New builds are "shamefull shoeboxes"

Really2

CLAPTON wrote: »

if there is a genuine cartel operating in the building trade then due process of law should be applied and they should be prosecuted under the monopolies act. rather than arbitary confiscation etc

in my view are are many reasons why houses aren't being built; shortage of buyers, shortgage of finance, our mad planning laws, profitability etc and maybe cartels too

I think the most obvious example that builders are not profiteering and making house prices artificially high are the fact they are not all raking money in regardless of the financial climate.

If it was how GD saw it they would never of needed to write down land values.

From what I read the operating margin for builders is not far of that of many other companies. You would expect operating margins to very high if they were price setting.

Really2

Wheezy wrote: »

Here's ours

Oh, you live in our granny annex.

But don't forget they are the new penis enlargement.
Women wont be able to resist your Butlers Pantry (Is that a euphemism).:)

Would houses not be the most pointless one ever as no one ever really sees them than yourself?

"Yo Girls, Check out me drain pipes, feel my quality pointing"

robin_banks

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Stop being such a drama queen.

Would you be happy if the gas companies decided to all act together and switch off some of the supplies to the UK, and then continuously put prices up outside the reach of the average family?

Would you be even happier if said gas companies then wanted to use tax monies to bolster up those who cannot afford the gas prices due to said suppliers purposely restricting the flow?

It's pretty much the same thing. British Gas could just turn around and say "well we have the pipes, and the gas, were just not pumping the gas as we want higher prices".

Enron did that in the States, look where it got them.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Oh graham getting upset I did not answer a question totally unrelated to building.

Captain bottle a question demands an answer.:rotfl:

We I am polite, (unlike you)

Good way to make your politeness point

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Good way to make your politeness point

Well I answered, remember that in the future GD.

Replying is polite (Remember again),
Saying you are "Captain Bottle-a-Question" may not be. But it is factually true.;) (well maybe not the captain bit)

dtsazza

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The whole system is a complete farce.

Builders won't build unless prices rise.

That's the real question - why not?

If they could build and sell a home for (say) £150k in 2005, why can't they build that identical home and sell it for that now, post-peak? Why all of a sudden does it have to be £200k or no build?

Has the cost of bricks and mortar really gone up multiple hundreds of percent? (The cost of labour hasn't moved in any notable fashion.)

And the cost of land is a non-issue, since the price of land like that is related to what you can sell it for (with or without a house) - so if a buyer is only prepared to pay £150k for the house you could build on it, residential land is definitely worth less than 150 - (cost of building). So you'd still make a profit by building and selling even at lower prices.


The only thing I can think of is that the builders bought the land at inflated prices, such that numerically they would make a loss by building and selling. But that just implies they're following weird accounting principles and refuse to write down the value of their banked land. I can understand consumers being lead by emotion like that, but it would surprise me if all of the companies in a given sector were doing it.