Fresh start with £150k what would you do?

admin    Uncategorized     agents

If you had to start all over again from scratch and had £150k as starting pot what would you do considering in this world of additional SDLT and Section 24?

Would you leverage with bridging loans for the flipping company and use those profits generated to buy more properties to flip or would you start to build the BTL portfolio and use the profits as deposits? Or a bit of both?

I can give the investment/business my full time attention and I am based in London with a young family. I would appreciate if someone experienced is able to offer advice and pointers.

Many thanks

RBZ

The post Fresh start with £150k what would you do? appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Fresh start with £150k what would you do?

Important PRA changes to BTL lending from 30th September

admin    Uncategorized     agents

The following is another 90 second video produced by our friends at Shawbrook Bank to explain how BTL mortgage underwriting will change from September this year.

Is it a good thing that mortgage lenders are being forced to lend more prudently or do you see it another way?

Please discuss.

The post Important PRA changes to BTL lending from 30th September appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Important PRA changes to BTL lending from 30th September

Landlords losing confidence in rental profits

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Landlords are losing confidence in their ability to rely on steady rental yields, according to recent figures from the National Landlords Association (NLA).

The figures show that the proportion of landlords who are optimistic about their ability to rely on a steady rental yield has fallen 15% in the past two years, down from 64% in Q2 2015 to just 49% in Q2 2017.

The drop-off in confidence coincides with the period since the announcement from the then Chancellor George Osborne in July 2015 that mortgage interest relief would be removed for landlords.

However, the sentiment contrasts with actual rental yields achieved across the UK, which have remained fairly stable. Over the past few years, the average yield has fluctuated around the 6% mark.

Regionally, landlords in the East Midlands currently generate the highest rental yields at 6.9%. By contrast, landlords in outer London generate the lowest yields at 5%. A full regional breakdown can be found below.

The news comes during a time when property prices in many areas of the United Kingdom are stalling. The average price of a home rose in July by 0.3% following recent declines in May, April, and March.

Richard Lambert, Chief Executive Officer at the NLA, said:

“Average rental yields have remained fairly stable over the past few years, yet there is a steady increase in landlords losing confidence in their ability to make a profit from letting property.

“This perception probably exists because many will now be feeling the impact on their businesses of greater taxation and the costs of complying with regulation, which are eating away at their profits and making it harder to provide homes.

“Like any business, the increasing value of the capital assets on your balance sheet will be of little help if you are treading the fine line between profit and loss, especially if you can’t keep up your mortgage payments in the short term”.

The post Landlords losing confidence in rental profits appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Landlords losing confidence in rental profits

Guardian’s current onslaught against private landlords

admin    Uncategorized     agents

It’s getting very hard to keep up with the Guardian’s current onslaught against private landlords; it’s also supremely ironic that they should be engaging in this one-sided tirade whilst simultaneously stating that the paper provides: ‘quality, independent journalism, which discovers and tells readers the truth.’

I would beg to differ.

Just in the last few weeks we have had article after article attacking private landlords and presenting inaccurate, biased and illogical arguments in order to do so.

The first in a recent spate of articles was written by the Policy Editor, Michael Savage; it contained a highly selective interpretation of a recent report commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which in itself was significantly flawed.

100 tenants a day lose homes as rising rents and benefit freeze hit

The mistakes in the article by Savage were multiple; for example, he referred to ‘the spiralling cost of renting a property’ (when, in fact, rents have increased over recent years largely in line with inflation and earnings); to ‘no-fault evictions’ (there is no such thing. He was referring to Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 which allows landlords to apply to court for possession without giving a reason; this does not mean no-one is at fault); he stated that Section 21 gives tenants two months to leave, but for the sake of accuracy, he should have said in practice if the tenant decides to sit tight (as local authorities, the Citizens Advice Bureau and ‘homelessness’ charities often advise), it takes a minimum of 5 months during which many tenants enjoy a rent-free stay, while the landlord has to still pay the mortgage and running costs.

