Loz

PSJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.positivemoney.org/issues/house-prices/ Wow, that's a wackadoodle website. Apparently, house price are high lately because banks have been creating money and lending it to people... like they haven't been doing that for a few centuries. The solution is apparently for only the government to create money and "any newly-created money should be used to fund public spending, reduce taxes, pay down the national debt or even just distributed to citizens." Yep, the answer is for the government to just print money. What could possibly go wrong?

Just remember, you are snuggling up to something that can lick it's own bum. And does.

Magic FM?

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 3.5 joint income? > > That suggests we are back to back to where we were with bank lending then? Well not quite as I > suspect there is less sub-prime at the moment but when the good customers are maxed out profits have > to come from somewhere The income multiplier never really changed much. What did change was the Loan-to-Value the banks were willing to risk. At the height of the 'boom', Northern Rock was offering at mortgage (well part mortgage, part loan) of 125% of value, which was madness. Even 100% LTVs were not uncommon. These days, banks are wary of anything over 80%.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But let's take that two salary couple - what joint > income do you want to give them? 80k? > > 3.5 times 50 k = 175k + second income of 30k = > 205k > > That's not buying much. Even in Norwood Standard these days is 3.5x to 4x joint incomes. In fact, I just plugged those figures into the HSBC "How much will you lend me" calculator and they will lend up to ?369k, and the Halifax one says ?344k. Of course, whether you'd want to take on that level of debt is another matter.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > markets operate to keep the cost of food down. But they are operating to push house prices up and up > (with a customer base that has extremely polarised opinion of wether that is a good or bad thing). So > you can't compare the two Of course you can. Why do you think prices for basics such as wheat, soy, etc have gone up so much over the past decade? Because demand is up, especially with new markets in the BRICS countries opening up. The price hasn't gone up because production costs or anything have risen, it is purely the market. It's exactly the same. In fact, food is worse when you consider that 32% of bread purchased in this country is thrown out, so people are buying more than they need to the complete detriment of others.

I'm struggling to see why that is worth over about ?300-?325k in this market. Seems very small.

mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fish, if your concern is people crashing into you I suggest you look where you are going rather than > blocking up the pavement whist you are taking your blurry photos Well, if there were no morons cycling on the pavement, then he wouldn't be taking any photos, would he? Everyone's a winner.

"rent controls existed in this country before and in many others - it's not science fiction to suggest them " I'd rather see more social/council housing built. But I can never see enough being built in London - there are too many people wanting to live here.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But if you aren't already on the ladder I don't see where you could go to reenact your story. I've > seen all the places others have mentioned (Norwood etc) but even on a salary of say 40k you ain't > going to be able to get a house anywhere even > BEFORE you get to the cereal-with-water-3-times-a-day diet struggling with payments That's because your ?40k salary is competing with two salary couples.

Well, not if you let your politics get in the way of running a business, no. I'll change that to 'the market dictates the maximum rent you can charge'. You could charge much less than that, but why would you? Now, there is value in a good quality, long term tenant, but the landlord needs to decide what that value is. Yes, they could charge ?100 a month more, but a good tenant might move out, a less responsible tenant move in and they might end up with a long void period. So, is that worth it? To me, probably not. But ?200? ?300? Quantifying that value is difficult.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The idea that if I owned a second property and after 5 years found it was worth twice what it > was, I would ask my tenants for double the rent? > ick... As Jeremy pointed out, the market dictates the rent. And if you aren't charging somewhere in the region of the market, then you aren't being sensible. And, if your yield was only 1% or 2%, you'd probably ask yourself if there was a better place to invest your money.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > StraferJack Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > BUt to keep upping it by the > > value of the house? How is a tenant meant to keep > > up with that? > > Surely rent is driven by supply/demand, not by > landlords deciding they need a certain percentage > of the property value every month? You are right, it is. But that is the generally accepted acceptable rate of return. If the return is less than that, landlord would move their investment out of the market and there would be a shortage. Much greater than that and either more would pile in, increasing supply, or buying would be a much better option.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > or more specifically, it shouldn't be Why not? Or, where does it end? Should building houses be a business? Should growing food be a business?

When considering rents, you have to look at the rate of return on the investment, i.e. the property value. Generally, a landlord would be looking at a fair return of about 6%. Remember, this is not 'profit', as costs such as repairs, insurance, voids, mortgage, etc have to come out of it. So, if you are renting a property worth ?500k, then a 'fair' rent would be about ?2500 pcm.

muffins78 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh my god, I just went on Zoopla, and googled my > own postcode - a 1 bed flat is over 250K? Three > years ago it wasn't like that! That's just way > too much, no matter what the spec is! Three years, no. But in 2007, yes.

How's your bush now?

If you are renting out a private room or house share, you can still specify male or female.

... or follow him home and take a dump in his front garden.

But it is supply and demand. ED is a rather nice place to live and, if more people want to live in ED that there are available houses, then the rents will rise. Ditto house prices.

henryb only posts to have a pop at motorists or to claim cyclists are faultless and wonderful. Check his/her posting history. Had it been just about anyone else probably I wouldn't have made that comment.

matryx Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why are you making this about cycling when it's unrelated? The post I replied to was by henryb, so it's very, very related...

If it ain't cheesier than an quattro formaggio pizza, don't bother playing it...

To be fair, that is probably the least-worst thing he's managed to come up with over that last few months...

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Reporting crime doesn't make you a vigilante. What is there to worry about? That people driving at > excessive speeds in residential streets will be fined? Sorry, but the only way you can monitor speeding is with officially sanctioned (and calibrated) speed measurement equipment. Having someone on the street deciding if people are going 'too fast; is nuts. What is to stop a few nutter cyclists with an agenda (cough, cough) getting involved in this and falsifying claims? Or, if this OK, can we have another 'group of concerned citizens' enforcing riding on the pavement, through stop signs, red lights, etc?