Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Delta Hedge's avatar

That City AM chart: DT now reports London on track for only 15-20k new builds in 2027, compared to 60-65k annually in 2015-20 and the target of 80k p.a. now: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/buying-selling/developers-padlock-new-builds-london-housebuilding-collapse/ That target is itself extraordinarily unambitious given both that 3.8 mn of the UK's 28.6 mn households are in London, and that the nationwide minimum target to avoid the supply situation deteriorating further is 1.5 mn new builds (over the Parliament). As a (reluctant) Lab voter with buyer's remorse now, I have to say that this is not what the much hearalded 'delivery' looks like :(

Expand full comment
Delta Hedge's avatar

For once the DT's right. Can't go far wrong with East Sheen / Richmond Park borders if you want to be in London but, at the same time, one removed from it. Park's a bona fide oasis. 2,500 acres, all just 8 or 9 miles, via Mortlake Station, from the metropolis' heart; and which, unlike Kew, isn't unbearably blighted by planes. Given this, £700/sq ft is a relative bargain - at least compared to super prime central locations. You could pay that or even more now for areas considered 'up and coming' as recently as the 1990s. On this occasion, I think the 'old money' knows best. Like your 'why behind the when' type framing of rate cuts as not just a policy pivot, but also a structural shift tied to broader conditions: what markets expect, versus what may actually happen. After 2009 we were told every year to expect rates to rise. We ended up waiting to the end of 2021! Lower rates with modestly elevated inflation would probably suit HMT, given the national debt dilemma, and REITs are a play of sorts on that, i.e. trying to align with government interests and all with the leverage of both the REIT's own borrowings and the sector's current discounts to NAV.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts