Tema: PPCC-Pisitófilos Creditófagos-Invierno 2022

[senslev]

Están poniendo muy difícil optar por otras alternativas y esas alternativas dependen de muchas cosas, no todo el mundo tiene el nivel de formación ni la resiliencia para luchar contra la mierdacracia.

Esto pasa por querer vivir en Mierdrid, es culpa suya, se tendría que haber ido a un puto pueblo medio abandonado. Los jóvenes y no tan jóvenes lo quieren todo, de verdad...Incluso veo que quieren comer tres veces al día, ¡tres veces! y encima seguro que no le gustan las barritas hechas con larvas de escarabajo pelotero, hay que joderse.

Hombre, mientras que te doy la razón, también sospecho que empeñarse en vivir en un sitio con esos precios y en esas circunstancias a toda costa ("por fin soy propietaria") a lo mejor es una buena forma de sabotearse la vida.

Vamos, yo me habría planteado otras alternativas. Parece un precio demasiado exagerado para lo que iba a obtener a cambio (y mucho más aún al ver cómo le está yendo).

El mierdismo es literalmente esto, señores.

[Benzino Napaloni]

@el malo, paice que hasta en Idealista se están acojonando. Cómo estará la realidad para que suelten esto.

Ismael Clemente: “Se va a producir un ajuste de valoración en los inmuebles y grande”

Artículo para enmarcar...

El CEO de Merlin Properties cree que los precios estarán ajustados como mucho en dos años e insiste en que la corrección "no es algo malo"

"no" y "malo" = bueno?
Otro oxímoron: el ajuste (bajada) de los precios es bueno! 

“No sabemos de cuánto será el ajuste y hasta cuánto durará”

La certeza en medio de la incertidumbre: bajar bajarán, no sabemos cuánto ni hasta cuándo.

Ismael Clemente también ha insistido en que “no es nada malo” que se produzca una corrección y que, en el caso de Merlin, prefiere “que un activo valga 8 y sea creíble para el mercado a que valga 10 y no sea creíble”.

Desde luego...los precios no se los cree nadie 

¿Siguen cotizando en bolsa? 

De cajón y no aprenden. En cualquier inversión seria o himbersión especulativa, si el precio base sube se reducen los márgenes de ganancia. En caso de burbuja llega un momento en el que no sale a cuenta entrar en la rueda. Si es que la burbuja llega hasta ahí y no revienta antes por otra cosa.

En parte así pincharon las Ninja americanas.

¿Es bueno que bajen porque así se recupera rentabilidad? Entonces nunca debieron haber subido a estos niveles de locura, ¿no?


Pues cuánto bajarán... Si esta vez hay determinación cortando el grifo del crédito, echen cuentas. En el pinchazo de la burbuja en España las bajadas fueron de media un 40% desde máximos. No todo, pero buena parte se recuperó en la reburbuja, al menos en las ciudades más masificadas. Así que más (bastante más) de un 50% no es ninguna exageración.

Digan esto en público que primero se reirán y luego harán esto: https://twitter.com/wallstwolverine/status/1618233404851654660 (el directo de TVE a cuenta del radar del pueblo).

[Derby]

El Finantial Times  weekend, en la separata House and Home`titula "How London became a inheritocracy". Solo los que han heredado pueden comprar piso en Lomdres. Pone el ejemplo de un profesor que compró en 1996, y el piso le ha hecho ganar más dinero (equity) que lo que ha ganado él durante toda su vida!
Por supuesto, dice, no es un fenómeno único de Londres...

https://www.ft.com/content/fd29c715-8d12-459c-980e-11b58a4a374c

How London’s property market became an inheritocracy

Without inherited wealth or a leg-up from the Bank of Mum and Dad, prospective first-time buyers are forced to abandon dreams of home ownership

As a professor at the London School of Economics, one of the world’s top universities, Paul Cheshire earns well above the average Londoner’s salary. And yet his home, in Islington, has made even more.

