From City AM:
Calls for more properties to be built in London to slow rampant price growth are being partly answered. The capital is leading the way in the Build to Rent scheme, with the number of rental developments in the pipeline more than double that in the rest of the UK.
The scheme allows developers to build properties for rent with the government sharing risk in order to encourage new housing investments....
“The momentum behind Build to Rent continues. It is moving firmly beyond theory and into reality. With continued support from both national and local government this progress can continue,” said Andrew Stanford, residential fund manager at LaSalle Investment Management.
“The growing number of long-term institutional investors in the sector will then find a suitable home for their capital, ensuring that housing supply and tenant choice can increase.”
We now appear to be in some bizarre parallel universe.
Showing posts with label Subsidies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Subsidies. Show all posts
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
Sunday, 2 June 2013
Ah diddums, boo hoo, etc.
From The Telegraph:
Thousands of pensioners and high-net-worth investors are at risk of losing a vital income stream under a rescue being prepared for the stricken Co-operative Bank.
The supermarkets-to-funerals mutual is preparing an emergency rescue plan for its financial subsidiary that is expected to include losses for holders of the bank’s junior debt, including £310m of permanent interest bearing shares (PIBS) issued by Britannia Building Society before it was taken over by the Co-op, and £60m of preference shares.
Of the £370m of bonds, which pay annual interest of between 5.55pc and 13pc, some £30m is held by members of the public. Any rescue would almost certainly see the coupon cut or cancelled, costing retail investors about £3m a year.
When you 'invested' in something as obscure as PIBS, it must have been obvious that the high returns were not guaranteed and largely a reflection of the higher risk attached to them, i.e. the risk that you wouldn't get your money back. I don't see why certain people should be insulated against this basic rule. The Co-op Bank appears to have screwed up and somebody somewhere has to pay the price (bear the risk), in a free market system the people who agreed - in exchange for a nominally high yield - to take the risk should pay it, end of, regardless of their age.
And how much are we talking about anyway? £3 million a year?
And how much is the government and the banking system trying to screw out of the next generation of purchasers via the Help To Sell scheme?
Using their figures, the price of an average £160,000 will be bumped up to £200,000, so each new purchaser/couple is taking on an extra £40,000 of debt, which will cost him or her/them another £80,000 in mortgage repayments over the next twenty-five years, that's a real cash cost of £3,200 a year.
Whatever the maths of this is, the overall transfer from first-time buyers and future taxpayers (which is by and large the same group of people) to bankers and current landowners will be approximately double the promised total guarantee volume of £130 billion plus twenty-five years' interest thereon = £260 billion.
Divide that by ten million people under 40 who don't yet own a home and the total cost to each and every one of us over our working lives is something £26,000 each.
Thanks a lot, Georgon Osbrown!
Thousands of pensioners and high-net-worth investors are at risk of losing a vital income stream under a rescue being prepared for the stricken Co-operative Bank.
The supermarkets-to-funerals mutual is preparing an emergency rescue plan for its financial subsidiary that is expected to include losses for holders of the bank’s junior debt, including £310m of permanent interest bearing shares (PIBS) issued by Britannia Building Society before it was taken over by the Co-op, and £60m of preference shares.
Of the £370m of bonds, which pay annual interest of between 5.55pc and 13pc, some £30m is held by members of the public. Any rescue would almost certainly see the coupon cut or cancelled, costing retail investors about £3m a year.
When you 'invested' in something as obscure as PIBS, it must have been obvious that the high returns were not guaranteed and largely a reflection of the higher risk attached to them, i.e. the risk that you wouldn't get your money back. I don't see why certain people should be insulated against this basic rule. The Co-op Bank appears to have screwed up and somebody somewhere has to pay the price (bear the risk), in a free market system the people who agreed - in exchange for a nominally high yield - to take the risk should pay it, end of, regardless of their age.
And how much are we talking about anyway? £3 million a year?
And how much is the government and the banking system trying to screw out of the next generation of purchasers via the Help To Sell scheme?
Using their figures, the price of an average £160,000 will be bumped up to £200,000, so each new purchaser/couple is taking on an extra £40,000 of debt, which will cost him or her/them another £80,000 in mortgage repayments over the next twenty-five years, that's a real cash cost of £3,200 a year.
Whatever the maths of this is, the overall transfer from first-time buyers and future taxpayers (which is by and large the same group of people) to bankers and current landowners will be approximately double the promised total guarantee volume of £130 billion plus twenty-five years' interest thereon = £260 billion.
Divide that by ten million people under 40 who don't yet own a home and the total cost to each and every one of us over our working lives is something £26,000 each.
Thanks a lot, Georgon Osbrown!
Monday, 25 February 2013
Reader's Letter Of The Day
From The Evening Standard (25 February 2013, page 43):
The downgrade should come as no surprise - the Coalition made it clear at the start that they were going to continue running up large annual deficits for their whole five-year term.
