'null and void' and you need to go through the planning permission again [with no guarantee of its success based upon previously being granted].

2. In the case of failing to start as in 1. above, then you are restricted from applying again for x number of years.

This way it will make the current approach uneconomical i.e. as a builder trying such an approach you could find yourself in the position where you have a lot of capital assets [land] no no current capital to service your debts.

I wonder why successive governments cannot apply/legislate for two simple rules such as this?!

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, MrXxxx said:

Call me cynical but is this an issue that successive government do not want to fix?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/housebuilders-accused-of-cynical-ploy-as-build-starts-fall-68/ar-BB1hegwH

To solve the issue of 'landbanking'/purposely reducing supply all the government need to do is to put a time limit on completion from 'breaking ground', this could be approached in a two spike approach based around planning permission:

1. You have x number of years to start a build from permission being granted AND once ground is broken you have a specific time to complete the build. If you fail to start within this time period then the permission becomes 'null and void' and you need to go through the planning permission again [with no guarantee of its success based upon previously being granted].

2. In the case of failing to start as in 1. above, then you are restricted from applying again for x number of years.

This way it will make the current approach uneconomical i.e. as a builder trying such an approach you could find yourself in the position where you have a lot of capital assets [land] no no current capital to service your debts.

I wonder why successive governments cannot apply/legislate for two simple rules such as this?!

Please no more micromanaging schemes by government, the UK already has far too many. Just keep granting permissions and let capitalism get the houses built.

Developers only get paid when they sell the houses, if they are letting bought and paid for land sit idle that is a conversation between the developers and their creditors about where is the revenue coming from this year.

[MrXxxx]

12 minutes ago, Darude said:

Please no more micromanaging schemes by government, the UK already has far too many. Just keep granting permissions and let capitalism get the houses built.

Developers only get paid when they sell the houses, if they are letting bought and paid for land sit idle that is a conversation between the developers and their creditors about where is the revenue coming from this year.

But the difference between land values with/without planning permission can be vast. This occurs as a result of/alongside planning laws/local authority future planning/plans, where land with housing planning permission is made a finite resource, hence increased values, and the advantage to landbank. I am not saying that developers cannot own land, but when [housebuilding land] it becomes a finite resource it should be used productively, and not treated as though it is an asset to be hoarded [at the expense of the population] and profiteered from.

[Wight Flight]

33 minutes ago, MrXxxx said:

Call me cynical but is this an issue that successive government do not want to fix?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/housebuilders-accused-of-cynical-ploy-as-build-starts-fall-68/ar-BB1hegwH

To solve the issue of 'landbanking'/purposely reducing supply all the government need to do is to put a time limit on completion from 'breaking ground', this could be approached in a two spike approach based around planning permission:

1. You have x number of years to start a build from permission being granted AND once ground is broken you have a specific time to complete the build. If you fail to start within this time period then the permission becomes 'null and void' and you need to go through the planning permission again [with no guarantee of its success based upon previously being granted].

2. In the case of failing to start as in 1. above, then you are restricted from applying again for x number of years.

This way it will make the current approach uneconomical i.e. as a builder trying such an approach you could find yourself in the position where you have a lot of capital assets [land] no no current capital to service your debts.

I wonder why successive governments cannot apply/legislate for two simple rules such as this?!

I would suggest that council tax becomes due on every property that has permission to be built one year after planning is granted, even if they haven't built it yet.

And that is due forever. That will make them piss or get off the pot.

 

[MrXxxx]

12 minutes ago, Wight Flight said:

I would suggest that council tax becomes due on every property that has permission to be built one year after planning is granted, even if they haven't built it yet.

And that is due forever. That will make them piss or get off the pot.

 

Or apply the current council tax policy that is applied to residential householders i.e. you have a 6 month 'grace' period free of CT charges for redevelopment, after this you have to start paying the full rate...simple 'tweek' to the current law/policy.

[onlyme]

39 minutes ago, Darude said:

Please no more micromanaging schemes by government, the UK already has far too many. Just keep granting permissions and let capitalism get the houses built.

Developers only get paid when they sell the houses, if they are letting bought and paid for land sit idle that is a conversation between the developers and their creditors about where is the revenue coming from this year.

French have a good system, villages have development areas, you can rock up and view a plan, buy a plot, pick one of a number of designs even (which IIRC have guide price to build) and then get it built by whmever / however you want as far as I could tell.

Need to break the cartel of a few big and medium sized companies who are the only ones solely determining housebuilding rate.

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, onlyme said:

French have a good system, villages have development areas, you can rock up and view a plan, buy a plot, pick one of a number of designs even (which IIRC have guide price to build) and then get it built by whmever / however you want as far as I could tell.

Need to break the cartel of a few big and medium sized companies who are the only ones solely determining housebuilding rate.

 

Yes, the UK is unusual in having such a high proportion of new build housing built by a handful of very large developers. It's a product of the planning system being so convoluted that you have to be a big company so you can afford to employ a large department of people whose only job is to navigate local planning bureaucracy.

[nirvana]

33 minutes ago, onlyme said:

French have a good system, villages have development areas, you can rock up and view a plan, buy a plot, pick one of a number of designs even (which IIRC have guide price to build) and then get it built by whmever / however you want as far as I could tell.

you can even produce your own plans if it's less than IIRC 120 square meters.......i was going down this route myself years ago but then i had to throw in the towel due to all the beaurocracy with the miserable fukkers and my french wasn't as good at the time.......shame, woulda been a nice house that......I shoulda persevered to be fair, was a beauty location too....

c'est la vie

edit: as in I produced my own plans.....I copied off the geezer from Marseilles in the corner lol.....it was all the 'eco friendly regs' where I fell down......

