Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 12:43

Kiffa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 12:31

I'm only going on what has happened in the past. RTB schemes did see housing built but it was very small beer compared to the numbers sold off. Even so, any new house built is an increase to the housing stock. What I'm getting at is that the increase is so small that its almost negligible. It may be different this time road and time will tell.

---

---

I agree about the affordability but then that's not why banks aren't lending, it is because FTB's don't have sufficient deposits (for reasons outlined above).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:03

There has not been one for one replacement of Council homes sold under the RTB at any point. In the last spike (with an explicit Government promise that every one sold would be replaced) the figure was under 20% replacement. So Council housing stock numbers are falling (as will Housing Association numbers if the Government ever gets to implement its election flagship policy). In many areas there are no Council homes left - they have all gone through RTB or as stock transfers. Where Council homes remain RTB produces greater concentrations of high cost (repairs and management) homes and massive dis-economies of scale for the Council.

---

So I can't see why any one would object to such a policy that increases the overall housing stock and reduces the overall demand on housing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:20

There has not been one for one replacement of Council homes sold under the RTB at any point. In the last spike (with an explicit Government promise that every one sold would be replaced) the figure was under 20% replacement. So Council housing stock numbers are falling (as will Housing Association numbers if the Government ever gets to implement its election flagship policy). In many areas there are no Council homes left - they have all gone through RTB or as stock transfers. Where Council homes remain RTB produces greater concentrations of high cost (repairs and management) homes and massive dis-economies of scale for the Council.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:03

That was bound to be the case - the numbers never added up for one for one replacement.

---

---

Completely meaningless mathematics unless you factor in the rate at which people are falling into the category of requiring social housing. You are assuming no newcomers to the demand which is of course a fundamental flaw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:04

Social Housing stock has been depleting for years. RTB caused depletion before and will cause depletion again. If you truly believe this government will ensure this doesn't happen then you are frankly deluded.

---

You only fail when you stop trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:40

There has not been one for one replacement of Council homes sold under the RTB at any point. In the last spike (with an explicit Government promise that every one sold would be replaced) the figure was under 20% replacement. So Council housing stock numbers are falling (as will Housing Association numbers if the Government ever gets to implement its election flagship policy). In many areas there are no Council homes left - they have all gone through RTB or as stock transfers. Where Council homes remain RTB produces greater concentrations of high cost (repairs and management) homes and massive dis-economies of scale for the Council.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:20

That was bound to be the case - the numbers never added up for one for one replacement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:03

Does it make any difference if the total amount of housing is rising (slightly and massively behind the growth in UK households)? Yes it does. It isn't just a numbers game. There is a steady erosion of affordable and accessible homes, to be replaced by high rent and unaccessible homes as RTB homes leak through into the private rented market.

---

---

---

In either case because you have more housing stock overall (as you have built 0.7m new homes that wouldn't have been built otherwise) you have a lesser need for housing.

Feedy,

We are talking about social housing stock here.

If you replace social housing at 20% then for every 5 sold, stock depletes by 4.

Just because overall house figures go up, does not mean these houses become accessible to people who can't afford their own home or high rent prices.

The waiting list is growing that should tell you something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 14:06

Feedy,

---

the fact is the housing stock has risen and the need for social housing has fallen. I can't see why that is a bad policy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 14:48

Feedy,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 14:06

We are talking about social housing stock here.

---

---

4. I'm interested to know how you come to be a bastion of this scheme as we all know you detest handouts from the state. What do you call a massive discount on a house from the state if it isn't a handout? I'd also be interested to know if you would support the government giving someone who lives in social housing a 20k deposit to buy a non-social housing home, because thats essentially what is happening here.

Kiffa

1. I don't disagree that social housing decreases in stock, what I'm saying is the demand for housing reduces by a greater amount.

2. I've asked for evidence of this in the past, do you have any.

3. The figures were illustrative only to show that social housing being built increases the housing stock overall.

4. I'm ambivalent to RTB. I'm trying to understand why a policy that reduces demand overall is seen as a bad thing.

Jon,

I note you have chosen to ignore my last post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:10

It is ideological, the Tory party like to transfer things from public to private ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 12:32

The second paragraph is just more trolling so I will ignore.

---

---

http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/homer.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Tim Muff wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 22:39

It is ideological, the Tory party like to transfer things from public to private ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:10

The second paragraph is just more trolling so I will ignore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 12:32

Yeah it sucks for me

---

---

---

You really struggle in terms of being s human don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 22:45

It is ideological, the Tory party like to transfer things from public to private ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Tim Muff wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 22:39

The second paragraph is just more trolling so I will ignore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:10

Yeah it sucks for me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 12:32

So would I.

