Financial Crisis

[midas]

The way I read it from all the way here in Thailand is that it sounds like the UK property market could effectively freeze up at some point in the future when huge numbers of people simultaneously put their homes on the market?

and live in tents?

I don't think the financiers would care where they live

i don't think the financiers are brain-amputated and neither will nor are able to force huge numbers of people to put their homes simultaneously on the market thus collapsing their balance sheets due to huge losses on collateral and being closed down by the regulator.

next interesting theory please...

so how do you think the lenders will overcome this situation i.e. hundreds of thousands of people in their fifties being forced to sell their homes because they are caught in a lending squeeze ?

[Naam]

i don't think the financiers are brain-amputated and neither will nor are able to force huge numbers of people to put their homes simultaneously on the market thus collapsing their balance sheets due to huge losses on collateral and being closed down by the regulator.

next interesting theory please...

so how do you think the lenders will overcome this situation i.e. hundreds of thousands of people in their fifties being forced to sell their homes because they are caught in a lending squeeze ?

where's the lending squeeze? interest and mortgage rates are at an absolute low, especially in Europe (including U.K.) and the U.S. - interesting fact: mortgage rates in Switzerland, Japan and Singapore 1.2-1.5%!

getting rid of the "interest only without redemption" mortgages will not add a huge burden to the regular payments. usually mortgages have a redemption period of 30 years (not necessarily at a fixed interest rate) and the redemption is 1% p.a.

the German example would look like this:

mortgage amount..................200,000

interest rate..........................4%

interest payment per annum...8,000

redemption...........................2,000

total payment......................10,000

if somebody can afford to pay 8k interest an additional 2k redemption won't break his financial back. if it does, he did not qualify for a mortgage in the first place.

i'm sure "mccw" is qualified/informed to post relevant figures which apply in U.K.

[mania]

where's the lending squeeze? interest and mortgage rates are at an absolute low, especially in Europe (including U.K.) and the U.S.

True enough for people looking AND can qualify for mortgages today. Many in their 50's no longer are seen as a good long term

risk & mortgage insurance is priced out of their reach yet required.

But, the people who will lose their homes are the many that got loans during the hey day of loaning

to everyone & anyone which in turn was bundled & sold as A+ to others. We now know how that turned out.

These folks do not have the option to refinance their debt to lower rates or better terms.

Yes, Many of those folks should not have gotten loans & many more have since not been able to service theirs

due to loss of employment.

Finally there is another big segment that thought it was all so easy during the boom times that they would take less than

intelligent terms thinking they would roll the loans later into something more manageable.

These are the folks that will feel the lending squeeze as the assets they bought are no longer even valued anywhere near

what they paid on paper, never mind their newly acquired inability to qualify.

Edited October 25, 2012 by mania

[midas]

i don't think the financiers are brain-amputated and neither will nor are able to force huge numbers of people to put their homes simultaneously on the market thus collapsing their balance sheets due to huge losses on collateral and being closed down by the regulator.

next interesting theory please...

so how do you think the lenders will overcome this situation i.e. hundreds of thousands of people in their fifties being forced to sell their homes because they are caught in a lending squeeze ?

where's the lending squeeze? interest and mortgage rates are at an absolute low, especially in Europe (including U.K.) and the U.S. - interesting fact: mortgage rates in Switzerland, Japan and Singapore 1.2-1.5%!

I thought you already understood this when you started arguing your point?!

It's not how favourable the interest rates happen to be now, the more worrying aspect is being able to qualify for a new mortgage under the new rules just introduced in the UK if you are an older person and you took out an interest only loan years ago ( and probably simultaneously paid far too much for the property compared to today's values as well).

Under these circumstances you are ' stuffed ' and you can't tell me that the banks and lending institutions will be prepared to sit around potentially for aons waiting for the housing market to “ recover “? They wouldn't hesitate to regain possession and try to sell it off as quickly as possible before the values go down even further.

The FSA has previously warned that a "ticking time bomb" has been created over the last 20 years, with an estimated 1.5 million interest-only loans worth around £120 billion due for repayment in the next decade.

Such deals allow borrowers to pay off the capital only when the mortgage term ends, but lenders have abruptly cut back on them amid concerns people cannot afford to pay them back.

http://www.independe...ge-8225509.html

Edited October 25, 2012 by midas

[manarak]

the banks and lending institutions will be prepared to sit around potentially for aons waiting for the housing market to “ recover “?