“We’ve generated housing equity that’s more than my salary throughout my life,” says Cheshire, whose specialism is economic geography. His daughter, who attended Oxford university and is now a practising lawyer, “lives in something the size of a couple of our bedrooms. And that’s with parental help,” he adds.

In the time between Cheshire buying his home in 1996 and helping his daughter buy hers in 2010, average local prices roughly quadrupled, according to the Land Registry, and have continued to rise since. Prices have shot up as real wages have stuttered; the supply of new homes has not kept pace as demand has steadily risen and regulations governing mortgage lending have tightened, limiting access to finance. Without a leg up from parents, first-time buyers on average earnings are stuck looking up at the bottom rung of the housing ladder.

Forecasts of falling property values have given some would-be buyers hope that an era in which wages have decoupled from prices might be drawing to a close. But the higher interest rates that are a drag on prices are also pushing up mortgage rates, a scenario that tends to hit first-time buyers particularly hard. The cold reality is that life has rarely been so hard for a first-time buyer in London as it is today.

Michael Seal, a 28-year-old vice-principal at an east London school, is one of those people. “I studied hard, went to LSE, then went straight to teacher training. I don’t really know what society wants from me if not to be a hard-working teacher in a deprived school. But I’m still eating hummus sandwiches in a leaking flat. I’m angry about it.”

Seal is in one of the highest earnings brackets for teachers across the UK and has saved since he started work so that he could achieve his “dream” of home ownership. Now, he feels, “on balance it’s not worth it . . . I can get on there [the housing ladder] but not somewhere I’d want to raise a family.

Cheshire describes this state of affairs as a “distortion” with grave consequences for the UK capital — damaging London’s competitiveness by driving talent further afield.

Would-be buyers interviewed for this article describe a choice between accepting much lower living standards than they currently enjoy in order to get a toehold on the ladder, enduring the precarity of a rental market in which prices are rising fast or turning their backs on the city they would like to call home.

Their experiences are backed up by data that emphasise how profound the shift in London’s housing market has been over the past 30 years. Together, they paint a stark picture of a city that has become more inhospitable for the young, talented and aspirational, where equity-rich parents have increasingly become lenders of last resort.

There is little argument that life has become harder for first-time buyers over the course of a generation. This is not exclusively a London phenomenon, but the jump in prices has been far more pronounced in the capital than elsewhere in the country. Thirty years ago, the average property bought by a first-time buyer in London was worth £122,000, roughly 1.5 times the UK average price, according to Nationwide building society. Last year, the average first-time buyer in London spent £462,070, double the average price around the rest of the country.

That has been good news for anyone who bought a London home in the early 1990s, but ruinous for many young people who harbour aspirations of owning today.

He grew up on the north-eastern fringe of London but Seal and his partner are now thinking of moving to Germany in pursuit of a better foundation from which to build a life together. “The solution for me personally is to get out of London,” he says.

The ratio of house prices to earnings in London hit a record level in 2021, at just under 14 times, according to the latest official figures. “You’re totally obliterating the possibility of owning in London for most people. It’s why we see people leaving London — they can’t move there or can’t afford to be there in the first place,” says Anya Martin, a housing expert and campaigner for more homes to be built.

Prices in London have in fact fallen almost 9 per cent over the past seven years, according to Nationwide figures. But that is of limited help to buyers, because Londoners’ inflation-adjusted earnings are 8 per cent lower than they were when the financial crisis struck in 2008, according to official figures.

High prices represent the most obvious hurdle for first-time buyers, though one which would be surmountable if finance were readily accessible. But having been pushed to the brink during the financial crisis, banks are more heavily regulated and reluctant to take on more risk than is necessary, lending at relatively low loan-to-value ratios. That means mortgages are the preserve of those with big deposits and high incomes — the second reason why London’s housing market has become accessible to a narrower pool of buyers, a rising proportion of whom are tapping their families for support.

