David Dalby Blog |
Wednesday 9th May 2012
We all know that Britain needs more homes.
We also know that these will not be built unless there is an adequate supply of finance: finance to fund development, particularly in the growing rental sector, and sufficient levels of mortgage finance to allow first-time buyers to get on to the home-ownership ladder and for existing owners to be able to move on to another home.
The shortage of appropriate mortgage funding, alongside a continuing uncertain economy, remains the single biggest issue facing the residential sector today.
Whilst welcoming recent initiatives by Government and lenders to stimulate demand for new-build housing through NewBuy and similar schemes, RICS is concerned that such moves could result in unintended consequences for the rest of the market, and undermine attempts to increase market activity generally.
Promoting increased construction of new homes by providing access to higher loan-to-value mortgages to potential buyers helps to provide additional jobs in the construction sector and in other areas in the provision of goods and services, and also increases tax revenues at both national and local level.
However, just concentrating on the creation of new homes does nothing to help those looking to move from existing accommodation, either to satisfy personal aspirations or to allow people to take on homes more appropriate to their changing domestic needs. Such moves also stimulate demand for goods and services, with furniture, appliances and other items often replaced, and decorations, repairs and alterations being undertaken, all of which help to stimulate economic activity and growth.
The reality is that, if high loan-to-value advances are only available for the new-build sector, this will inevitably lead those seeking to get on to the property ladder to seek out such homes and ignore the existing housing stock, where the need for significantly higher savings to provide a deposit will delay their ability to secure their first home, or even move from their existing one if there is little surplus equity within it.
RICS believes that government, lenders and other industry stakeholders need to address this issue as a matter of urgency, to seek solutions that ensure an adequate supply of funding at appropriate levels for all sectors of the market, not just new-build.
A mortgage indemnity scheme, such as the one now in place for the new-build market, needs to be extended across all properties, to provide a level playing field and to allow greater mobility across the whole of the housing market.
The impact of schemes such as the Local Lend a Hand initiatives, whereby the buyer puts down a deposit of at least 5% and the local authority provides a cash-backed indemnity of up to 20%, needs to be analysed to see if such proposals could be rolled out more widely. A number of commercial providers are also investigating the possibility of introducing such indemnity schemes, and RICS would encourage all stakeholders to come together to ensure that these initiatives are properly assessed to ensure that they offer robust and prudent solutions.
None of us want to see a return to some of the profligate lending policies seen in 2006/7, which led to the market crash, but there is an urgent need to provide appropriate stimulus to the whole of the housing market, not just the new homes sector.
As part of this wider review of mortgage funding, we believe that interest-only mortgages can still play a role in keeping the market moving, provided they are allocated as part of a responsible lending plan.
The proposed criteria for interest-only mortgages laid out in the FSA’s Mortgage Market Review (MMR) appear overly restrictive. They could prevent responsible borrowers from entering the market and leave existing interest-only borrowers with fewer remortgage options.
The MMR does go some way to addressing the issue of so-called ‘mortgage prisoners’ through its transitional arrangements.
However, these arrangements are only optional, limiting their impact. Furthermore, they are restrictive by not allowing lenders to increase the size of a borrower’s loan or raise monthly repayments, even where their status would support such additional funding.
Decisive measures are needed to help those trapped in existing mortgages, especially those in negative equity. RICS is urging the government, CML and BSA to work with lenders to develop new mortgage products, such as schemes that allow negative equity to be transported to a new property, further helping the flow of the market.
Early action is vital: without movement through the whole chain, transaction levels will remain stagnant.
David Dalby is the residential professional group director at the RICS
| Tweet |
(11) Comments | Report Abuse
| |
"It now feels as if I am being worked on by you two, in much the same way that a potential buyer would be worked on in order to get them to increase their offer - for no sane reason."
Sorry? In 30-odd years of working in the property industry, at vaurious levels; in various disciplines (see - we can both play that card...), I have NEVER needed to 'play' a prospective buyer with another colleague. Nor have I ever seen it done. What perverse world do you frequent, where Agents team up in this way, Sir? What universally banned torture equipment do they implement should the old 'Good Agent/Bad Agent' methods fail? Baseball bats? Water cannons? Tazers, maybe? I don't need wardy as my wingman - neither does he need me. YOU, however, should wish you had an entire ARMY of support. Such a pity there is no-one... |
| |
RR: "The short answer is "sufficient".
