Member Info for steph

There should be a major plonk of money for housing associations and LA's to commission directly as well as partner to build. Maybe an extension of help to buy which in my view is inflationary but better than nothing for first time buyers. It will not be nearly enough to tackle the structural deficit but welcomed never-the-less. Crashing out of the EU might just bring demand down enough to balance supply and demand for a few years in London but let's hope that is not actually the government's strategy. Short of 1950's urban clearance volume of government intervention in assembling land in London for a build program there are limited options for the government. Reform of CPO law in the planning act could do a lot to help. At the moment CPO must be at current market value and no more even though it is a forced sale. CPO justification on those condition only wash when it is some modest CPO to build essential infrastructure rather than some long term objective involving thousands of CPO orders urban clearance style needed to ramp up urban brownfield housing supply. A category of CPO for LA plan backed strategic objectives (such as site specific need to achieve overall housing targets) with pay out 20% or 30% above market value would allow LA's (using their powers) to partner with builders (who would put up the cash) to be much more ambitious and with far less public objections. Most public objections (especially from commercial properties) is all about money not the principal. Developers can't offer more cash no matter how profitable the development might be (unless within the context of a CPO order threat) or ransom opportunities from individual owners will arise that act as spoilers and suck essential 106 money out of the development package -reducing drastically the community benefits needed to create a broad consensus and local councillor support. All quite a complicated game.

Those 465 documents are examples of barriers to entry that allow me to be confident that TEF have a 20 year window of opportunity to grow volume at a rate of doubling every 4 to 6 years for the next 20 years (while concentrating in their near prime mainly east London patch) arriving at the end of those 20 yeas as a much larger company -before it will need to slow the growth rate down (or spread out geographically to avoid saturating the near prime east London market). IN a system that can truly "solve" London's housing "crisis" such as 1) the government expropriates in volume developable tracts of brownfield London and our green belt (in and just outside of London), master plans them, puts in enabling infrastructure UDC style and then auctions out the "oven ready" housing tracts and plots to all builders against a legally binding schedule of when they need to be built (and perhaps LDDC style conditions of price the units will be sold at and to what extent they need to be "local" owner occupants). That would result in TEF's business model for rapid growth to be null and void. Like the sites TEF got at Stratford TEF would have to pay substantial sums in competition with other builders which would limit how fast they could grow. TEF got a windfall on it's pricy Stratford plots due to HP inflation between site purchase and sales but that rate of HP inflation is not going to be the norm over a 20 year period (and even it were to be competitive bidding for plots would take that into account inflating the plot prices). TEF could continue to plough 2/3rds of divis into growth and could continue to be a nimble profitable and expanding player in the sector but no way they could double every 4 to 6 years under those market conditions. TEF benefits from a degree of government inaction to really tackle London's housing shortage.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-17/why-frankfurt-says-london-can-keep-its-bankers-after-brexit With Trump hurting New York and no real alternative hub in the EU we compete with, what could have been a flood is still just a trickle. Of course that trickle could be a flood if we crash out of the EU with no deal but I still thick that unlikely. Less than 10% odds. The German paper does not mention financial services as a core package of cooperation but passporting is not crucial to London's job numbers. What is crucial is good stable long term relations with the EU such that when they try to screw us we have diplomatic tools to fight back to replace the formal tools and occasional veto we have as members.

could you cut and paste the article. I've cancelled my IC subscription. Thanks

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/10/even-the-brexiters-do-not-want-us-to-crash-out-without-a-deal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other Hopefully calmer heads will prevail I’m still all in TEF in my isa but weary now of this black swan