According to an analysis of official data by estate agents Savills, the average first-time buyer in London last year had a deposit of just under £150,000 and a household income of £92,000.

“The great financial crisis did two things: it lessened the availability of high loan-to-value mortgages which then substantially increased the deposit requirement. Then, when mortgage regulations were introduced, that became entrenched. It was no longer about whether the banks were willing and able to make the lending available, it was whether borrowers could meet the stress tests,” says Lucian Cook, head of residential research at Savills.

Tighter regulation was understandable in the aftermath of a financial crisis triggered in part by reckless lending, says Cook, but “regulation to avoid a debt bubble has reduced accessibility to housing”.

Lenders are uncomfortable loaning first-time buyers high multiples of their incomes, wherever they are in the country. But in London, where homes cost twice the national average, that is a more serious impediment.

That is in part why the government’s flagship Help to Buy scheme came with more generous terms for those borrowing to buy in London. The initiative was launched by the Conservative-led coalition government in 2013 and intended to support buyers of newly built homes by providing a government equity loan of 20 per cent of a property’s total value, or 40 per cent in London. That meant purchasers required a deposit of as little as 5 per cent.

The scheme, which ends in March, has been used by well over 300,000 people, most of them first-time buyers, to clamber on to or up the housing ladder. “Those who were unable to fall back on the Bank of Mum and Dad at least had an option to raise a deposit or bridge the deposit gap,” says Cook.

But the £29bn scheme’s legacy is also higher house prices, according to a House of Lords report published last year which says Help to Buy has failed to “provide good value for money”. In some boroughs of the capital where new building has been relatively high, such as Barking and Dagenham and Newham, prices paid by first-time buyers have doubled over the past decade, according to official figures.

Now Help to Buy is in its twilight, and private-sector alternatives are unlikely to pick up the slack in the short term. “The aspiration for home ownership remains very strong, it’s just become that much further out of reach,” says Cook.

Buyers in London must pull together huge deposits if they want to get on to the ladder. But how?

Thirty years ago, the average first-time buyer in London needed a deposit of less than £24,000. That has increased six-fold since, to more than £147,000, adjusting for inflation. Nationally, average deposits have fallen almost £16,000 since 2009, but in London they have increased by close to £12,000.

That has made owning a home harder. Fewer than a quarter of Londoners owned a home with a mortgage in 2021, a drop of 10 per cent from a decade earlier, according to data from the census published last month. More and more would-be buyers are instead being pushed into a rental market in which prices have risen sharply over the past year, hampering their ability to save for a deposit.

“For a lot of people the only way to buy is inheritance or the Bank of Mum and Dad,” says Cook.

More than two-fifths of buyers in London received help from parents in 2020, according to a report by Legal & General financial services — a far higher proportion than anywhere else in the UK. “Those figures really drill home the extent to which London remains dislocated with the rest of the country, with real issues in access to property,” says Cook.

Mark, who chose not to use his real name, is facing these problems first-hand. He and his partner want to buy, but are struggling to see how. “We’ve been living together since the start of Covid, renting privately for some time, and it’s knackering not knowing how long you plan to be somewhere,” he says.

A combination of inheritance, the windfall from his partner’s grandmother’s house sale, savings and some parental help should give the couple a deposit of £140,000. On top of that they hope their salaries — both work for charities — will allow them to tap a lender for a mortgage of £210,000.

Fearful of the impact of rising rents, they would rather take the plunge. “If we were unable to buy now that might put it out of reach until our parents die. They are not mega-rich, but they have property they have paid the mortgage off on,” says Mark, who acknowledges how macabre that consideration is.



After doing the sums, Mark and his partner feel that trying to buy is the least worst option. Despite the contortions involved, he is quick to emphasise the privilege of circumstances that enable them to even consider buying. “Without support we could maybe manage shared ownership or a studio in Zone 8 [but] we’d rather stay renting than scrabble on to the bottom rung for the sake of it . . . We’re not looking to have kids. If we had to make this sort of compromise it would be horrible.”