The longer answer might be we could waste time exchanging professional credentials and our work experience, but that would mainly only benefit our respective egos; mine anyway." No waste of time here. I am not interested in trading experience with you. This is not a game of Top Trumps. Just to clarify: YOU are proclaiming to be the 'Expert' here. I am not. YOU are claiming to have "the answer to the current property market problems". I am not. YOU are stating that everyone else's opinions are misguided, and that only YOUR opinion should be considered. I am not. YOU expect professional bodies and the country's leaders to accept and implement your proposals without question. I do not. SO... Realising Reality - I would suggest that YOU need to put your c*** on the block instead of constantly dodging the issue. To me (and many others I believe...) - it seems that avoidance of evidence substantiating your claims is the only thing that you excel in - apart from the ability to spout copious volumes of MDT, that is... |
| | thanks Peter, I take that a compliment. My clients appreciate it as well. |
| |
It now feels as if I am being worked on by you two, in much the same way that a potential buyer would be worked on in order to get them to increase their offer - for no sane reason.
This is estate agency at its best (or worst), depending upon how one looks at it. Heaven protect the gullible buyer from you folk, is my position. May we now hear from someone, anyone, with a view on DD's posting please? |
| |
It wouldn’t only benefit your ego Peter, It just might give your argument some gumption. You have come to a gun fight holding a knife and the only experience you draw from is a website that literally everybody on this forum has declared rubbish.
Why not put yourself in a position where you fight your corner with a modicum of credibility. Why do you think you are met with such hostility? Why do you think nobody takes you seriously? I'll tell you why. It’s because people can see your motives coming a mile off. We all know why you take this view, we all know what it is you’re after, so please give it up and come clean. I may be wrong, you maybe st Peter of property and spend all your time trying to get your fellow islanders moving with no commercial benefit to yourself. I doubt it though. |
| |
The short answer is "sufficient".
The longer answer might be we could waste time exchanging professional credentials and our work experience, but that would mainly only benefit our respective egos; mine anyway. I'd rather hear from the author of the blog instead please. Everything I'm saying is clearly explained. I must go out for a while now. |
| |
RR: "Actually, it is not about SEO for the Property Match web site where I work..."
You just don't 'get' the delicious irony of that statement - do you? ANYWAYS - back to your bemoaning the world isn't listening to you. Here's a straight lift from your woeful blog, and my questions relating to it, which you havee previously ignored: "These are not just BIG ideas in the way certain party political notions have recently been expressed. These are ideas, developed by analysing the current situation in great detail, using years of experience gained whilst actually working in estate agency and in the allied areas of the property profession. These ideas are more than loose proposals. They are crafted by a qualified estates professional and therefore should have weight and be given due consideration, both by Government and by those in the estate agency profession." SO - Mr RR, it is relevant that you please tell us all the answers to the following: You worked in Residential Estate Agency for HOW LONG? Doing WHAT? How many actual market appraisals did you carry out during this illustrious career you believe you had? What was your instructions to appraisals ratio? What about prercentage of instructions to completions? What average percentage of initial asking price did you register on completion? Stuff the "allied areas" you fluff up your history with - just talk coalface. HOW SUCCESSFUL WERE YOU AS AN ESTATE AGENT?? And how do you measure this success? Oh - and I think it is necessary to point out that those in Government and Estate Agency HAVE given your proposals "due consideration" - as have the RICS and NFoPP by your own admission. You just don't, won't or can't accept that UNANIMOUSLY and UNIVERSALLY, they reject them as being MDT. Spot the common denominator, methinks... You repeatedly ask for MY 'proposals'. Stop wasting your energy and fingertips. What you fail or refuse to acknowledge is that anyone and everyone working within the property industry does everything in their individual power EVERY DAY to 'make a difference'. If, every day, every person throws a grain of sand into the botton of the pool, then the water level will rise. I suggest that you start throwing grains of sand instead of MDT - as all you are doing is muddying the waters. |
| |
Maybe Mr Dalby, like us cant be bothered to spend time reading your nonsence. Maybe Mr Dalby would rather interact with property professionals than internet chancers like you.
Just a thought. |
| |
Actually, it is not about SEO for the Property Match web site where I work, though admittedly that might help.