---

---

---

---

Spam won't get in the way of a difference of opinion, or a response to a provocative challenge on this MB http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/thumbup.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Tim Muff wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 22:39

It is ideological, the Tory party like to transfer things from public to private ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:10

The second paragraph is just more trolling so I will ignore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 12:32

Yeah it sucks for me

---

---

---

If jon is correct then this policy build more social housing without any cost to the taxpayer. I can't see why that would be a bad policy if true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 22:36

Jon,

---

That is what the allegations were in the sample links I provided. The most relevant were from less than 2 years ago - not 4 or 5 years ago. It became a major issue for the coalition government (Tory ministers in the lead) in late 2013, and it was a pre-election campaign target for Labour and the LibDems. By that time the Tories had reverted to their preferred script of attacking planning rules (the libertarian wing of the Tories anyway - the other wing love planning when they get into NIMBY mode), but they didn't challenge the other parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 08:12

It is ideological, the Tory party like to transfer things from public to private ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Tim Muff wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 22:39

The second paragraph is just more trolling so I will ignore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 13:10

Yeah it sucks for me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Tue, 09 June 2015 12:32

So would I.

---

---

---

---

It is a policy that is expensive, unfair, irrational and perverse. But you and Croesy like it.... http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/shrug.gif

Jon

what is the benefit of developers holding on to land and leaving it fallow? there is more money to be made from developing the land at the first opportunity. a bird in hand and all that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:55

Jon

---

Apparently not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:57

Jon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:55

what is the benefit of developers holding on to land and leaving it fallow? there is more money to be made from developing the land at the first opportunity. a bird in hand and all that...

---

---

of course there is - is there any chance of answering the question? why do you think developers don't develop and leave land fallow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:55

Jon

---

Companies will calculate NPVs on projects and will make decisions based on whether or not a project will return the desired figures or not. After all they have shareholders to satisfy. Why on earth would they just build on land because they can, when this may not be in the best long term interests of the shareholders?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:40

Jon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:55

what is the benefit of developers holding on to land and leaving it fallow? there is more money to be made from developing the land at the first opportunity. a bird in hand and all that...

---

---

let me put it another way, if there was no demand for housing the need for contractors would be low and the market rates to employ them would be low. If the developers were awash with cash they'd make use of this fact and build the properties whilst the cost base was low. The fact they don't do that and wait for the market to pick up is testament to the fact they aren't cash rich and can only develop when there is a need to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:44

Jon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:40

what is the benefit of developers holding on to land and leaving it fallow? there is more money to be made from developing the land at the first opportunity. a bird in hand and all that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:55

Companies will calculate NPVs on projects and will make decisions based on whether or not a project will return the desired figures or not. After all they have shareholders to satisfy. Why on earth would they just build on land because they can, when this may not be in the best long term interests of the shareholders?

---

---

---

I've just answered it. They aren't happy with the return they expect to make by developing immediately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:47

Jon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:44

what is the benefit of developers holding on to land and leaving it fallow? there is more money to be made from developing the land at the first opportunity. a bird in hand and all that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:40

Companies will calculate NPVs on projects and will make decisions based on whether or not a project will return the desired figures or not. After all they have shareholders to satisfy. Why on earth would they just build on land because they can, when this may not be in the best long term interests of the shareholders?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:55

there is no need to try and explain NPV to me and when companies will use it, I'm pretty comfortable with the financial viability of projects over time.

---

---

---

---

By the way, most corporate developers will have an IRR of around 12% which is greater than current (and historic) house price inflation meaning they erode their ROI over time by land banking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 13:00

Jon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:47

what is the benefit of developers holding on to land and leaving it fallow? there is more money to be made from developing the land at the first opportunity. a bird in hand and all that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:44

Companies will calculate NPVs on projects and will make decisions based on whether or not a project will return the desired figures or not. After all they have shareholders to satisfy. Why on earth would they just build on land because they can, when this may not be in the best long term interests of the shareholders?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 12:40

there is no need to try and explain NPV to me and when companies will use it, I'm pretty comfortable with the financial viability of projects over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Wed, 10 June 2015 11:55

You're not answering the question that I am asking of Jon (and you if you like) - why would companies keep land fallow?

---

---

---

---

---

I suppose that is why the top 5 builders, who deliver 35% of total UK supply of new housing, have 12 years of UK total annual supply (at current rates) in their land banks

the 12 years supply would be based on current build rates and not on anything else. if the market could stand greater supply of new build then the 12 years supply would fall accordingly.

why would rising land prices affect a developer with a chunk of land that they intend to develop? it clearly wouldn't as the developer already owns the land

it seems like you're just coming up with reasons why developers don't develop when the reality is developers will build as soon as they have planning and as soon as the market means they will sell the development.