Paul Cheshire, the LSE professor, describes the parlous state of London’s housing market as “a self-inflicted injury”: a strain that has been exacerbated by a failure to release more land and build more homes. He highlights the greenbelt — a ring of land circling London that is protected from development — as the main cause of the city’s particular housing crisis. “We froze the supply of space in London. So you have a long run of rising demand for housing and an incredibly inflexible supply.”

Anya Martin, the housing campaigner, is also highly critical of the inflexibility of the greenbelt, which was introduced in 1955 to prevent London from subsuming nearby towns, and other planning rules.

“The greenbelt stops London from growing out into areas we wouldn’t consider green. Then you have height restrictions. Then more informal restrictions; local authorities have restrictions to maintain local character or reject stuff above a certain [height] level,” she says. All of that prevents London from building its way out of the problem.

Long term, if house prices flatline and wages catch up, or if housing supply in London increases, affordability issues might be addressed. But none of those interviewed for this article are confident of that outcome. Instead of waiting for an improved market, they are weighing their options.

Martha, who chose not to give her real name, works in public relations and rents with her boyfriend. “Our combined salary is £110,000, enough to get a mortgage and we have some savings. We feel the pressure to [buy] but wonder if it will be worth the effort. What can you buy in London if you want a family and have to pay childcare?” she says. “I don’t think we’ll be in London in five years if we want kids — it’s just so expensive.”

Michael Seal, the teacher, goes further, saying the inaccessibility of housing is one part of “the social contract breaking down”. He can’t tap the Bank of Mum and Dad and sees little prospect of the ratio of wages to house prices falling dramatically soon, so is unlikely to buy in the city where he grew up, studied and works.

“People say I’m trying to get too much but for the past 30 years we have had our cake and eaten it [with house prices rising fast from a relatively low base]. It’s a fairness issue. I just want to be playing a fair game,” he says.

[el malo]

Supongo publireportaje de la empresa Suomma

Los propietarios de viviendas turísticas en Málaga y Marbella se embolsan una media de más de 2.500 euros al mes

Según la plataforma Suomma, la ocupación aumentó en 2022 y los precios por noche han subido un 25% por el "efecto inflación" - La ocupación media se sitúa en el entorno del 60%

José Vicente Rodríguez

30·01·23 | 12:10

Un turismo "consolidado" y una "alternativa de inversión"

https://www.laopiniondemalaga.es/malaga/2023/01/30/propietarios-viviendas-turisticas-malaga-marbella-embolsan-2-500-euros-mes-82197327.html

Los precios por noche suben un 25% y la ocupación media es del 60% (algunos estarán ocupados un 100%, otros menos de un 40%). Aceptamos 60% como animal de compañía.

1 (retorno inicial) x 1.25 (25% de incremento) x 0.6 (60% de ocupación) = 0.75

El retorno es del 75% de lo que debería ser si los precios fueran realistas y la ocupación fuera cercana al 100%. Un 25% de pérdidas que se vende como una victoria en el titular.

Y claro que la ocupación aumentó en 2022. Nos ha j*dido, en 2021 estábamos todavía "encerrados" en casa (a pesar de que Google diga que el fin del confinamiento fue el 21 de junio de 2020).

[Derby]

Con esta noticia ha abierto hoy a mediodía el telediario regional en Cataluña,

https://www.msn.com/es-es/noticias/espana/la-dificultad-para-encontrar-casa-ya-se-extiende-a-los-vecinos-de-la-regi%C3%B3n-metropolitana-de-barcelona/

La dificultad para encontrar casa ya se extiende a los vecinos de la región metropolitana de Barcelona