Hopefully it does never recover, because if it does, the future crisis will be even worse than what we had in the past few years

[yoshiwara]

This is in fact an important discovery, correlation between common/good sense and mini (or any) ponytail on men? I think in fact one only need look to the greatest financial guru of them all Steven Seagal

dam_n. You've got me there. Stephen Seagal has full permission in view of his cultural contributions.

[Naam]

I thought you already understood this when you started arguing your point?!

It's not how favourable the interest rates happen to be now, the more worrying aspect is being able to qualify for a new mortgage under the new rules just introduced in the UK if you are an older person and you took out an interest only loan years ago ( and probably simultaneously paid far too much for the property compared to today's values as well).

Under these circumstances you are ' stuffed ' and you can't tell me that the banks and lending institutions will be prepared to sit around potentially for aons waiting for the housing market to “ recover “? They wouldn't hesitate to regain possession and try to sell it off as quickly as possible before the values go down even further.

The FSA has previously warned that a "ticking time bomb" has been created over the last 20 years, with an estimated 1.5 million interest-only loans worth around £120 billion due for repayment in the next decade.

Such deals allow borrowers to pay off the capital only when the mortgage term ends, but lenders have abruptly cut back on them amid concerns people cannot afford to pay them back.

http://www.independe...ge-8225509.html

lenders have cut abruptly back on 'interest only' loans does not force "hundreds of thousands" existing owners to put their homes on the market because lenders will refinance. as i mentioned, lenders can't afford that property prices fall much below outstanding mortgage values because they will be hurt as much as the homeowners if they refuse to refinance. the only difference will be refinancing is done with redemptions.

The FSA is looking at how many interest-only borrowers will be unable to repay their loans and plans to publish its findings next spring.

why wait till next spring? Midas has the answer already.

Last year, a house was worth around five times the buyer's income on average, compared with 3.7 times a decade ago.

id est if prices come down a bit a healthier property market will be the result.

The FSA has now altered its plans so that lenders would be able to "switch off" the requirements for existing borrowers who wanted to get a new mortgage for the same amount or less, provided they had a good repayment history.

The FSA insisted its rules would not stop lenders being able to offer low-deposit mortgages to first-time buyers and there would be no upper age limits imposed.

Armageddon postponed.

From 2014, lenders will need to consider a borrower's income and outgoings and interest-only mortgages will only be offered to people with a firm repayment plan, rather than relying on hopes that house prices will rise.

fair enough!

[cheeryble]

why wait till next spring? Midas has the answer already.

555555555555!!!!

[midas]

I thought you already understood this when you started arguing your point?!

It's not how favourable the interest rates happen to be now, the more worrying aspect is being able to qualify for a new mortgage under the new rules just introduced in the UK if you are an older person and you took out an interest only loan years ago ( and probably simultaneously paid far too much for the property compared to today's values as well).

Under these circumstances you are ' stuffed ' and you can't tell me that the banks and lending institutions will be prepared to sit around potentially for aons waiting for the housing market to “ recover “? They wouldn't hesitate to regain possession and try to sell it off as quickly as possible before the values go down even further.

The FSA has previously warned that a "ticking time bomb" has been created over the last 20 years, with an estimated 1.5 million interest-only loans worth around £120 billion due for repayment in the next decade.

Such deals allow borrowers to pay off the capital only when the mortgage term ends, but lenders have abruptly cut back on them amid concerns people cannot afford to pay them back.

http://www.independe...ge-8225509.html

lenders have cut abruptly back on 'interest only' loans does not force "hundreds of thousands" existing owners to put their homes on the market because lenders will refinance. as i mentioned, lenders can't afford that property prices fall much below outstanding mortgage values because they will be hurt as much as the homeowners if they refuse to refinance. the only difference will be refinancing is done with redemptions.

The FSA is looking at how many interest-only borrowers will be unable to repay their loans and plans to publish its findings next spring.

why wait till next spring? Midas has the answer already.

Last year, a house was worth around five times the buyer's income on average, compared with 3.7 times a decade ago.

id est if prices come down a bit a healthier property market will be the result.

The FSA has now altered its plans so that lenders would be able to "switch off" the requirements for existing borrowers who wanted to get a new mortgage for the same amount or less, provided they had a good repayment history.

The FSA insisted its rules would not stop lenders being able to offer low-deposit mortgages to first-time buyers and there would be no upper age limits imposed.

Armageddon postponed.

