40% In London

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

My view....
Residential Housing should not be a tradable investment commodity, it should be for residents only to buy. The rental market needs to exist, and should be part of long term investment portfolios of pension funds, not for one man band property investors, this should be brought into law and phased in over 5-10years.

This may seem a little black and white, which is not my style as I can see many shades of grey, but .... I think people should buy a house and live in it, or rent a house and that is it, simples.

I'm not sure about BTL but how do you propose to get pension funds etc involved, although there is nothing stopping they seem reluctant to get involved at the moment.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Some ideas don't fit into sound bites

I'm wondering if forum posting has an unspoken maximum number of words in these Twitter times?....

Attention spans and spare time in people lives doesn't leave room to communicate more complex ideas.... maybe that is why we end up in these situations?!

Peace

the housing problem in the UK is quite simple

we have an over regulated planning system that stops house building

we need to build more houses




your solution is to further prevent house building and put rental properties under the control of Insurance companies who have repeatedly cheated and mismanaged pensions and insurance.


you clearly have a deed hostility to ordinary people and a love of robber barons

ging84

how are these foreign investors financing these purchases ? If they are bring full asking price in cash into the country, then that is fairly good for the country in the short term.
But if they are bringing in 20% deposits, then borrowing from UK lenders to finance the majority of the purchase, very easy for that to become a speculative bubble.

TickersPlaysPop

Hi

Just debating this idea folks.... I'll never claim to know all!

Maybe the best people to ask about the idea of creating larger companies that deal with the buy to let market would be pension fund mangers and tax specialists. I guess there could be some sort of package deal to open the way for this model:

1) some sort of Tax incentive
2)Trade off the tax incentive with tie ins for years to prevent high turn over of property. This tax incentive could be scaled with time of the tie in.
3)New rules to protect tenants
4)The new regs around housing market to prevent pure housing profiteering where you are only allowed to buy 1 dwelling and live in it, would also result in steady sustainable growth and less likely to boom and bust. This will hopefully make the tie in tax incentive package more attractive and commercially viable.

I'm not claiming to know all the answers, just sparking debate to explore way to make things better for all. i.e. Swap a rapid increase or boom bust in housing market for more productive investment in growing profitable businesses.

Clapton, please don't provoke me by accusing me of hostility to ordinary people and a love of barons lol .... That was clearly a joke :-). You also seem to have miss read my post, why do you think I wanted insurance companies to own and administer the buy to let market?! Don't get me ranting about insurance companies. Please read my text above carefully, and enter into debate by politely disagreeing and giving your point of view, don't tell me who I love and who I am hostile to.

And Clapton... I agree we need more houses, but a part of the puzzle you didn't mention is that since 2008 crash, there has been zero credit available to builders. I've told you about my second hand experience of this via my dad's building company and his knowledge of the sector. So this is another influence of the system at large I.e. the banks controlling the housing market. The banks are making money out of the HPI and conveniently placing the risk on borrowers and government via help to buy. Why would the banks want to undermine their nice little earner buy giving money to builders?!

Ging... I'd also like to know where the money comes from. Even if the % purchases are low in London from this type of investor (which many sources now claim is not a small number) it's the total sum of money that counts. China has been borrowing to build, a similar risk to the sub prime USA trick, and is a bubble waiting to burst (estimated to be >200% debt to GDP in Dec2013). This will burst and will destabilise global markets and London house prices and maybe more. I'd love to hear from a professional economist on the China topic.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Hi

Just debating this idea folks.... I'll never claim to know all!

Maybe the best people to ask about the idea of creating larger companies that deal with the buy to let market would be pension fund mangers and tax specialists. I guess there could be some sort of package deal to open the way for this model:

1) some sort of Tax incentive
2)Trade off the tax incentive with tie ins for years to prevent high turn over of property. This tax incentive could be scaled with time of the tie in.
3)New rules to protect tenants
4)The new regs around housing market to prevent pure housing profiteering where you are only allowed to buy 1 dwelling and live in it, would also result in steady sustainable growth and less likely to boom and bust. This will hopefully make the tie in tax incentive package more attractive and commercially viable.

I'm not claiming to know all the answers, just sparking debate to explore way to make things better for all. i.e. Swap a rapid increase or boom bust in housing market for more productive investment in growing profitable businesses.

Clapton, please don't provoke me by accusing me of hostility to ordinary people and a love of barons lol .... That was clearly a joke :-). You also seem to have miss read my post, why do you think I wanted insurance companies to own and administer the buy to let market?! Don't get me ranting about insurance companies. Please read my text above carefully, and enter into debate by politely disagreeing and giving your point of view, don't tell me who I love and who I am hostile to.