Finally he presented an uncorroborated case study of a tenant who allegedly had to move many times over recent years. This is not ‘evidence.’ When case studies like this are offered there should be corroboration by the landlord. How do we know this person wasn’t a nightmare tenant and/or serial defaulter on the rent? It seems very suspicious to me that so many landlords should have allegedly served her with a notice to quit, as changes of tenancy are very expensive to landlords who prefer decent tenants to stay put for many years (the average tenancy length in the private rented sector is 4.3 years, meaning many tenants stay a lot longer).

As if it wasn’t already enough to read his partial analysis of the deeply flawed JRF report – there is a critique of it here:

Who hijacked the JRF project “Poverty, evictions and forced moves”?

Dan Wilson Craw of the vehemently anti-private landlord organisation, Generation Rent, was given the opportunity by the Guardian to piggy back on to the previous article. The Guardian thereby allowed him to ramp things up even more with inflammatory language about landlords ‘turfing people out of their homes without reason.’

Landlords are turfing people out of their homes without reason – and it’s completely legal

Wilson Craw stated that the primary cause of homelessness is the ending of a private tenancy. The ending of a private tenancy, however, is a process and not a cause. Private tenancies end for all manner of reasons, notably for non-payment of rent and other breaches of tenancy or the landlord wishing to sell (especially now because punitive tax rates and persistent attacks on the sector are creating an intolerable and unviable atmosphere in which to run a business).

If an employer sacks an employee for stealing, it is tautological nonsense to say ‘losing the job caused the employee’s joblessness’. These self-appointed ‘experts’ must stop repeating this inane comment.

The other logic that they seem oblivious to is that evictions are only possible because the private landlords have provided the housing in the first place – and as private landlords now provide slightly more housing than the social sector (because of the  Government sell-off of social housing), then so the rate of evictions from the former has risen, proportionately.

Conversely, organisations like Shelter and Generation rent do not evict anyone, because they don’t house anyone (additionally, when landlords evict someone, they then house someone else, so they still provide the same amount of housing; they are not engaged in ‘buy to leave’ and leaving properties empty; but rather maximising the use of housing as is needed in a housing crisis).

Wilson Craw also used the JRF report for his organisation’s political ends of aiming to get Section 21 notices scrapped (even though the JRF recommended firstly observing the Scottish experiment with this before considering following suit).

He then stated: ‘Landlords should be legally accountable for ending a contract early.’ This is completely inaccurate as landlords cannot end contracts early and if they did try they would be legally accountable.

He then squeezed in a call for rent controls (which have in fact a highly destructive impact in practice). He presented no case for how they would be a solution to anything; as Kristian Niemitz of the Institute of Economic Affairs has pointed out, when rent controls are proposed, it is always deemed self-explanatory that they provide a solution. Well, capping the price of bread in Venezuela under Maduro hasn’t worked; shop owners simply stopped selling it, rather than operate at a loss.

Similarly, if landlords have their ability to charge a market rent denied and, under the new tax regime whereby they cannot offset finance costs, operate at a loss also, then many will simply withdraw from the market and exacerbate the housing shortage in the rented sector.

In response to these articles, I proceeded to write to several journalists and section editors at the Guardian, including Michael Savage, as the Policy Editor. I attached an article I had drafted which would have provided some balance had the Guardian printed it.

Michael Savage suggested however that I send it in as letter (yes, a summary of my article in letter format would help balance all the inaccuracies and bias of the two prominent articles which had been published by this stage).

Instead, yet another article appeared, this time from a freelance journalist, Abi  Wilkinson, declaring that the housing market is ‘corrupted’ (whatever that means) and that the profit motive must be removed from it.

Britain’s corrupted housing market needs more than a lick of paint

It’s not clear how this would be done. Perhaps Ms Wilkinson thinks one can instantly magic up millions of new properties for the social sector (where there is presumably no ‘profit motive’ apart from needing to get the rent collected so that the properties will be maintained, the finance costs on the loans to build the properties will be paid and the staff will receive their remuneration, so actually that is the same kind of profit motive that exists in the private sector).

Ms Wilkinson may also think private landlords will run their businesses for nothing (‘at cost’).  For those of us who provide housing to many people and do this as a full-time occupation, I assume we will then live on fresh air whilst also going out each day dealing with our tenants’ issues.