From 2014, lenders will need to consider a borrower's income and outgoings and interest-only mortgages will only be offered to people with a firm repayment plan, rather than relying on hopes that house prices will rise.

fair enough!

Here's another 1400 people that certainly won't be able to qualify for any kind of mortgage

Ford to cut 1,400 car jobs in Southampton and Dagenham

Its Southampton Transit van factory and the stamping plant at Dagenham, east London, will shut, with union sources saying job losses could reach 2,000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-20083272

Edited October 26, 2012 by midas

[yoshiwara]

Property demand in Dagenham and Southampton not exactly world-turning events.

Edited October 26, 2012 by yoshiwara

[yoshiwara]

.

Edited October 26, 2012 by yoshiwara

[topt]

The other thing to point out is that as the article stated "taken out over the last 20 years" a number of those people will be sitting on significant gains in spite of the current depressed state of the market. Also they say they become due in the next 10 years so hardly going to happen all at once and who knows what will happen across that time.

[midas]

The other thing to point out is that as the article stated "taken out over the last 20 years" a number of those people will be sitting on significant gains in spite of the current depressed state of the market. Also they say they become due in the next 10 years so hardly going to happen all at once and who knows what will happen across that time.

but why should U.K.'s property market going forward be any rosier than what has happened in Japan since 1990? In fact I would say today that scenario is even worse because despite robust exports over the last 20 years ,Japan was barely able to keep its head above water regarding its property values

Japanese house prices continue to fall

http://www.globalpro...n/Price-History

Edited October 26, 2012 by midas

[topt]

The other thing to point out is that as the article stated "taken out over the last 20 years" a number of those people will be sitting on significant gains in spite of the current depressed state of the market. Also they say they become due in the next 10 years so hardly going to happen all at once and who knows what will happen across that time.

but why should U.K.'s property market going forward be any rosier than what has happened in Japan since 1990? In fact I would say today that scenario is even worse because despite robust exports over the last 20 years ,Japan was barely able to keep its head above water regarding its property values

Japanese house prices continue to fall

http://www.globalpro...n/Price-History

No reason at all - my point was though that currently many people are not going to have such a problem as was being portrayed.

[midas]

Not good for rural Australians……

Rural savings threatened after collapse

Thousands of farmers and other regional Victorians face a nervous wait after the collapse last night of the financing group Banksia Securities, which has put at risk $660 million in savings.

As a non-bank lender, Banksia offers investors high interest on debentures and then lends these funds out as mortgages or commercial property loans.

Given Banksia does not hold a banking licence, the funds in the debentures are not backed by a deposit guarantee.

http://www.smh.com.a...1025-288cm.html

And the general consensus....... this will not be the last one by any means

The Great Australian Investment Ponzi

Follow

Presentation outlining massive fraud in the Australian listed investment company (LIC) sector.

http://s1144.photobu...!cpZZ1QQtppZZ24

mmmmmm…………I wonder which other “ markets “ this " model " could apply to?

Edited October 26, 2012 by midas

[LaoPo]

The way I read it from all the way here in Thailand is that it sounds like the UK property market could effectively freeze up at some point in the future when huge numbers of people simultaneously put their homes on the market?

and live in tents?

I don't think the financiers would care where they live

i don't think the financiers are brain-amputated and neither will nor are able to force huge numbers of people to put their homes simultaneously on the market thus collapsing their balance sheets due to huge losses on collateral and being closed down by the regulator.

next interesting theory please...

I agree; it's the nightmare of all mortgage financiers/banks. They'd rather sit still and wait for better times. Empty homes bring no money but nightmares apart from the absence of buyers.

Edited October 26, 2012 by LaoPo

[LaoPo]

This is in fact an important discovery, correlation between common/good sense and mini (or any) ponytail on men? I think in fact one only need look to the greatest financial guru of them all Steven Seagal

He has removable pony tails in different sizes and colours, depending on the bar or restaurant he's going to; once in bed it depends on the Lady if she likes his tail or not....it can be used as a soft whip also..........I heard....

[midas]

I don't think the financiers would care where they live

i don't think the financiers are brain-amputated and neither will nor are able to force huge numbers of people to put their homes simultaneously on the market thus collapsing their balance sheets due to huge losses on collateral and being closed down by the regulator.

next interesting theory please...

I agree; it's the nightmare of all mortgage financiers/banks. They'd rather sit still and wait for better times. Empty homes bring no money but nightmares apart from the absence of buyers.

