Link to old thread






About us
We are one of the UK's largest residential developers. As a responsible developer we are committed to working with local people and communities.



Company Website

Financial calendar

Recent Broker notes

BarChart Indicators

Recent Market news

Taylor Wimpey Fundamentals (TW.)

for all that, there remains huge pressure to build houses everywhere, even gobbling up more and more greenbelt

under current legislation, any new development has to include a specified proportion of "starter homes" whatever that may mean ...... certainly one of the smart developments in RBK&C were less than thrilled to find a bunch of grenfell tower "homeless" taking up residence in part of their block (hard cheese!)

under current legislation, any new development has to include a specified proportion of "starter homes" whatever that may mean

It means that "starter homes" usually means ending up nothing like affordable homes in practise.

oh do stop being a bitter and twisted little twerp

Starter home kit.

Beaufort Securities Buy 191.75 220.00 220.00 Retains

cynic - 02 Aug 2017 13:27 - 312 of 314

oh do stop being a bitter and twisted little twerp

Nothing to do with bitter or twisted.. and if there's a twerp around here it certainly isn't me.

re - bitter and twisted little twerp ... it certainly isn't me.

on whose eyes?

Irrelevant.

Those holding get a surprise, but is not positive, it happens from time to time, but it was expected by some,
but not by the twisted ones.........

Rumoured Help to Buy scheme review triggers sell-off in housebuilding sector

Housebuilding stocks struggled after broker Liberum warned if the Help to Buy scheme was removed after a rumoured
government review, it could impact margins and sales rates across the whole sector.

Barratt Developments (BDEV) led the pack lower with a 5.3% decline to 585p. Peers Taylor Wimpey (TW.) and
Persimmon (PSN) fell 4.8% and 5.5% to 185.5p and £24.21, respectively.

Also some mutters that Credit Suisse have "prematurely" downgraded the sector whatever that means

Whoever put that chart at the top could had made a better job and do a smaller size, it will help to see the price
of the time in relation for the last few days

Manuel,

Consider policies in home/house ownership as a consolidation of wealth in a smaller and smaller section of the population.

Also, consider the effects of doing so.

Consider the change of expectancies and goals.

Mentor - the chart looks fine on my 23" screen!

fred - why do i need to philosophise? ....... i see you're happy to try to make money from these (and other) shares, and so am i ...... certainly makes you on of the champagne socialists

house ownership, like worthless uni education (attendance!), is deemed a holy grail, but houses will still be needed whether for end-users to own or to rent

skinny

re - chart

consider the size is 1000 and most computers will show as Max 900 MAM allows 920 but the top of MAM from home to help is only 900.

Others can say if they can see it all or have to scroll just a bit more to see the end of the chart

Ok - changed to 900.

DOWNNNNNNN ............. UPPPPPPPPP

UK govt says incorrect to infer "Help to Buy" review means cancellation
Fri, 4th Aug 2017 10:30

LONDON, Aug 4 (Reuters) - The British government said that it was incorrect to infer that its 'Help to Buy' scheme, aimed at boosting home ownership, would be cancelled after a review of the programme.

Shares of UK homebuilders slumped on Friday after trade publication Property Week said the scheme could be wound up early, citing a review into the programme to be conducted by the London School of Economics.

"The department regularly reviews the Help to Buy Equity Loan Scheme, with the last review taking place in 2015," a spokesman from the Department for Communities and Local Government said. "To infer from this that the Help to Buy Equity Loan scheme will be cancelled is simply incorrect."

.

well picked up mentor, though builders' shares have not exactly rebounded sharply

Are house prices due for a correction?
at 7.6 times earnings back at last March, not many can afford those prices
Expensive house builders are the ones will suffer most.....

From the Guardian- March 2017

Median price paid for a home leapt 259% between 1997 and 2016 while earnings rose only 68%, say ONS affordability data
In 1997, house prices were on average about 3.6 times workers’ annual gross full-time earnings.
In 1997, house prices were on average about 3.6 times workers’ annual gross full-time earnings.

Rising house prices now stand at an average 7.6 times the average annual salary, more than double the figure for 20 years ago, according to official figures.

However, the new headline figure disguises dramatic regional variations. In the affluent London borough of Kensington and Chelsea, house prices are typically 38.5 times greater than annual earnings, but, 330 miles to the north-west, prices in Copeland, Cumbria, which includes the port of Whitehaven, are typically 2.8 times the average salary.

The new figures for housing affordability in England and Wales between 1997 and 2016 have been issued by the Office for National Statistics. They said the median price paid for a home leapt by 259% over this period, while median individual annual earnings could only manage a 68% rise.

The ONS said housing affordability “has worsened in all local authority districts”. In 1997, house prices were on average about 3.6 times workers’ annual gross full-time earnings.

In 2016, Kensington and Chelsea was the least affordable area to buy a property in England and Wales. The ratio of house prices to annual income stood at 38.5 times average annual salary – more than three times the figure in 1997, when it was 11.8 times earnings. In January this year a detached house in the borough sold for £24.2m, according to the Land Registry.

Copeland, meanwhile, has been officially named “the most affordable” local authority area in England and Wales. A two-bed terraced property in Whitehaven can be picked up for £45,000 or so, according to the property website Rightmove.

Of the 10 least affordable local authorities, seven were in London. For example, in 1999, an employee in the borough of Camden could expect to pay 7.7 times their annual salary on buying a property, whereas in 2016 this had leapt to an average 19.6 times their annual earnings.

Other areas saw much smaller increases over the same period. In Hyndburn in Lancashire, the equivalent figure has risen from 2.6 times to 4.1 times earnings.