I assume she would then like other business people to run their services and provide their goods at cost.  In this new utopia, I assume she won’t mind also working on her ill-informed articles, getting them published and also not being paid for her work.

Following this piece, the Guardian then published a case study of one woman (who is using the article to flog her new book as a novelist) who, according to the headline, made ‘a profit of £190,000 almost entirely due to house price rises’ on one flat in Oxford.

Goodbye to buy-to-let: why I’m moving on after 13 years as a landlady

In fact, the figures presented in the article were completely inaccurate as was the headline. Ms Lafaye bought the property for £155,000 and sold it for approximately £270,000. That is an initial profit of £115,000, but deducting costs and capital gains tax leaves a profit of £94,000, not including the cost of any capital improvements done during the 13 years of ownership.  So her profit is less than half of what is declared in the article.

I believe the exaggeration/false reporting feeds into the narrative of landlords making a killing out of house price increases, when in recent years gains like this have been very localised in areas like the south-east, London and towns like Oxford. Also, as landlords pay capital gains tax and owner occupiers don’t, the latter make far more from any increase in value and yet the Guardian isn’t talking about them cashing in on house prices and it isn’t calling for owner-occupiers to pay tax on their vast ‘unearned’ profit as landlords have to.

I would suggest that publishing a case study of one landlord compounds the distorted representation of the private rented sector. If the Guardian wants to be seen as independent, it would have been more appropriate to have three case studies; one with a landlord who had done well (but with accurate figures), one with a landlord who had broken even and one with a landlord who had lost out from their investment (there are plenty of landlords in this category).

Being a landlord does not give you a golden ticket to success; if it did everyone would do it. In fact most people are far too frightened to take the risks associated with this line of work and also do all the dirty work that can come with it (over the years I’ve had to clean dog poo off carpets, clean away broken, bloody glass after a self-harm incident, hold a tenant’s bloody head while waiting for the ambulance and so on. In fact, it was only afterwards that I realised I could have been infected with HIV).

Moving on, as I write this, we now have yet another article from the Guardian.

Outrage at eviction company advert calling tenants ‘household pests’

And in this, once more, the Guardian is serving as a mouthpiece for Generation Rent and Shelter. Although the article is about an eviction company referring to tenants as ‘household pests,’  the Guardian quotes Seb Klier, campaigns manager at Generation Rent, saying that ‘comparing tenants to vermin provided a shocking insight into the way renters are viewed by some landlords and agents.’

But landlords and agents had nothing to do with the advert. It was from a company based in one area of the UK. This company’s insensitive publicity campaign also did not merit a whole article, in which once more gross generalisations could be made about  ‘colossal rents, being forced to live in flats crawling with mice or rats, and having the threat of eviction hanging over them…’.

The Guardian is wittingly or unwittingly allowing itself to be used to push the propaganda of anti-private landlords groups with these inaccurate, illogical, biased and distorted ‘analyses.’ It is shoddy work and I call upon the Guardian to now publish a set of counterbalancing articles to put this right.

The post Guardian’s current onslaught against private landlords appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Guardian’s current onslaught against private landlords

Oh The Irony Of It All

admin    Uncategorized     agents

When one of our established members compared the functionality of the new Property118 website to that of The Guardian yesterday I must admit to being flattered.

Naturally, The Guardian was held up as being the better of the two in terms of functionality, and much as I disagree with much of their content, I have to agree that their website functionality is better than ours. But so it should be. They have a champagne budget to play with (Krug Grand Cru at that), whereas we are operating with a comparatively Tesco Value Lemonade budget, R Whites at best.

And there lays the irony, they are a left wing Newspaper group bordering on socialistic journalism whereas Property118 is run by for the benefit of capitalistic rental property business owners.

Our mission is to facilitate the sharing of best practice. For this reason alone, we must do all that we can to improve commenting functionality. Last year the Property118 website served over 5 million unique user sessions. If just 1% of those visitors had contributed to discussions by sharing their knowledge, just imagine how much more useful information they would have added to the Property118 shared knowledge bank.