And Clapton... I agree we need more houses, but a part of the puzzle you didn't mention is that since 2008 crash, there has been zero credit available to builders. I've told you about my second hand experience of this via my dad's building company and his knowledge of the sector. So this is another influence of the system at large I.e. the banks controlling the housing market. The banks are making money out of the HPI and conveniently placing the risk on borrowers and government via help to buy. Why would the banks want to undermine their nice little earner buy giving money to builders?!

Ging... I'd also like to know where the money comes from. Even if the % purchases are low in London from this type of investor (which many sources now claim is not a small number) it's the total sum of money that counts. China has been borrowing to build, a similar risk to the sub prime USA trick, and is a bubble waiting to burst (estimated to be >200% debt to GDP in Dec2013). This will burst and will destabilise global markets and London house prices and maybe more. I'd love to hear from a professional economist on the China topic.

why ever would one ask pension fund manager and tax specialists about how to build more houses?

why do you trust large companies over small people

is your dad's company more corrupt than large house builders?

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

Free markets have consistently been shown to be the best way of allocating scarce resources.



Who benefits from HPI? Mostly people who own more than one house and want to sell one. In the same way, people that plan to sell shares benefit from rising share prices.



I don't see why this would solve any problems and it would create a whole host more.

Fundamentally, who the [STRIKE]fu[/STRIKE] heck are you to tell me what to do with my property? The biggest problem the UK faces today is far too much Government. Having the Government decide who I can and can't sell my property to is going down the road to the Gulag.

Anyway, how do you think big companies get going? Generally they start as one man bands and grow from there. For all the insults chucked their way, many deserved from what I can see, the Wilsons are effectively a successful property company built up from a couple owning a single house.

Antitrust/ competition regulation applies in many parts of market, why not a pretty fundamental one?

TickersPlaysPop

CLAPTON wrote: »

why ever would one ask pension fund manager and tax specialists about how to build more houses?

why do you trust large companies over small people

is your dad's company more corrupt than large house builders?

Seriously..... Clapton, you are not reading my posts correctly. If you read my post and think I'm writing rubbish, please go back and re-read it. You are embarrassing yourself..... I will need to report a complaint about you if you post another response to my posts in that manor.

My suggestion about fund managers and tax specialists was clearly stated as an idea around the buy to let market, and taking it out of the hands of profiteering individuals, to make a more sustainable growth in housing. It was NOT about building more houses.

The objective of companies running the buy to let is to prevent unsustainable HPI and also prevent it getting to the huge Japan levels and staying there.

My dad's company.... Yes matey it is very corrupt.... LoL :-) you do make me laugh mate lol .... What is your problem?... I guess you must be a self made housing market profiteer?! LoL. No problem with that... Well done, but the game will be up soon when the young exploited part of our society mobilise and take control of the situation.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Seriously..... Clapton, you are not reading my posts correctly. If you read my post and think I'm writing rubbish, please go back and re-read it. You are embarrassing yourself..... I will need to report a complaint about you if you post another response to my posts in that manor.

My suggestion about fund managers and tax specialists was clearly stated as an idea around the buy to let market, and taking it out of the hands of profiteering individuals, to make a more sustainable growth in housing. It was NOT about building more houses.

The objective of companies running the buy to let is to prevent unsustainable HPI and also prevent it getting to the huge Japan levels and staying there.

My dad's company.... Yes matey it is very corrupt.... LoL :-) you do make me laugh mate lol .... What is your problem?... I guess you must be a self made housing market profiteer?! LoL. No problem with that... Well done, but the game will be up soon when the young exploited part of our society mobilise and take control of the situation.

you seem wedded to the idea that small renting businesses cause unsustainable HPI whilst large one's won't: why is that ?

I presumed you would take the same view of house builders: large one will cause no problems because they are devoted to the greater good whilst small ones should be driven out of business less they too cause unsustainable HPI.
madness.

chewmylegoff

If you legislate such that only companies can rent property out then people will simply set up a company and transfer the property to the company.

Unless you are also going to ban people from owning shares in companies - that would be a rather strange situation which would completely destroy the economy.

Bantex_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

you seem wedded to the idea that small renting businesses cause unsustainable HPI whilst large one's won't: why is that ?

I presumed you would take the same view of house builders: large one will cause no problems because they are devoted to the greater good whilst small ones should be driven out of business less they too cause unsustainable HPI.
madness.

Think the difference is that large investors are likely to build to rent, whereas small BTL landlords tend to just "outbid" possible buyers. Usually at the FTB end of the market.