Yes but Japans housing market has been waiting for ' better times' since 1990

who knows where the real bottom is? UK property values could keep drifting downwards over a long period to ‘fundamental value ‘.The established trend in UK now is only part-time jobs and that won't qualify you for a mortgage. So there will be less and less affordability to buy a house over a period of time.

in zombified Japan, real estate prices have remained below their fundamental level since the mid 1990s

http://www.nakedcapi...rest-rates.html

Edited October 26, 2012 by midas

[mccw]

A lot of good points have been said already. In short I think the article was overstating the case.

I'd just add about the market in general that it all depends on location. SE England generally I don't think prices will slide by much or even see a modest increase in capital values as investors with cash or who do qualify will be increasingly looking for solid assets with stable returns, ie renting to the masses who now have no other choice; (see media about rents increasing rapidly + I know this because I have increased what I charge and keep abreast of the competition)

The real "ticking time bomb" is what i call "unavoidable inflation" (unavoidable because its due to supply side, past peak oil etc) and so weather the government response is the interest rates go up. If rates rose even just a few % it would screw mostly everyone, because what was comfortably affordable has become barely affordable what with the rapidly rising cost of living. These problems will increase as time roles on. As I've said before I estimate 5-10 years at this pace for disposable incomes to be reduced to zero and past for many or most. Ultimately people must make hard choices; however I still don't see a massive single moment of crash because of this since everyone has differing income/ debt level thresh holds and prices will be maintained as the wealthy buy up the slack. Long term trend will be a move back to landlords, tenants and just a very small private home ownership. After this period rents may have to start falling as limit to what people can pay and then so this could further price out some of the debt laden landlords; this phase I what really has me worried but too far off to see when yet, but I will be trying to pay down as much as possible and increase yield without more debt by building extensions, annexes and such under the recent permitted development rights.

Back to the present- most areas out of prime and south east could well see massive drops still to come due to second/ holiday home sales, repossessions etc. but prices will not recover, ever; a new stable bottom will be found. Fundamental to look at is the rental yield. In Norfolk for example rent return on a cash total would equal only around 3% where as many areas of south east can be 7or 8% comfortably, more if choosing right. Obvious to see which is overpriced and could re adjust dramatically. Similarly I think there could be room for some capital increase in those higher yielding property's. A gradually revaluing nation wide, indeed world wide, until property investments start to reflect a true value of 5 or 6% return across the board and capital increases are no longer seen as likely. I use this analysis for all property. Going against the consensus I'll say that honestly i think there is a bubble in "prime" property prices across the worlds capitals. Around 1% or less rental return and just buy it and hope for the best isn't a sound plan in my opinion.

[yoshiwara]

A lot of good points have been said already. In short I think the article was overstating the case.

I'd just add about the market in general that it all depends on location. SE England generally I don't think prices will slide by much or even see a modest increase in capital values as investors with cash or who do qualify will be increasingly looking for solid assets with stable returns, ie renting to the masses who now have no other choice; (see media about rents increasing rapidly + I know this because I have increased what I charge and keep abreast of the competition)

The real "ticking time bomb" is what i call "unavoidable inflation" (unavoidable because its due to supply side, past peak oil etc) and so weather the government response is the interest rates go up. If rates rose even just a few % it would screw mostly everyone, because what was comfortably affordable has become barely affordable what with the rapidly rising cost of living. These problems will increase as time roles on. As I've said before I estimate 5-10 years at this pace for disposable incomes to be reduced to zero and past for many or most. Ultimately people must make hard choices; however I still don't see a massive single moment of crash because of this since everyone has differing income/ debt level thresh holds and prices will be maintained as the wealthy buy up the slack. Long term trend will be a move back to landlords, tenants and just a very small private home ownership. After this period rents may have to start falling as limit to what people can pay and then so this could further price out some of the debt laden landlords; this phase I what really has me worried but too far off to see when yet, but I will be trying to pay down as much as possible and increase yield without more debt by building extensions, annexes and such under the recent permitted development rights.

Back to the present- most areas out of prime and south east could well see massive drops still to come due to second/ holiday home sales, repossessions etc. but prices will not recover, ever; a new stable bottom will be found. Fundamental to look at is the rental yield. In Norfolk for example rent return on a cash total would equal only around 3% where as many areas of south east can be 7or 8% comfortably, more if choosing right. Obvious to see which is overpriced and could re adjust dramatically. Similarly I think there could be room for some capital increase in those higher yielding property's. A gradually revaluing nation wide, indeed world wide, until property investments start to reflect a true value of 5 or 6% return across the board and capital increases are no longer seen as likely. I use this analysis for all property. Going against the consensus I'll say that honestly i think there is a bubble in "prime" property prices across the worlds capitals. Around 1% or less rental return and just buy it and hope for the best isn't a sound plan in my opinion.

