Help to Buy may have to be scrapped, Vince Cable warns

the_flying_pig

Brian_Griffin wrote: »

The fact that Baron Wolfson Senior was chairman of Next when Baron Wolfson Junior was made CEO was probably helpful.

is that right? well, i still take my hat off to the guy - that's a heck of an impressive dad to have, if you're looking to be CEO in a company who he chairs.

anyway, he no longer holds the youngest FTSE100 CEO record, i believe... didn't, ahem, james murdoch win that one?

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.....Be good to have a summary of those who agree with the scheme though.

Impossible. It's not a binary agree/disagree debate.

There's a whole spectrum of thoughts out there....

• Wonderful scheme, but it should be pulled once it has kick-started the process...
• Wonderful scheme, won't cause bubble..
• Nasty scheme. Should've been strangled at birth...
• Generally agreed, but should be more limited and only FTB...
• Neutral to scheme itself, but wonder if these people can cope with interest rises at some point...
• ......

I think we know where you stand.

Rinoa

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Another day, another warning...


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7252cbf4-1b75-11e3-b678-00144feab7de.html#axzz2efzKwgcL

Keep 'em coming Graham.

Who knows, there may be a triple dip just round the corner. :rotfl:

chucky

Rinoa wrote: »

Keep 'em coming Graham.

Who knows, there may be a triple dip just round the corner. :rotfl:

Don't tell me he predicted a triple dip and we never even had a double dip recession...

He will never learn just like when he predicted property prices would fall 50% - 70% and another time he predicted the FTSE falling to 2,200. How can some one be so wrong so many times and still think they are right about anything. He has no self dignity.

the_flying_pig

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Impossible. It's not a binary agree/disagree debate.

There's a whole spectrum of thoughts out there....

• Wonderful scheme, but it should be pulled once it has kick-started the process...
• Wonderful scheme, won't cause bubble..
• Nasty scheme. Should've been strangled at birth...
• Generally agreed, but should be more limited and only FTB...
• Neutral to scheme itself, but wonder if these people can cope with interest rises at some point...
• ......

I think we know where you stand.

yeah, i think it's, generally speaking, fine [i mean, i don't think it's great, there are probably better things to spend the money on IMO but don't see it as a big issue] for new build only.

for 'second hand' houses:

(a) just about OK in areas where prices are falling;
(b) absolutely a bad thing in areas where prices are flat or rising very slowly; and
(c) it's indefensible, lunatic, nonsense in areas where inflation's already fairly hefty.

Loughton_Monkey

the_flying_pig wrote: »

yeah, i think it's, generally speaking, fine [i mean, i don't think it's great, there are probably better things to spend the money on IMO but don't see it as a big issue] for new build only.

for 'second hand' houses:

(a) just about OK in areas where prices are falling;
(b) absolutely a bad thing in areas where prices are flat or rising very slowly; and
(c) it's indefensible, lunatic, nonsense in areas where inflation's already fairly hefty.

So you are adding another dimension to my analysis.

People who think it's OK, but should be different by region. Is that HTB only available for people buying in certain areas (but living elsewere) or living in any area (but buying in a specific area)?

Just incidentally, are you related to Dillon (of Magic Roundabout fame)?

the_flying_pig

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

So you are adding another dimension to my analysis.

People who think it's OK, but should be different by region. Is that HTB only available for people buying in certain areas (but living elsewere) or living in any area (but buying in a specific area)?

Just incidentally, are you related to Dillon (of Magic Roundabout fame)?

obviously it'd go on the location of the house being bought, rather than where the buyer lives.

as in the flappy eared dog? no, not me.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Another day, another warning..

Next? The clothing retailer? Is the confirmation bias that ingrained?

What about Greggs and Take a Break Magazine - they must have a company policy on Help To Buy?

wotsthat

The Bank of England should use its powers to limit house price increases to 5% a year to "take the froth out" of price booms, a surveyors' group says.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) said that a 5% annual rise should trigger caps on how much people could borrow relative to their incomes or the value of the property.

It is not suggesting that sellers should face a limit on how much they could charge for their homes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24066371

So facing a housing shortage a surveyor's group suggests a complicated way of limiting credit but doesn't mention increasing supply.

Should ensure only rich people can increase housing wealth in a rising market I suppose.

Retards.

wotsthat

the_flying_pig wrote: »

i suppose that their VI here is moderately clear... Next's target market is upper working & lower middle class people in their 20s & 30s, shedloads more housing debt would have an obvious detrimental effect on the spending power of this group.

During the recession people took on less debt and reduced their consumption of big ticket items. This actually meant they had a little bit more money and were willing to treat themselves which much less money maybe a £6 bottle of wine instead of £4. A T-Shirt from Next instead of Primark.

Next want people to have enough money to shop there but not enough to buy a house. It's expensive to buy a house and although Next do home furnishing it's going to be out of reach of many new home owners who will have to be more thrifty for a while.