They will accelerate as new technology and supply chain improvements kick in. I'd rather TEF become a slightly larger player in order to experiment with new construction technology more. Although that said innovation has often come from smaller more focused house builders. IGLOO got lots of plaudits for innovation but was not large. Results almost boringly predictable. "on track to achieve all targets, some volatility on which half money comes in" Boring is good for investors when it's results time. Wish we had boring for Brexit. I fear it will be a wild white knuckle ride exciting.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/laing-orourke-using-3d-printing-construct-crossrail-stations-nugent Massive changes in construction methodologies are coming over the next 20 years. UK and London are well positioned to be at the forefront of them. Always best to start in a high cost land market in a knowledge cluster teaming international some top international engineering firms and Universities with on high end finishes and then let the technology "trickle down" to more ordinary construction projects. After a long lag when construction techniques have hardly changed for decades new techniques with patentable IP are up for grabs to the brave. These can earn money via licencing of the new techniques and selling the licence globally without needing to lift a further calloused hand. Then TEF, rather than in time merely imitating the P/E of a technology company via it's growth plans, would actually be a technology company with the sky as the limit on growth. Stand aside UBER, Facebook and google. Here comes TEF!!! London the right place to start. Not only is the skills cluster in London to do it but the odd planning system that frustrates so often actually can help fund innovation. The Three dragoons approach to planning gain effectively means that innovation (if it adds to the chances of planning permission) is cost neutral to the developer. It merely reduces other 106 obligations (such as the % of affordable housing). USA with development rights based zoning has a different incentive system and not so easy to bury the start up coast of new techniques in the profitability of the scheme. Plus targeted government funds for urban innovation (Catapult and the like) plus public sector partners such as LA's and Housing associations who are often up for a non bottom line objective that adds to the local skills base. These are ideal ingredients to a construction innovation soup that can be quite compelling. Our ICT and start up funding cluster (both best in Europe) help as does stable and enforceable patent laws. China will do some of this over time as they can and do fund a long term strategy on innovation but will not be first choice for international partners worried about IP leakage. Come on TEF. I'd happily see funded a whole small TEF department dedicated to the partnership needed to be at the forefront of new construction technology. More hay in the barn.

met Kate shortly after she published her 2004 study. She says in the recent article that her range is still valid. 240,000 is about right. NO risk for us of that number being hit any time soon. She says that to hit the target we need quite a lot of green belt release and real new towns so don't hold your breath for any housing surplus in London that might hurt TEF 20 year strategy to grow volume substantially (doubling every 4 to 6 years). She points out that really stupid economic policies can crash the economy enough to being demand and prices down but that is stating the obvious and she does not explicitly mention a bad Brexit as a scenario to watch out for.

Brexit uncertainty is a very difficult call for us investors. As you say most things of this nature end in some sort of comprise and the worst case scenarios just don't materialize. But we are in the realm of guessing political outcomes and personal ambition. Miscalculation can lead to some very bad outcomes indeed. There seems to be an assumption in common with Trump and our hard core Brexiteers that other nations behave rationally economically in relationship to us and are not also driven by emotion and nationalism. Unrealistic expectations of what the EU 27 will do for us in any new arrangement as well as simply fanciful new trade agreements with the USA and others (beyond what we already have as an EU member) mean that reality will hit at some point. The signals from the EU 27 that has consistently been given is will not give us some nearly seamless access for our goods and services without us nearly accepting the same rules as at present. SO yes reality is about to hit the Brexiteers pretty hard. There are not German car makers lobby powerful enough to lobby Berlin and in turn the EU27 to maintain our current auto value chain. Ditto for all sectors. While the EU 27 like some of our financial services they are also jealous of the well paid jobs and don't mind a bit of damage being done. The wild assumption that the EU 27 would be begging us for a trade deal that leaves our current access unchanged but without the reciprocal obligations is coming apart. My position is cautious optimism. I think the Tories will have to bend. Labour will come round to the benefits of a softer Brexit or indeed a face saving formula where there is no formal exit at all but a two speed configuration of members with the UK on the outer ring. Sort of half way between EFTA and full membership. With all our opt outs we were more or less there anyway. While having liked Boris as Mayor I truly think he is acting against the national interest in a big way as part of furthering personal ambition. No doubt if he were PM he would start compromising and be better than May at selling those compromises to his party and the UK public but I don't trust him anymore.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/goldman-buys-up-school-places-for-frankfurt-brexit-flight-07r0w7p0t I really as an investor dislike the Brexit mess. Probably priced in is an orderly fairly hard Brexit but the odds of something disorderly rise by the day. Still think it less than 10% but selfish personal ambition is driving unrealistic demands and a rotten membership Tory base to play to is empowering those who do. A nation of lions led by rats.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-puts-construction-on-course-for-recession-cd60lw2gt

