Help to Buy is nothing but an election ploy....

leveller2911

CLAPTON wrote: »

I fully agree that if developers could control the market for their advantage

they would do so.

The large national house builders don't need to form a "cartel". Say for example Redrow on their developments they only need to drip feed properties on the market at a local level to keep property prices high. If they built a deveopment of 2,000 houses all built in one year the prices may well drop due to over supply locally thats why they drip feed supply. It doesn't need an organised "National Cartel" to do it .

So you are saying that if the example I gave and the Wilsons were repo'd and 650 properties were put up for sale in the Ashford area prices would not drop. Why do you think prices would stay stable?.

There is plenty of land if planning permission was available.

The fact is Clapton most of the land will not be given PP and you,I , Government and more importantly the developers all know it. The South East for example does not have and will not ever have the infrastructure needed for a massive house building programme. We already need 2 new reservoirs due to water shortages most years.

CLAPTON

leveller2911 wrote: »

The fact is Clapton most of the land will not be given PP and you,I , Government and more importantly the developers all know it. The South East for example does not have and will not ever have the infrastructure needed for a massive house building programme.

that doesn't change my argument about illegal cartels

for new house selling for say 250,000 what do you think the excessive (illegal) profit on it is?

Thrugelmir

Jason74 wrote: »

Yes and no.The UK market wasn't the trigger for the banking crisis, that much is undeniably true. But that doesn't change the fact that there was a major problem in the UK mortgage market in the run up to 2008. When you look at the lending market at that time, with 120% lending, liar loans, a mssive over reliance on the wholesale market and a generally far to lax approach to the principles of credit risk, it is clear that it was unsustainable. While we will never know for sure, it's probably fair to say that the only reason there wasn't a "home grown" crisis is because events elsewhere blew up first. I sincerely hope that we never see a mortgage market that lax again.

Now of course, it's important to acknowledge that HTB2 thankfully doesn't take us back to those levels, or anything like them. But I'm firmly of the view that it is bad policy nonentheless.The last thing our policy makers should be doing is doing anything that props up the housing market. It should either just keep out of the way, or try and address the reasons why houses are so expensive in the first place. That would inevitably mean both a large scale publicly funded house building programme, and significant changes to the tax system to make holding property for investment purposes much less attractive.

Instead, government have gone for the easy option of alleviating the short term symptom while doing nothing to address the cause. For all it's problems, the crisis actually created an opportunity to move away from the property led boom and bust of recent years. HTB2 is imho conclusive proof that we have missed that opportunity.

The banking bubble in the UK blew up over 15/20 year period. So whilst you are correct that the Government appears to be be doing little in the short term. There is little that can be done. As the size of the problem is simply too large to tackle head on. Banks (some) aren't in the best of health. So they have to be allowed to unwind their balance sheets in a gradual progressive manner.

wotsthat

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If they were a good commercial opportunity there would be no need for a government backed guarantee.

If the buyers weren't a commercial opportunity the bank wouldn't lend anyway.

The guarantee doesn't guarantee against losing money. It deals with the unintended (but predictable) consequence of requiring banks to improve capital ratios whilst expecting an increase in lending.

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

Never denied it, yes.

Good, I would have done exactly the same thing. I don't see anything wrong with it.

However, I don't see anything wrong with banks or homeowners/tenants being bailed out.

Do you think banks and home owners should be bailed out so tha they can have lower interest payments?

Again it's a Yes or No answer.

Percy1983

chucky wrote: »

Good, I would have done exactly the same thing. I don't see anything wrong with it.

However, I don't see anything wrong with banks or homeowners/tenants being bailed out.

Do you think banks and home owners should be bailed out so tha they can have lower interest payments?

Again it's a Yes or No answer.

Sorry to say I can't give a straight answer to this.

Dare I say the problem here is the use of the word bailout.

The many who where just ploding without a problem it just helped them out, I don't see this as a bailout (much the same as my situation as helpfully posted by another user).

But then there is those who where just going over the edge who where suddenly bailed which I am not sure I agree with.

I don't recall having a huge problem with the bank bailouts I can see it was a nessessary evil as such.

The bigger problem I do have is how rents appear to be rising when a lot of landlords will actually have lower rates and therefore lower costs, I do question why this is happening.

chucky

Percy1983 wrote: »

Sorry to say I can't give a straight answer to this.

Dare I say the problem here is the use of the word bailout.

I rest my case.

It's hiding behind the use of certain words which you've been trying to 'muddle' the underlying issue.

For me there the same. If they're not the same for you, so be it. If you don't think they are the same, for me it's double standards.

Loughton_Monkey

Percy1983 wrote: »

.......The bigger problem I do have is how rents appear to be rising when a lot of landlords will actually have lower rates and therefore lower costs, I do question why this is happening.

This one is simple. Rents rise (as do houses) mainly due to supply & demand imbalance. More people want to rent? Prices go up. Back in history, now, mortgage interest rates reduced. But as far as I recall, they haven't fallen for almost 5 years?

Inflation over the last 5 years has been 15% [ish]. So Insurance, Maintenance, and not to mention the much higher house prices must have an impact?

Percy1983

chucky wrote: »

I rest my case.

It's hiding behind the use of certain words which you've been trying to 'muddle' the underlying issue.

For me there the same. If they're not the same for you, so be it. If you don't think they are the same, for me it's double standards.

To quote Wikipedia:

"A bailout is a colloquial pejorative term for giving a loan to a company or country which faces serious financial difficulty or bankruptcy"

Now as shown, I had no difficultly servicing my debts so the word bailout isn't the correct term.

As said I have never denied my wife to be and I (at the time) switched debts between us to reduce interest payments, this was done purely to expedite debt clearance for both of us (to then buy a house) not due to any of us being in financial touble and needing a bailout. If the action wasn't taken I would still have got to a debt free state without intervention. The difference being the debt free date would have been much later.

So would you agree bailout isn't the correct term?

Graham_Devon

Apparently, according to the radio, Mark Carney has now come out and suggested he does not see Help to Buy increasing the supply of houses as there are too many other factors in play.

It's apparently his "first blow" to Osbournes flagship scheme.