What is noticeable is the extent to which a narrative of "savage Tory cuts" has gained traction, when what's actually happening are exemplary cuts for people the Conservative frontbench don't like (welfare claimants; social housing tenants) while ever larger sums are given to influential businesses and party donors (banks; welfare to work providers).
What is even more surprising is that Labour politicians go along with the charade and call for higher spending - surely they know the Government is spending £100 billion a year more than Labour was before the credit crunch?
Mark Wadsworth, Young People's Party.
The downgrade should come as no surprise - the Coalition made it clear at the start that they were going to continue running up large annual deficits for their whole five-year term.
What is noticeable is the extent to which a narrative of "savage Tory cuts" has gained traction, when what's actually happening are exemplary cuts for people the Conservative frontbench don't like (welfare claimants; social housing tenants) while ever larger sums are given to influential businesses and party donors (banks; welfare to work providers).
What is even more surprising is that Labour politicians go along with the charade and call for higher spending - surely they know the Government is spending £100 billion a year more than Labour was before the credit crunch?
Mark Wadsworth, Young People's Party.
Saturday, 12 January 2013
They own land! Give them money!
Katy John from Priced Out linked to this corker from Housing Minister Mark Prisk:
So before Christmas I launched the £200million Build to Rent fund, which will help give developers the freedom to expand their businesses beyond the traditional sale market and into homes built specifically for private rent.
Sweet, so he is using taxpayers' money to subsidise people who want to collect more rent [privately collected tax] from the same people as are already paying the [publicly collected] tax.
Thankfully, £200 million is not a huge figure, but it's the principles (or lack thereof) which matter.
So before Christmas I launched the £200million Build to Rent fund, which will help give developers the freedom to expand their businesses beyond the traditional sale market and into homes built specifically for private rent.
Sweet, so he is using taxpayers' money to subsidise people who want to collect more rent [privately collected tax] from the same people as are already paying the [publicly collected] tax.
Thankfully, £200 million is not a huge figure, but it's the principles (or lack thereof) which matter.
Friday, 7 December 2012
We can have anything we like if we can be bothered to vote for it
From the BBC:
All working age benefits, including tax credits and child benefit, will go up by 1% a year, less than the rate of inflation, for the next three years... Pensioners have been protected with pensions going up by 2.5%.
Most pensioners vote, so we have at least four "pensioners' parties" in the UK. Only half of under-40s vote, and those that do vote mainly for one of the pensioners' parties.
From Mortgage Strategy:
Borrowers [who] have been unemployed for [more than] 13 weeks are currently eligible for the support, which replaced the 39-week qualifying period in 2009, and the qualifying loan size increased to £200,000 from £100,000. Both were due to revert back in January 2013...?
This is just another "we own land, give us money" scheme to keep the bankers happy, of course...
CML director general Paul Smee says: “We welcome the extension of the current arrangements for the support for mortgage Interest scheme until March 2015. These had been due to expire in January 2013 but today’s announcement provides a welcome extension of support for homeowners currently receiving income related benefits, as well as helping lenders to extend forbearance to those waiting to qualify.”
£200,000 @ 3.63% eligible interest = £7,260 a year, councils could easily build and maintain a new council home for that money; if they can get £140 a week rent for it, it doesn't actually cost the taxpayer (i.e. you) anything. Would you rather hava a council house for £140 a week with no further hassle or pay an extra £140 in tax a week to pay off somebody else' mortgage?
As we've said before: Don't waste your protest vote!
All working age benefits, including tax credits and child benefit, will go up by 1% a year, less than the rate of inflation, for the next three years... Pensioners have been protected with pensions going up by 2.5%.
Most pensioners vote, so we have at least four "pensioners' parties" in the UK. Only half of under-40s vote, and those that do vote mainly for one of the pensioners' parties.
From Mortgage Strategy:
Borrowers [who] have been unemployed for [more than] 13 weeks are currently eligible for the support, which replaced the 39-week qualifying period in 2009, and the qualifying loan size increased to £200,000 from £100,000. Both were due to revert back in January 2013...?
This is just another "we own land, give us money" scheme to keep the bankers happy, of course...
CML director general Paul Smee says: “We welcome the extension of the current arrangements for the support for mortgage Interest scheme until March 2015. These had been due to expire in January 2013 but today’s announcement provides a welcome extension of support for homeowners currently receiving income related benefits, as well as helping lenders to extend forbearance to those waiting to qualify.”
£200,000 @ 3.63% eligible interest = £7,260 a year, councils could easily build and maintain a new council home for that money; if they can get £140 a week rent for it, it doesn't actually cost the taxpayer (i.e. you) anything. Would you rather hava a council house for £140 a week with no further hassle or pay an extra £140 in tax a week to pay off somebody else' mortgage?
As we've said before: Don't waste your protest vote!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)