x
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
STAY CONNECTED!
    
newsletter-button
Paul Barrett
Paul Barrett
3688  Profile Views

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Paul's Recent Activity

Paul Barrett
@jamesrobinson Yep totally agree that it is not a good idea to deter those rich from buying property in the UK. The normal taxpayer doesn't give a stuff if the rich buy in London. It is recognised that it is a market for the rich. Nothing wrong with that. The rich will always be the only ones buying Central London Property. They provide an awful lot of work for those who service their needs from the EA to the plumber! Indeed if I am to coin a phrase phrase I am incredibly relaxed about the filthy rich. Penal SDLT to deter the rich is bad for the economy in general. To say that building lots of expensive apartments in London is wrong when there are lots of London homeless is a ludicrous statement. Developers won't bother building social housing on prime London land. Indeed the homeless should not be housed in London. They should be deported up North where there is a surplus of rental housing and also housing for sale. Naturally I am extremely envious of the rich as unfortunately I'm not one of them!!! But fairly taxed rich are needed. The penal additional SDLT for the rich is simply unfair on the rich. Even they have their tipping point at which they refuse to buy. I don't blame the rich at all for not wishing to pay ridiculous amounts of SDLT. It is a well known fact that the less a tax is the more it rakes in. So reducing SDLT will actually get the property market moving again and will benefit everyone especially HMRC who will receive more SDLT at lower rates than what they are receiving at higher rates. London is an international city. We certainly don't want the feckless HB tenants being paid to stay in London. I would clear the London homeless and deport them up North. HB is far cheaper there and everyone could be housed. But the rich will remain distanced from the London market while the ridiculous penal SDLT rates persist.

From: Paul Barrett 22 May 2019 11:03 AM

Paul Barrett
Rent controls would simply be evaded. LL would withdraw their properties from LA and self-manage You can hardly expect LA to collect the brown envelope with the top-up cash to pay the true rent! It will be a pain but LL would have to collect their own rent. Cash is how most rents would be paid. HMRC would lose billions in taxes as no LL would ever declare rent in excess of the controlled rent. A massive black market would arise with both LL and tenant complicit. Tenants would not have any choice if they wanted to rent a property. This process already happens in Stockholm. Of course with rent controls no lender can lend on the basis of actual rents being achieved even if illegally. Nope lenders would have to base loan offers on controlled rent levels. Which means lower loan offers. Which means lower prices. Which means negative equity. Which means price crash. Which means run on the banks. Which means a CC ............again. Which means many bankruptcies exacerbated by S24. It is the value of credit advanced that sustains BTL property prices. Few LL could come up with the additional deposit required to make up for a lower lender offer. Portfolio LL might be put in a situation where because property prices reduce the lender demands more cash to reduce LTV. So again more bankruptcies. Lenders will become de facto LL like the last time. They eventually managed to sell their repossessed properties but of course there were no rent controls so lenders could offer what LL needed to buy the repo properties. HMRC would take a massive hit in tax income as many leveraged LL would not be making any profit though of course those cash rich LL would continue but with a reduction in income. After all if you are a cash rich LL and your income per property is reduced by £400 per month you still stay in business. Just means a slight cutback in domestic lifestyle. However for a leveraged LL such income reduction would result in bankruptcy Rent controls would be an unmitigated disaster for the UK economy. Of course as has been mentioned a lot of homeless tenants will result from rent control.

From: Paul Barrett 11 May 2019 17:22 PM

Paul Barrett
If Countrywide cannot make a go of these offices one presumes it matters not who is running them the business isn't there. I wouldn't imagine these closing offices were incompetent. Surely just a case of prevailing market conditions rendering the offices unprofitable or rather not profitable enough. Seems a shame that the presumably well trained staff are to have their jobs made redundant due to market conditions and not any fault of theirs. Could these trained staff members be redeployed within the Corporate Countrywide entity!? It makes sense to hang onto experienced staff. But I do believe as things progress many LA and EA will find themselves distinctly unclothed when the tide goes out. What's the standard phrase commonly used when a major industry has to undergo massive rationalisation? This process is not unique to the EA/LA sector. Other industries are going through the same downsizing process. Supermarkets being the classic example. So I don't believe these Countrywide offices are closing through lack of competence. It is just the market isn't there to support these offices. There are simply too many EA/LA chasing too little business which is only going to get worse. Surely closing and opening offices is just the natural cycle of things as the market goes up and down!? Not nice of course when you are caught personally in the down bit! But ebb and flow is just capitalism working. I'm sure these Countrywide Staff members will be able to use their skills in other areas or probably with other EA/LA. One wishes them well

From: Paul Barrett 11 May 2019 08:21 AM

Paul Barrett
The effects of SDLT should not be underestimated. Most people move to a bigger property. Well the SDLT could pay for a loft extension thereby facilitating the bigger property desired. SDLT as currently levied is a severe impediment to moving. Affordability is a major issue as MMR has since been introduced and borrowers under the old criteria cannot achieve the mortgage they require to move. It is largely Govt policy that is causing the logjam. BrExit has nothing to do with it. Things were like this way before BrExit. Abolishing the SDLT surcharge should occur immediately. Reform or even abolishment of SDLT should occur. A flat rate charge for ALL properties no matter what the value should occur. Say £2000 per sale. Doing this would cause mass selling and buying with the result that the Govt might even receive more SDLT into Treasury coffers than is currently the case. I believe that in the Spring Statement that due to the reduction in Corporation tax more tax has been received than when it was a higher rate. I know the lefty idiots can never work this out but the fewer taxes you charge the more actual tax you receive. Low taxes promote more economic activity and consequently generate more tax receipts. As for BrExit the UK voted to leave the EU protectionist racket which was designed to keep French peasants working and Germans to sell their expensive goods. That is why we had those stupid butter mountains and wine lakes. The last thing the EU wants is to expose itself to the world economy. Doing so would bankrupt the EU which is simply not viable without restrictive trade barriers in place. It would result in even more unemployment in the EU. The UK is better off out of the EU. By the way the figure on the side of the coach was an example of what the EU contribution monies could be spent on. The point being it would be the UK Govt that decided what the monies were spent on NOT the EU. No Deal is the better option. We managed perfectly well before the Common Market. The EU still wants to trade with the UK and vice versa. It DOESN'T pay for either party to make trade difficult for eachother.

From: Paul Barrett 16 March 2019 19:28 PM

Paul Barrett
It does seem that despite the belief of many that the local EA has proven to be a very resilient business model. The online offerings seem to have burned through an awful lot of unproductive cash. It does seem that the local EA with superior knowledge of that local market than any online EA could achieve has proven to be a stable and workable business model. Strange that LA aren't in the same position. But it does look like the commission based sales model appears to be the most effective business model. So perhaps the much mooted death of the traditional High St EA is far from the case. It is more like the death of the online EA is more likely. I'm sure that if the amount of money that has been thrown at online EA startups had been invested in tradtional EA they would have made a profit!!! It appears the normal EA will remain in rude health as vendors still seem to prefer the commision based sales model. EA are competitive with eachother and this seems to arrive at an average commission of 1 to 2 %. Perhaps this commission is now just something that vendors need to accept will have be paid to guarantee a successful sale. But for EA fearful of being put out of business by online offerings I think they can relax. Google and Tesco tried to start online offerings but were slapped down as not being compliant. EA to further establish their professional credentials would do well to become as professional as they can. This includes all staff achieving professional qualifications. As local EA they seem to still be the most effective way for anyone to sell a property.

From: Paul Barrett 14 March 2019 12:30 PM

Zero Deposit Zero Deposit Zero Deposit