The discussion ended in our established member offering the following ‘wish-list’ in regards to Property118 commenting functionality.

“I click on the ‘Reply’ link for the message that I want to comment on

If I am not logged in I am offered a popup dialog in order to be able to do so.

If I am logged in a popup dialog appears that invites me to enter my comment text

I enter my comment text

I click on ‘POST COMMENT’

The web site reloads the page with my new comment in context (i.e. attached to the message that I was commenting to but offset slightly (to the right) to make it clear that it is a response rather than a new message and aligns the view window so that I am presented with the page I was looking at when I made the decision to comment in the exact same pixel perfect place that it was before subject only to my additional comment.”

As you maybe aware, Property118 is only a small operation, just a team of four at the moment. We outsource our website development to an amazing company in Norwich called Accent Design, whose passion for what they do for the money we pay them is off-the scale! Nevertheless, our budget to develop the Property118 forum comes entirely from donations and whatever money we can spare from our own funds.

If you like the suggestions above in regards to commenting, please help us to make that a reality sooner rather than later by clicking on the button below.

Show DONATIONS FORM

The post Oh The Irony Of It All appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Oh The Irony Of It All

Ground Rent Consultation hits property companies…

admin    Uncategorized     agents

The Government’s plans to hold a consultation on ground rents, and possibly change the long-established leasehold rules for new-build homes, has hit share prices of some property related companies. McCarthy & Stone, the retirement specialist, London developer Berkeley, and investment trust, Ground Rents Income Fund PLC, have all been affected.

The consultation launched last week by the Government reveals that it intends to change the rules, most likely prohibiting the sale of new-build houses as leaseholds, or at least only allowing a nominal “peppercorn” (near zero) annual ground rent on all new leasehold properties, possibly including blocks of flats / apartments?

McCarthy & Stone has made a business out of selling most of their retirement homes on a leasehold basis, with grounds rents in the region of £400 to £600 per year, and these charges increase in-line with the retail prices index (RPI).

According to financial reports, around 4pc of McCarthy & Stone’s revenue each year is made by selling off freeholds to investors, who then have a claim on these charges as long-term cash flows or income similar to an investment bond. The fact that bond yields have been at historically low levels makes ground rents attractive investments.

Likewise, last year Berkeley made £51m from the sale of ground rent assets, which according to reports in The Daily Telegraph is equivalent to 9.6pc of the company’s pre-tax profit, though it does say this was due to the disposal of its historical ground rent asset portfolios, and is projected to be only 3pc of pre-tax profits in 2017.

Clearly, any proposed changes to the long-established leasehold rules introduce a degree of uncertainty to many property related businesses. Stephen Barter, KPMG UK’s chairman of real estate advisory, told The Daily Telegraph that any government changes needed to be “carefully targeted”:

“Low bond yields ‘have significantly increased investors’ appetite for the secure annuity qualities of freehold ground rent investments, which have become considerably more valuable.

“Housebuilders have found this an attractive way to make additional profit at the end of the development period by selling on the stub freehold interest, subject to the ground rent income,” says Mr Barter.

The Home Builders Federation has estimated that around 15pc of new-build houses were sold last year as leaseholds, but now this proportion is expected to drop sharply in the next three year. Other housebuilders who have largely moved away from selling leaseholds found their share prices unaffected by the move.

Leasehold reform has been expected for some time after revelations that some housebuilders had sold properties with ground rents doubling every 10 years, leading to exorbitant amounts after many years. It is yet to be seen how the proposed changes would affect traditional ground rents on blocks and ground rent investing and trading businesses.

©1999 – Present | Parkmatic Publications Ltd. All rights reserved | LandlordZONE® – Ground Rent Consultation hits property companies… | LandlordZONE.

View Full Article: Ground Rent Consultation hits property companies…

IHT Legacy Planning For Landlords – CASE STUDY

admin    Uncategorized     agents

This case study explains how a couple could save their loved ones £2 million of inheritance tax for less than £10,000 in professional fees and £322.48 per month.