Sain fun I once looked at prefab vs on site and in line with national audit office pre fab was always higher cost in spite of an instinctive feeling that factory built should beat on site. I suspect that increasing automation on site will make heavy off site assembly less not more attractive. All the advantages of factory finish and automation but in a decentralized site by site environment. More raw materials delivered just in time to the site and converted into final materials and finish by on site manufacturing. The growing amount of smart electronic bits will be light, complex, high value and of course built elsewhere. The other day I was talking to an investor who was replacing steel rebar with fiberglass. Not a big step further forward in future to imagine an on site cement batching and extrusion plant and an on site plastic and resins extrusion plant that between them could create most of the basic building materials needed -even cement and resin composites that imitate tile floors or granite worktops and final finishes for external cladding and internal surfaces could bd creates out of raw materials on site. Logistics is then greatly simplified as well as wastage and on site storage cut drastically. Truely cheaper.

James Quite true but the economic benefit to domestic firms of lighter regulations is quite limited evenn if we went down that route. Firstly domestic firms have on average have lower productivity than those who trade internationally so overall the inconvenience of worrying about some one else's regulations is less important than scale and the disipline of international competition, Take the example a very domestic oriented industry tattooing. Let's imagine the EU regulates the tattoo trade and imposes a long set of heath and safety conditions of doing business -such as the Japanese have done. Now any UE tattoo parlour chain or practitioner can opetrate in the UK but we can't do the reverse. For the uk public there is some benefit as you can still get a backstreet tattoo legally by a cheaper lightly regulated practitioner. But for our UK tattoo economy there is a clear downside as they will have a limited market and still be subject to foreign competition. The public benefit is limited to price and the public may not actually be against the higher more onerous standards in the first place. It is a lot of pain (this is a tattoo example) for little gain.

great Savills report. Aligns with what I've been saying for several years and particularly post Brexit vote - but more eloquently. London has now reached critical mass in so many global sectors it will take more than Brexit to reverse the growth trends that started in 1983. Globalization has massively benefited London and will continue to do so. Corbyn now saying "stay in common market" as a matter of policy will have an influence on outcomes. The pendulum slowly swings back to a Norway style option as it is the most logical outcome of a vote that was based on a misunderstanding (perpetuated as we speak by Boris, Fox and Gove in their new "think tank") of modern trade. NO large sovereign nation will let UK courts arbitrate on trade disputes on products and services. There will always be an international arbitration body or court you have to cede some sovereignty to. Free trade even with zero tariffs is not free to penetrate a foreign market without reciprocal arrangements in place on standards and regulations. All we are doing with Brexit is swapping the European court (where we nominated our share of the judges) to some arbitration body which will involve a delegation from our judges sitting with EU counterparts. It is not in substance different from what we have now. ON paper we regain sovereignty but it is not substantive. We will still have to meet all existing and future EU regulations to trade with or sell our services to the EU.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/24/immigration-fall-hundreds-thousands-uk-becomes-less-attractive/ There is a scenario where London's growing economy is stalled by Brexit chaos. We are not there yet but there is a risk. We badly need clarity on our long term trading relationship with the EU and the ability of our business and financial services to trade in the EU with minimal obstacles.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4914694/Tories-plan-clampdown-foreigners-buying-UK-property.html YOu expect a bit of economic illiteracy from Corbyn as a trade off for some element of impractical idealism. To have economic illiteracy from the nasty party questions the fundamentals of what on earth are they for. FOr London all new affordable housing in pretty much the whole of inner London now dependent on the affordable housing provisions of planning permission -effectively a private sector cross subsidy from the open market homes to the non profit housing associations and from them onwards to those in need and key workers. Crashing the market to make resale more affordable is stupid as it will not work for whom it is aimed to benefit and the disruption is massive -and I say that form a socialist angle. The greater and more profitable the open market sales the greater the affordable numbers what will be built. Yes the process is inflationary for used flats in the resale market but that ship has long sailed for Inner London for anybody on less than a family income of 75k (and rising) or without starting capital inherited or via an existing property sale. This policy will hurt the aspirational first time buyers more than it will help them. They need a robust affordable homes provision (affordable homes for locals, shared ownership and the like) and this will help starve that sector. Who the hell are May's economic advisors? Is that idiot Timothy still in there with his wacky economics. What a big stinking mess we are as a nation to be stuck with this lot. PS Terr I do think the odds of a Brexit reverse are rising. Still unlikely but a roadmap is now laid out. Delay of coming out of the common market coupled with a shift in public opinion, a change of government, change of Labour leader (to say Thornberry) and then a second referendum would do it. Only question is would EU have us back on the excellent terms we had before plus the not insubstantial extras Cameron negotiated plus some additional face saving extra immigration brakes.

