CVs - again.

You can't blame a planning department for that.

 

You are assuming that the property developers try to build lots of
houses and then compete on price to sell them. They charge whatever
they can get away with.

Self-build costs are a lot lower than buying from a developer, even
though the planning and other charges are the same. The difference
between these numbers is called `profit'.

 

Demand that could be met if it wasn't so hard (& didn't take so long)
to get PP. Swindon's got a *massive* housing shortfall, but it's taken
god knows how many years of wrangling before Wimpy et al finally got
the go ahead to start building on the 'front garden' (the chunk of land
next to the M4 between junctions 15 & 16). It was being discussed when
I first moved here 20 years ago!

 

(M J Carley) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Remind me who place controls upon supply?

 

Less so nowadays.

Because it's worth used to increase more rapidly than inflation.

 

There is no shortage of supply: there are 651,993 empty homes in
England.

http://www.emptyhomes.com/usefulresources/stats/2009breakdown.htm

Maybe the property developers sitting on land they're not building on
has something to do with it.

As a result of continued investment, the enlarged group\u2019s
landbank has grown from 103,600 plots at December 2006 to 109,700 at
June 2007.

http://www.barratt-investor-relations.co.uk/media/releases/Content.aspx?id=1033

 

No I'm not.

Of course they do, just like any other business. And just like any
other business, if the supply exceeded the demand, the prices would
tumble.

Yes. I. Know. But self-build costs are also a lot lower than the final
value of the completed house. It matters not one jot whether it's a
developer or a self-builder doing it.

 

'some real money'. If that's only 10% of the paper money, but they only
ever need up to 5% to cover defaulters, it's not a problem. Up the
defaulters to 10% & take away the paper money (real or otherwise) & you
either go bust or find someone else (the government) to lend you the
money.

 

(M J Carley) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Which, of course, ignores the reasons why those houses are empty.
(How can an empty house be a "home"?)

The in-laws place was "empty" for a year. Because the F-i-L had died, the
M-i-L had gone into care, and SWMBO was trying to clear it of forty years
worth of accumulated crap in order to sell. When it went on the market,
it sold within a week.

It also ignores that many of the genuinely empty properties are empty
because nobody actually wants to live in those properties or areas enough
to pay a price that the landlord or vendor is willing to accept.

 

`the UK cash ratio is 0.15 per cent'

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n01/john-lanchester/cityphilia

There is nothing there.

 

By having people live in it.

So in this market, driven by supply and demand, prices are not changing
due to changes in demand?

 

Empty doesn't mean available.

"This represents a landbank of c.5.1 years at the current combined
annual production rate of 21,500"

21,500 houses a year is hardly 'not building'. It takes years of
planning before you can start building a new housing estate, so having
enough land for 5 years of building is perfectly reasonable.

 

(M J Carley) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

So you'd agree that "empty homes" is tautological?

Who said anything about perfect elasticity?

 

This. Well the distance from London in general. Never underestimate the
effect of easy access to London. An extra half an hour down the M4 may
not seem much, but double that during rush hour for the inevitable
snarl up around Reading, then double it again for doing it twice a day
on a commute, & an extra 100k doesn't sound quite as bad.

 

That's after the shit hit the fan - it was higher before that (3% when
Northern Rock went down).

It's also only the UK ratio, so has no relevance to what real money was
available in the international money markets either before or after the
crash. E.g. the UAE liquidity ratio is 100%

 

Move to Wales
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-10702053

The headline is about sale of council houses but another element of the
new legislation is the relaxing of planning regs in rural areas. As
Champ has highlighted, demographic changes mean that populations are
ageing, quite rapidly in rural areas around here. The young people that
grow up in the area mostly **** off to urban areas in search of cheaper
homes. As baby boomers begin to retire it is becoming difficult for
rural businesses to recruit young people to take their jobs. Hence, the
intention is to give developers incentives to build homes suitable &
affordable for young single people and families.

Admirable intention but as it will be administered by WAG it is likely
to be a monumental **** up.

 

Move to Spain. One million empty Apartments.

No jobs or water either.

 

Having had the "pleasure" of living on a new build estate, I suspect
your perception is very wrong. Having spent a couple of years watching
the "To Let" signs going up and down, the vast majority of the flats
and "mews" houses were buy to let.

 

I saw the report on Newsnight about that yesterday. As stated elsewhere,
Santander have taken over my bank with which I have a goodly amount stashed
in a cash ISA. It's just below the compensation threshold but despite their
decent rates I'll have to look for a different provider for future
investments.

 

(M J Carley) banged this out on the bongos:

Keerist!! I thought it was all smoke and mirrors, but I didn't know it
was almost literally the case!

Time for a return to full reserve banking IYAM.