My ambition is primarily to try and help improve the already stagnated housing market - stagnated at the hands of both people like Mr Dalby and his team within RICS and also the many poorly skilled estate agents (the majority of whom evidently do not know they are poorly skilled). Perhaps one should ask, have you yourself noticed the market is having problems? If you cannot see this, you should be counted as being amongst the cynical ones in the agency sector (even if you only commentate upon it these days). The thing is, now is the best opportunity to do something positive to review the way the housing market malfunctions and thus assist in getting it operating better. I can read the signs even if you prefer to think otherwise. It seems certain other people, like yourself, are choosing not to do so. Although I can read the signs, I do not expect my view to be the final and best course for the required improvements. My ego is not that big! I just aim to put my researched ideas into the public domain. I think it is appropriate to ask, once again, if you have any fresh proposals yourself PeeBee, if so by all means set them out as well. And, by the way, why would David Dalby NOT read comments made on his blog? I would, if it were mine. Other members of RICS may read them too and, even those whom RICS are there to advise, even people like George Osborne and the rest of the Coalition Government might read this - and therefore, potentially, they could read some of our own blogs as well - even if you, as one individual, happen to take the view that it's all MDT - as you keep remarking :'-( The World keeps on turning (one should hope). Can we agree that? The only other question left to answer is: - What are the movers and shakers within it going to do, to make the resulting experiences more pleasant and less painful for everyone. Doing nothing is not a realistic option as that falls in the latter category, I'm afraid. |
| |
'Realising Reality' - THE misdecsription of the property world...:
You waste YOUR time typing this MDT. You waste OUR time reading it. What is it with you? You have already bemoaned on numerous occasions that the RICS (add "NAEA; Government; major Estate Agency chains" - this list rambles on even more than you do...) ignore your supposedly "well-thought out and researched" proposals - you even SAY that this is the reason that you left - that you did not agree with the way they were ignoring the "problems" in the housing market - yet you use this platform to supposedly resurrect your campaign to them when Mr Dalby CERTAINLY isn't going to be reading this and ABSOLUTELY won't respond. Why, I wonder? EUREKA! But of course, it hardly takes Einstein to work it out, does it? The answer - SEO. Or for those like "Puzzled", who like a key to my abbreviations (although I cannot claim this one as mine...), Search Engine Optimization. My evidence - the last paragraph shows it for what it is. YET ANOTHER neat little link; YET ANOTHER post from "Realising Reality" - ALL of which score you a point or two with Google so that, eventually, maybe - SOMEONE will click onto your woeful website out of perverse curiosity and think "Gosh - pay these people some money and they will let me market my own property on here - that's a good idea! I'll have a slice of THAT!" You have NOT got "the good of the housing market" at heart. You are NOT doing this for the greater cause. You are simply looking after Number One - but doing it so badly that I would suggest some evening bar work may be the order of the day. In my opinion, you, Sir, are the property market's equivalent of a quack. What is more, I it is my opinion that your quackery is as inept as your understanding of the human mind - and therefore of the housing market that you profess and announce yourself to be an expert. I would rather consult Joe Pasquale than you, Sir, when it comes to selling a property. At least that way I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed when I receive mindless drivel from him... |
| |
We all know that Britain needs more homes.