Edited January 25 by nirvana

[Kendo]

7 hours ago, sancho panza said:

as @spygirl suggests Natiownide need to keep issuing new and larger laons to dilute the mrotgage book of hsitorical toxic assets and also their BTL loan book is 91% IO (a not inconsiderable £40bn of their circa £200bn loan book-more than enough to tkae them down if our general assessment is anywhere near the moeny)

We've established in tut banking therad that it seems incredible but these smaller BS's particualrly have levered up into the top.then as per @Kendo suggests,when you look at the loan books that we get access to,the bulk of the detbs are going stage 2 are historical.

now either those historical laons were all badly lent at the time or,as common sense suggests,the aginign of a loan is intrinsically linked to an increasing risk of deteriroration(job losses/poor health etc).

sadly the reporting stanrdards fro small BS's are dogsh1t comapred to big banks so we dont get the rdetail we get in Nat Wrest/Barclays annual accounts which break down stage 2s by region/loan type.

as a betting man,I'd say these BS's are up to their necks in dog poo laons and the annula balance sheet expansion is a necessary ritual to maintian the illusion of their capital ratios.

I think thats a really excellent ,well thought out point DM.I didnt think of it till you said it.When you think about it,it makes perfect sense.

theyre the big boy in the BS sector,there are a lot of accounts that have given up looking at their deposit rates and jsut take whats given.

 

You’re far too generous to reference me above - the banking thread analysis is largely your excellent work and a few others. I just took note of it.

[Plan-b]

3 hours ago, MrXxxx said:

Call me cynical but is this an issue that successive government do not want to fix?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/housebuilders-accused-of-cynical-ploy-as-build-starts-fall-68/ar-BB1hegwH

To solve the issue of 'landbanking'/purposely reducing supply all the government need to do is to put a time limit on completion from 'breaking ground', this could be approached in a two spike approach based around planning permission:

1. You have x number of years to start a build from permission being granted AND once ground is broken you have a specific time to complete the build. If you fail to start within this time period then the permission becomes 'null and void' and you need to go through the planning permission again [with no guarantee of its success based upon previously being granted].

2. In the case of failing to start as in 1. above, then you are restricted from applying again for x number of years.

This way it will make the current approach uneconomical i.e. as a builder trying such an approach you could find yourself in the position where you have a lot of capital assets [land] no no current capital to service your debts.

I wonder why successive governments cannot apply/legislate for two simple rules such as this?!

Some of what you propose already exists, albeit doesn't go nearly far enough.

AFAIK there's a 3 year deadline to make a start from the date permission was granted. Making a start known as Material Operations can mean several things (most are obvious) and is slightly subjective depending on the Authority and the individual situation concerned.

There's also a new condition recently added that local planning authorities have the power to refuse a new planning application from those who have let a previous permission lapse by not commencing works with the 3 year period.

[MrXxxx]

1 hour ago, Plan-b said:

Some of what you propose already exists, albeit doesn't go nearly far enough.

AFAIK there's a 3 year deadline to make a start from the date permission was granted. Making a start known as Material Operations can mean several things (most are obvious) and is slightly subjective depending on the Authority and the individual situation concerned.

There's also a new condition recently added that local planning authorities have the power to refuse a new planning application from those who have let a previous permission lapse by not commencing works with the 3 year period.

Yes, but having spoken to someone in the business, they explained the big housebuilders simply 'start' by digging a ditch, pouring in some concrete, and then 'mothballing'. When it comes to developing the site proper this 'foundation' is then useless so simply dug up, used for hardcore, and repoured properly.

[spygirl]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/25/hope-fades-for-cut-in-interest-rates-for-industrialised-nations

The prospect of early interest rate cuts this year across leading industrialised nations received a blow on Thursday after figures showed the US economy grew at a faster pace than expected last year.

A stronger than forecast increase in US gross domestic product (GDP) of 3.3% last year dented hopes in the US, while the European Central Bank hinted at delays to the first cut in the cost of borrowing.

 

Meanwhile a strong start to the year by the UK economy appeared to give the Bank of England, which meets next week to decide its next move on interest rates, a reason to hold at the current level of 5.25% into the summer.

After leaving interest rates unchanged on Thursday, the president of the ECB, Christine Lagarde, warned that it was “premature to discuss rate cuts” as she insisted future decisions would depend on incoming data

[sancho panza]

no.1 comin  back onto the market.been empety since sept 23

no. 2 taking new LA

heres the context, for csale for £595k

Edited January 26 by sancho panza

[tank]

13 hours ago, Darude said:

Please no more micromanaging schemes by government, the UK already has far too many. Just keep granting permissions and let capitalism get the houses built.

Developers only get paid when they sell the houses, if they are letting bought and paid for land sit idle that is a conversation between the developers and their creditors about where is the revenue coming from this year.

Your faith in 'capitalism' is touching but the reality is profit seekers will always try to game the system in their favour by bribing and, therefore, controlling the political system you criticise.

The corruption and grift you see in the UK housing market is due to the inherently greed fuelled nature of 'capitalism'.

In other words, if the state doesn't build enough housing to balance the property market up, you end up with developers calling the shots.

Edited January 26 by tank