Tedious.

[Naam]

Going against the consensus I'll say that honestly i think there is a bubble in "prime" property prices across the worlds capitals. Around 1% or less rental return and just buy it and hope for the best isn't a sound plan in my opinion.

i agree with "bubble" but people who buy these kinds of properties (Manhattan, London, Geneva or Paris), spending not only single but double digit millions, are not in the market for any return. their one and only intention is to diversify.

[yoshiwara]

Going against the consensus I'll say that honestly i think there is a bubble in "prime" property prices across the worlds capitals. Around 1% or less rental return and just buy it and hope for the best isn't a sound plan in my opinion.

i agree with "bubble" but people who buy these kinds of properties (Manhattan, London, Geneva or Paris), spending not only single but double digit millions, are not in the market for any return. their one and only intention is to diversify.

The statement of 1% rental return is made up by the contributor to support a preconceived opinion. It just ain't so as a default figure.

[midas]

The real "ticking time bomb" is what i call "unavoidable inflation" (unavoidable because its due to supply side, past peak oil etc) and so weather the government response is the interest rates go up. If rates rose even just a few % it would screw mostly everyone, because what was comfortably affordable has become barely affordable what with the rapidly rising cost of living. These problems will increase as time roles on. As I've said before I estimate 5-10 years at this pace for disposable incomes to be reduced to zero and past for many or most. Ultimately people must make hard choices; however I still don't see a massive single moment of crash because of this since everyone has differing income/ debt level thresh holds and prices will be maintained as the wealthy buy up the slack. Long term trend will be a move back to landlords, tenants and just a very small private home ownership. After this period rents may have to start falling as limit to what people can pay and then so this could further price out some of the debt laden landlords; this phase I what really has me worried but too far off to see when yet, but I will be trying to pay down as much as possible and increase yield without more debt by building extensions, annexes and such under the recent permitted development rights.

You might find this new report interesting about U.K.'s economy . Just download in PDF format

What’s wrong with the economy?

interest rates have been at a record low for over three years and QE has supposedly pumped £375 billion into the economy. Why has this not produced the promised growth?

With wages rising less quickly than prices, everybody is feeling poorer. Taking inflation into account – up 17%

since the crisis began – household incomes are back to their 2005 level.

With everybody feeling the pinch, it’s no wonder consumer confidence is so low.

http://www.saveoursa...th-the-economy/

Edited October 27, 2012 by midas

[mccw]

Going against the consensus I'll say that honestly i think there is a bubble in "prime" property prices across the worlds capitals. Around 1% or less rental return and just buy it and hope for the best isn't a sound plan in my opinion.

i agree with "bubble" but people who buy these kinds of properties (Manhattan, London, Geneva or Paris), spending not only single but double digit millions, are not in the market for any return. their one and only intention is to diversify.

The statement of 1% rental return is made up by the contributor to support a preconceived opinion. It just ain't so as a default figure.

Around 1 or 2 %

Have a look a Savills web site. Property in Kensington costing 6.5 million; renting around 10 grand a month. I know because I over saw the renovation of 1 such house in just a short stroll from Kensington high street.

Of course agent fees and other costs, maintenance and such, are needing to account for.

I can't say I've researched every international market but I wager they are similar.

Show me some numbers smarty pants

No first hand knowledge ?

Just your usual flippant text burps based on 0 , doing nothing to further the conversation of the thread.

Yawn

[mccw]

Going against the consensus I'll say that honestly i think there is a bubble in "prime" property prices across the worlds capitals. Around 1% or less rental return and just buy it and hope for the best isn't a sound plan in my opinion.

i agree with "bubble" but people who buy these kinds of properties (Manhattan, London, Geneva or Paris), spending not only single but double digit millions, are not in the market for any return. their one and only intention is to diversify.

Your right and for many of those buyers they would rather just have it to use themselves. But within the market there are probably not billionaires but millionaires on high salaries bought with leverage. Also I've read a few articles + adverts for funds that invest and or renovate such properties.