We also know that these will not be built unless there is an adequate supply of finance: finance to fund development, particularly in the growing rental sector, and sufficient levels of mortgage finance to allow first-time buyers to get on to the home-ownership ladder and for existing owners to be able to move on to another home. The shortage of appropriate mortgage funding, alongside a continuing uncertain economy, remains the single biggest issue facing the residential sector today. MY RESPONSE: [What about the hefty asking prices being quoted right in the face of the worst financial downturn since the last World War? You don't even mention this, rather oddly?] Whilst welcoming recent initiatives by Government and lenders to stimulate demand for new-build housing through NewBuy and similar schemes, RICS is concerned that such moves could result in unintended consequences for the rest of the market, and undermine attempts to increase market activity generally. Promoting increased construction of new homes by providing access to higher loan-to-value mortgages to potential buyers helps to provide additional jobs in the construction sector and in other areas in the provision of goods and services, and also increases tax revenues at both national and local level. MY RESPONSE: [However, this is to be done at the sole risk of those prepared to take out the increased size of loans needed to fund the new homes 'initiative'.] However, just concentrating on the creation of new homes does nothing to help those looking to move from existing accommodation, either to satisfy personal aspirations or to allow people to take on homes more appropriate to their changing domestic needs. Such moves also stimulate demand for goods and services, with furniture, appliances and other items often replaced, and decorations, repairs and alterations being undertaken, all of which help to stimulate economic activity and growth. The reality is that, if high loan-to-value advances are only available for the new-build sector, this will inevitably lead those seeking to get on to the property ladder to seek out such homes and ignore the existing housing stock, where the need for significantly higher savings to provide a deposit will delay their ability to secure their first home, or even move from their existing one if there is little surplus equity within it. RICS believes that government, lenders and other industry stakeholders need to address this issue as a matter of urgency, to seek solutions that ensure an adequate supply of funding at appropriate levels for all sectors of the market, not just new-build. A mortgage indemnity scheme, such as the one now in place for the new-build market, needs to be extended across all properties, to provide a level playing field and to allow greater mobility across the whole of the housing market. The impact of schemes such as the Local Lend a Hand initiatives, whereby the buyer puts down a deposit of at least 5% and the local authority provides a cash-backed indemnity of up to 20%, needs to be analysed to see if such proposals could be rolled out more widely. A number of commercial providers are also investigating the possibility of introducing such indemnity schemes, and RICS would encourage all stakeholders to come together to ensure that these initiatives are properly assessed to ensure that they offer robust and prudent solutions. None of us want to see a return to some of the profligate lending policies seen in 2006/7, which led to the market crash, but there is an urgent need to provide appropriate stimulus to the whole of the housing market, not just the new homes sector. MY RESPONSE: [Or there's an urgent need for house prices to find their true market levels again, so that people can, once again, move (in successful chains) from living under one roof over their heads to living under another - without amassing huge quantities of debt.] As part of this wider review of mortgage funding, we believe that interest-only mortgages can still play a role in keeping the market moving, provided they are allocated as part of a responsible lending plan. MY RESPONSE: [There seem to be no quantifiable advantages to using interest-only mortgages - and none you have quantified - especially if interest rates were to substantially increase and obviously, they can only go one way.] The proposed criteria for interest-only mortgages laid out in the FSA’s Mortgage Market Review (MMR) appear overly restrictive. They could prevent responsible borrowers from entering the market and leave existing interest-only borrowers with fewer remortgage options. MY RESPONSE: [Please define precisely what you consider would constitute a 'responsible' borrower? That would be important to know.] The MMR does go some way to addressing the issue of so-called ‘mortgage prisoners’ through its transitional arrangements. However, these arrangements are only optional, limiting their impact. Furthermore, they are restrictive by not allowing lenders to increase the size of a borrower’s loan or raise monthly repayments, even where their status would support such additional funding. Decisive measures are needed to help those trapped in existing mortgages, especially those in negative equity. RICS is urging the government, CML and BSA to work with lenders to develop new mortgage products, such as schemes that allow negative equity to be transported to a new property, further helping the flow of the market. MY RESPONSE: [What possible objective can be achieved by being able to carry the debt of negative equities from one property to another, adding it on each time, except to put off the day of reckoning when prices paid MUST return to those which 'market demand' can support unaided? The only conclusion I can think of is there's an objective to keep the 'haves', building for profit and in profit; whilst the 'have nots' borrowing more and more to pay them - whilst becoming ever more impoverished themselves. Have you looked at this from their point of view by any chance; before advocating such a lop-sided plan?] Early action is vital: without movement through the whole chain, transaction levels will remain stagnant. MY RESPONSE: [Early action certainly is needed and has been needed for quite a time but nothing has actually been done, except for some to propose various unworkable schemes such as these.] [For more positive and workable ideas, please read the Property Match Blog: http://www.property-match.co.uk/blog/ and please comment objectively before you retire if you will? That's apparently very soon we're told.] |
DISCLAIMER:The views contained in these user comments are not endorsed by Estate Agent Today(nor its associates and advertisers) in any way and are provided by users who wish to publish their independent opinions on our news.Whilst every effort is made to moderate these comments,due to the instant nature of the posting not all offensive material can be removed instantly.Please help us keep the comments areas tidy by reporting details of any infringements to team@estateagenttoday.co.uk
Editorial Contact Details - Rosalind Renshaw
rosalind.renshaw@estateagenttoday.co.uk
The Brand Blog no.3 | SOLVE THEIR PAIN
The Brand Blog no.2 |SHOW EVIDENCE OF BRILLIANCE