Recent events have lowered the risk of a crash out of the common market and thus a linked severe recession. Accidents can still happen as financially illiterate grandstanders in the Tory party (no need to name names) continue play to the clueless Tory party base. Neither realize that all modern trade deals on goods and services have synchronization of regulations and standards at the base. Tariffs themselves are the easy bit as they are transparent and easy to enforce. Standards require a conflict resolution mechanism that always means sovereignty is transferred to that body however it is made up or who sits on it. NO trading partner will let UK courts alone decide on these trade disputes between sovereign nations -but this is the only way to achieve Boris's fantasy Brexit. Boris and his base are living in the 19th century before governments regulated such matters. Perhaps the result of a classical education gone too far. We will now definitely (EU willing) have a stand sill 2 year period which is good but investors need to know what happens after that. Our Brexit related TEF dip will not resolve itself until then and that is now some years off. Pain.

phasing ISA investment delays ISA investment by 6 months. I'm convinced in the medium term our SP is going up. Roughly doubling every 4 to 6 years in line with the volume growth. So a 6 month delay on average is a 10% capital gain forgone. SO unless you have a specific thesis as to why the market will decline or be flat after April 5th each year delay has no purpose. There does seem to be a seasonal pattern of going down after final results but once any pattern is observable to us it has long been observable to the algorithms the large traders use. A flat HP environment is not a danger to TEF's stated growth and earnings objectives. HP inflation is treated as windfall. Indeed one could argue that a lack of windfall protects TEF's patch as the majors become less interested and able to grow market share. IN the long run (over 10 or 20 years) I expect HP inflation in TEF's patch to be higher than average for the UK house prices and above nominal inflation. SO a mild simulative effect on earning's for TEF and part of the reasons I am confident they can achieve doubling in volume every 4 to 6 years for 20 years. Even in the short run (3 years) I expect TEF patch HP inflation to be positive in spite of Brexit woes. Of course this supposes we will escape a deep recession. I do think we may have a " technical recession within 3 years but not a deep one damaging to TEF's business model.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/house-price-index/ East London bounce seen in August for asking prices was not sustained into September. Trend seems now to be very moderately rising HP in TEF patch. Declines in London prime.

I have no problem with TEF partnering beyond the Housing associations who have been so helpful thus far. It is not a one trick pony and all the stronger for that. The value add is the knowledge of the patch, a workforce who live in the patch (and thus don't need expenses for work in the patch) and the relationships in the patch that are hard to duplicate for a newcomer. This relationship network should include all players who have an mutual interest of some sort. I'd even support partnering with a larger builder on large sites in the patch if the deal looked in TEF's interests.