Paul and Shirley currently have a net worth of £1,250,000 after deducting all of their IHT nil rate band allowances and correctly structuring their wills to make maximum use of them. Therefore, their IHT liability if they were both to die today would be £500,000.

This case study looks into fixing two problems. The first being how to cap their IHT to the current level and the second being the cost to insure that liability.

Let’s suppose the majority of their current net worth is in a property company worth £5 million gross (£1.25m net after deducting £3.75m mortgage liabilities). If Paul and Shirley live for another 20 years and their portfolio doubles in value over that time their exposure to IHT would be £5 million more than it is today.

The good news is that for comparatively very little cost(under £10,000 in most cases), the entire future growth value in their property portfolio can be taken outside of their estate. This is achieved by creating a new class of company shares, which can be gifted now whilst these new shares have minimal value. All future growth then accrues to this new class of shares. However, as they are non-voting shares, Paul and Shirley can continue to run their business as they always have. If Paul and Shirley’s portfolio portfolio has doubled in value by the time they die they will still own the same value of shares as they do today but the additional class of shares owned by their beneficiaries would be worth £5 million. Paul and Shirley would have saved themselves £2 million of IHT by using this structure.

The above doesn’t solve the problem in regards to their current net worth. For that, a whole-of-life insurance policy which pays out enough money to fund the IHT on the second death may well be a viable solution. The policy should be written into trust so the payout remains outside the estate and doesn’t add to the IHT problem.

To give you an idea of costs I obtained a quote based on £500,000 of cover for myself and my wife.

My date of birth is 12/01/1968 and I am a smoker.

The date of birth of my wife is 25/10/1973 and she is a non smoker.

The premium came out at just £322.48 per month.

Remember; this is whole-of-life insurance so the policy only ends if we cancel it or when it pays out. Even if the youngest of us (my wife) lives to be 100 years old (56 years from now) the insurance premiums paid would only be just half of the value of the payout required to pay the IHT. This is a ‘no-brainer’ is it not? Especially when you consider that we could both die after paying only one premium and our beneficiaries would have all the money they need to pay the IHT due of our estate. Either way, it is good value for peace of mind if you want to leave a legacy to your loved ones.

I don’t profess to be an expert on IHT planning (YET!) but I’m getting there very quickly as a result of mixing with people who are experts and have been implementing planning of this nature for their landlord clients for decades.

My plan, over the next six to 12 months, is to integrate an IHT planning service as part of our Landlord Tax Planning consultation process. For the time-being, to test the appetite of our readers for this service, I am offering IHT planning consultations free-of-charge. I will complete initial fact-finds and then check the strategies I have in mind with the advisers I am already in contact with. They check my suggestions, complete further analysis where necessary and will then provide you with details of the savings to be made, the strategies recommended and their quotes for implementation. If necessary, they will also meet with you at no cost to fill in any gaps and help you to complete any necessary paperwork. And don’t worry about me working for nothing, I will receive commission for business resulting from my introductions. It’s a win:win scenario for everybody.

If you would like to know more please complete the short form below. I will then send you an email outlining the information I will need to begin to progress matters.

jQuery(document).bind(‘gform_post_render’, function(event, formId, currentPage){if(formId == 437) {} } );jQuery(document).bind(‘gform_post_conditional_logic’, function(event, formId, fields, isInit){} ); jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_post_render’, [437, 1]) } );

The post IHT Legacy Planning For Landlords – CASE STUDY appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: IHT Legacy Planning For Landlords – CASE STUDY

Insurance company taking us to court after following their complaints procedure

admin    Uncategorized     agents

We’re having a dispute with our insurance company who recently informed us they are voiding our landlord insurance policy – their reasons being that it was due to material non-disclosure and misrepresentation.

My partner, who’s first language is not English answered the policy set up questions honestly to the best of their knowledge on the broker comparison website which seems to have led to an inaccurate type of insurance due to a wrong interpretation of the wording.

My partner recalls a phone conversation with the insurer shortly after policy set up when he’d discussed HMO status and number of tenancies – I also made notes of a phone conversation with them confirming to us their awareness of the correct details. They are now denying this as none of those details were included in the policy schedule.

Since this happened, I checked through our other insurance policies on different properties to ensure all details were correct and discovered that certain information we’d made them aware of and agreed over the phone wasn’t included in the schedules.  I called one of the insurers who reassured us and insisted we need not be concerned as correct insurance was in place, although I insisted they confirm HMO status specifying number of individual lets in writing which they have now done.

Upon contacting a third insurance company, where similarly the schedule wording didn’t specify it’s HMO status or number of individual lets, they initially informed me that it was insured only as a single let and cancelled our policy when the situation regarding the insurance company voiding our insurance came to light during questions for policy amendment.

They gave us a 7 day grace period while informing us they would provide an alternative insurer before that time was up, however they somehow managed to get it wrong and informed us they were unable to find a replacement at the end of the 7 day period at the end of the 7th day leaving us without insurance.

We have emails and notes of phone calls made to that particular insurer detailing how we had made them aware of property being HMO + number of tenancies during policy set up – (this is something we’re challenging them on) they have admitted to their mistake regarding the 7 day grace period and are now offering a £60 compensation for inconvenience.

With regard to the Insurer Claiming against us, we followed the correct complaints procedure in accordance with their policy and after confirmation of policy cancellation, took the complaint to the Ombudsman.

While the Ombudsman investigation was in progress we received a court claim from the Insurance company’s solicitors requesting that we declare that the Insurance company was entitled to void the policy for the above reasons, they also seek court fee costs.

The Ombudsman investigator has informed us they’re now unable to continue with our investigation as court proceedings have begun.

We believe the insurance company are taking it this far due to an ex tenant who is making a fraudulent injury claim against us and is asking for an astronomical amount, so naturally they would want to avoid making any settlements.

Has anyone else had similar issues with insurers?

What are our rights with regard to the Ombudsman taking the decision not to continue with the investigation and the insurance company’s claim against us?

On advice of solicitors we’ve spoken to with regard to defending against the insurance company in court, the outlook for us is bleak as we don’t have the funds or the time to do so effectively.

How is it acceptable or fair treatment to take legal proceedings against someone when a complaint is made?

They should have included this in their complaints procedure as per their policy … i.e: ‘feel free to complain but we’ll take you to court if you do!’

Had we been given the opportunity to be aware of this possibility, we might not have bothered complaining in the first place.

Apologies for the length of the post, any thoughts or advice are much appreciated.

Many thanks

Kev

The post Insurance company taking us to court after following their complaints procedure appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Insurance company taking us to court after following their complaints procedure

7 key facts identified from the English Housing Survey

admin    Uncategorized     agents

English Housing Survey:

The latest report from the government’s annual English Housing Survey 2015-16 highlights some important changes in the private rented sector (PRS) relating to tenants and landlords

The Negotiator Magazine, a printed trade magazine distributed to the entire UK estate and lettings agency industry, has identified 7 key facts from the survey about the fast-changing private rented sector.

1. Last year 787,000 tenants moved home within the private rented sector. Of these, 73% said they move because they wanted to, while 11% or 86,600 tenants were asked to leave by their landlord – two thirds because the landlord wanted to sell or move back in, and a third presumably for bad behaviour.
2. Despite constant media coverage of rogue landlords and agents, the survey reveals that 71.4% of all tenants were satisfied with the way repairs and maintenance were carried out on their property. But the survey also says 17.7% of tenants were unhappy with how their landlord looked after their property, leaving 9.5% not sure either way.
3. Being a tenant has yet to become as popular as home ownership. Just one in five renters or 21% quizzed by the report were satisfied with their status as a private tenant.
4. The research also reveals that the private rented sector is now significantly larger than the social rented one. There are 4.413 million private homes in the UK compared to 3.85 million local authority and social housing ones.
5. Key complaints among tenants are that their landlord doesn’t bother to carry out any repairs or maintenance, is difficult to contact, carries out shoddy repair work and that repairs are completely too slowly.
6. The English Housing Survey also reveals that talk of ‘generation rent’ is not exaggerated – although younger renter tends to be over-represented in surveys, the proportion of the rented sector who are between 25 and 34 years old has nearly doubled over the past decade from 24% to 46%, while the number of families with children has risen from 30% to 36% of all renters.
7. And talk of slum conditions within the private sector also looks less credible now – the proportion of non-decent homes, as the survey puts it, has dropped from 47% in 2006 to 28% in 2015.