It's not about to trigger a crash in the economy or anything. I just mention since a much repeated mantra seems to be "prime" property will be the only section to go up and up and up .......

[Naam]

Your right and for many of those buyers they would rather just have it to use themselves. But within the market there are probably not billionaires but millionaires on high salaries bought with leverage. Also I've read a few articles + adverts for funds that invest and or renovate such properties.

It's not about to trigger a crash in the economy or anything. I just mention since a much repeated mantra seems to be "prime" property will be the only section to go up and up and up .......

talked to an old friend of mine and asked him how his two boys are doing and whether it paid to send them to a fancy UK boarding school and university. he told me that one got a good job with McKinsey based in Paris and the other one started a year ago asan investment banker with Deutsche Bank, London. he rents a tiny 25m² studio apartment and pays 850 Pounds. when i whistled and said "but that's more than a thousand EURos!" he added "per week, not per month!"

[mccw]

Your right and for many of those buyers they would rather just have it to use themselves. But within the market there are probably not billionaires but millionaires on high salaries bought with leverage. Also I've read a few articles + adverts for funds that invest and or renovate such properties.

It's not about to trigger a crash in the economy or anything. I just mention since a much repeated mantra seems to be "prime" property will be the only section to go up and up and up .......

talked to an old friend of mine and asked him how his two boys are doing and whether it paid to send them to a fancy UK boarding school and university. he told me that one got a good job with McKinsey based in Paris and the other one started a year ago asan investment banker with Deutsche Bank, London. he rents a tiny 25m² studio apartment and pays 850 Pounds. when i whistled and said "but that's more than a thousand EURos!" he added "per week, not per month!"

Quite.

And then there are council towers in central London with people living on hand outs contributing nothing to society. The government should send em all up north and sell the land. Probably billions of £s total to be had. Better still run government like business and invest in development to bring in new revenue stream and stimulate economy.

I cant see why gov can't run like a business and make a profit. Just need the balls to break union miscreants if they stand in the way.

This is how Singapore does so well apparently.

[cheeryble]

Quite.

And then there are council towers in central London with people living on hand outs contributing nothing to society.

Advances in technology and innovation especially in robotics are meaning, and increasingly will mean, there is not enough work to go around. However the same or more wealth will be created.

This will mean a seismic shift socially and a method will need to arise whereby people who don't work get an equitable share of the world's bounty.

Perhaps you could see your council tenants in Central London as an early forerunner of that and save yourself the blood pressure you're obviously generating.

Edited October 27, 2012 by cheeryble

[mccw]

Quite.

And then there are council towers in central London with people living on hand outs contributing nothing to society.

Advances in technology and innovation especially in robotics are meaning, and increasingly will mean, there is not enough work to go around. However the same or more wealth will be created.

This will mean a seismic shift socially and a method will need to arise whereby people who don't work get an equitable share of the world's bounty.

.

<deleted> ; there are thousands of jobs available. Every pole can arrive and find a job strait away so what's wrong with the locals? Mad idle by cushy welfare state.

Even if no employer wants them why not create mandatory work teams and get them scraping gum off the pavements or something? Get something back for the money at least.

There is never any shortage of shit jobs to be done.

[yoshiwara]

Going against the consensus I'll say that honestly i think there is a bubble in "prime" property prices across the worlds capitals. Around 1% or less rental return and just buy it and hope for the best isn't a sound plan in my opinion.

i agree with "bubble" but people who buy these kinds of properties (Manhattan, London, Geneva or Paris), spending not only single but double digit millions, are not in the market for any return. their one and only intention is to diversify.

The statement of 1% rental return is made up by the contributor to support a preconceived opinion. It just ain't so as a default figure.

Around 1 or 2 %

Have a look a Savills web site. Property in Kensington costing 6.5 million; renting around 10 grand a month. I know because I over saw the renovation of 1 such house in just a short stroll from Kensington high street.

Of course agent fees and other costs, maintenance and such, are needing to account for.

I can't say I've researched every international market but I wager they are similar.

Show me some numbers smarty pants

No first hand knowledge ?

Just your usual flippant text burps based on 0 , doing nothing to further the conversation of the thread.

Yawn

First hand knowledge. Hong Kong over 4%

Super price areas such as South Kensington some premium pricing but the suggestion that 1% or even near is the default standard is complete and utter bo*****s.

No doubt up to now the idea of 1% makes the 0% return on gold more palatable but that's where it fits for you.

Edited October 27, 2012 by yoshiwara