English Housing Survey 2015-16

©1999 – Present | Parkmatic Publications Ltd. All rights reserved | LandlordZONE® – 7 key facts identified from the English Housing Survey | LandlordZONE.

View Full Article: 7 key facts identified from the English Housing Survey

Base Rate held at 0.25% but it’s not all good news

admin    Uncategorized     agents

The Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) today voted to keep the Bank Base rate at 0.25%. Good news for Buy to Let mortgage borrowers, but the reasons are less good for the economy.

2017 Growth forecasts have been reduced again from 1.9% to 1.7% with lower household demand filtering through from the drop in the value of the Pound squeezing prices and household budgets.

The Pound has fallen 0.9% so far against the Dollar after the announcement of the freeze in interest rates, which has a direct impact on foreign exchange rates.

The MPC was this month split more heavily in favour of keeping the rate the same with the “Doves” winning by an increased margin of 6 to 2.

Mark Carney, the Govenor of the Bank of England, held a press report at the announcement saying:

“The UK economy is beginning the process of adjusting to a new, as yet uncertain, economic relationship with the European Union. Monetary policy cannot prevent the weaker real incomes likely to accompany the move to new trading arrangements with the EU, but it can influence how this hit to incomes is distributed between job losses and price rises. And it can support UK households and businesses as they adjust to such profound change.

“The MPC has long emphasised that the effects on inflation of the Brexit process would be the product of its impact on demand, supply and the exchange rate. And it has consistently stressed that as a result, the implications for monetary policy would not be automatic. The August Inflation Report, released today, updates on how these and other dynamics are affecting the economic outlook.

“Since the referendum was called, UK households, businesses and financial markets have reacted at different speeds and to varying degrees to the prospects for the UK’s departure from the EU.

• Financial markets, particularly sterling, marked down the UK’s relative prospects quickly and sharply.
• Households looked through Brexit-related uncertainties initially. But more recently, as the consequences of sterling’s fall have shown up in the shops and squeezed their real incomes, they have cut back on spending, slowing the economy.
• Businesses have been somewhere in between. But since the referendum, they have invested much less aggressively than usual in response to an otherwise very favourable environment.”

To see the full speech Click Here

The official MPC summary reported:

“The MPC’s overall assessment of the outlook for inflation and activity in the August Inflation Report is broadly similar to that in May.  In the MPC’s central forecast, GDP growth remains sluggish in the near term as the squeeze on households’ real incomes continues to weigh on consumption.  Growth then picks up to just above its reduced potential rate over the balance of the forecast period.  Net trade and business investment firm up, and consumption growth recovers in line with modestly rising household incomes.  Net trade is bolstered by strong global growth and the past depreciation of sterling.  The combination of high rates of profitability, especially in the export sector, the low cost of capital and limited spare capacity supports investment by UK firms over the forecast period, offsetting the effect of continued uncertainties around Brexit.

CPI inflation rose to 2.6% in June from 2.3% in March, as expected.  The MPC expects inflation to rise further in coming months and to peak around 3% in October, as the past depreciation of sterling continues to pass through to consumer prices.  Conditional on the current market yield curve, inflation is projected to remain above the MPC’s target throughout the forecast period.  This overshoot reflects entirely the effects of the referendum-related falls in sterling.  As the effect of rising import prices on inflation diminishes, domestic inflationary pressures gradually pick up over the forecast period.  As slack is absorbed, wage growth is projected to recover.  In addition, margins in the consumer sector, having been squeezed by the pickup in import prices, are projected to be rebuilt.  Consequently, inflation remains at a level slightly above the 2% target.”

The post Base Rate held at 0.25% but it’s not all good news appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Base Rate held at 0.25% but it’s not all good news