Dos de cada tres residentes en la región metropolitana de Barcelona, con cerca de cinco millones de personas, aseguran que es “difícil encontrar una vivienda asequible que se adecúe a sus necesidades en su barrio o municipio”. Estos datos se desprende de la encuesta de cohesión urbana –que se realiza cada cinco años- redactada por el Instituto de Estudios Regionales y Metropolitanos de Barcelona. En el informe se alerta que esta preocupación, que hace cinco años se daba sobre todo entre los vecinos de la ciudad de Barcelona, se ha contaminado entre todos los de la región metropolitana, (los municipios que se encuentran dentro de las comarcas del Barcelonès, Baix Llobregat, Alt Penedès, Garraf, Vallès Occidental y Oriental y Maresme). Según el estudio, el 50,5% de los vecinos de la región metropolitana tenía la preocupación de encontrar una vivienda asequible en 2017. Esta preocupación pasó el pasado 2022 a récords alcanzando al 64,3% de los vecinos.

(...) ¿Cuáles son los motivos para cambiar de vivienda? En un 38,9% de los casos es la mejora del hogar o del entorno. Aún así, los vecinos que se van de su casa forzados por motivos económicos no hace más que aumentar: uno de cada cuatro cambios residenciales (el 24%) se han cambiado por no poder pagar en la vivienda. El 85,5% de la población metropolitana está satisfecha con su barrio de residencia pero en las encuestas realizadas entre 2011 y 2022 ha aumentado el incremento de valoración negativa de los barrios. Un claro ejemplo son las molestias para encontrar aparcamiento que han pasado de ser preocupante para el 38,7% de los vecinos a serlo para el 52,1%

[Negrule]

Últimamente, la verdad, es que no dejas de ver noticias comentando los puntos negros del mercado inmobiliario, creo que es tan evidente que no queda otra.


“Alquileres por las nubes, ofertas-fraude, caseros sin escrúpulos y acoso inmobiliario.

Lo que se encuentran las personas que buscan vivir de alquiler en España.”

https://twitter.com/hoyporhoy/status/1619924743502667776?s=46&t=DmOchQYCw3YENGZVV07vxg

[Saturio]

Sobre lo de Valeria.

Es humano culpar a la víctima. ¡A quién se le ocurre ir por ese barrio a esas horas! o ¡Si no frecuentase a esa gente no le pasarían esas cosas!
Y también es cierto que dadas unas circunstancias uno puede tomar mejores o peores decisiones.
Pero lo cierto es que cosas en las que Valeria ni pincha ni corta hacen que su opción habitacional sea un zulo de 45 metros cuadrados que además está lleno de problemas (gravísimos) de no existir esos problemas el precio hubiese sido inalcanzable para ella.

Veo que Valeria es la jefa de una empresa de desarrollo de videojuegos y presidenta de una asociación nacional de empresas dedicadas al asunto y a asuntos adjuntos. Y ahí nos topamos con el primer problema. Supongo que es jodido tener una empresa de esas en Lugo o en Soria y la asociación tiene que estar colocada en Madrid, junto a los centros de decisión, otras patronales y ministerios de la cosa. Tiene una presencia destacable en medios y redes sociales. Sería interesante hacer un estudio de dónde vive la gene que tiene más seguidores. Me da la impresión de que también es difícil "influenciar" desde León o Albacete.

El problema es que tener acceso a eso, a las ventajas de Madrid, tiene un precio. Altísimo. Nunca había pensado lo antimeritocrático que resulta el sistema de concentración capitalino. Si quieres tener acceso a las ventajas de la capital tienes que tener pasta antes. Si Valeria fuese de familia millonaria no tendría esos problemas y dirigirá su empresa y su asociación sin problemas.

[Cadavre Exquis]

Do 'Layoffs By Email' Show What Employers Really Think of Their Workers?
Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday January 29, 2023 @09:34PM from the dear-valued-former-employee dept.

When Google laid off 6% of its workforce — some of whom had worked for the company for decades — employees "got the news in their inbox," writes Gawker's founding editor in a scathing opinion piece in the New York Times:

That sting is becoming an all-too-common sensation. In the last few years, tens of thousands of people have been laid off by email at tech and digital media companies including Twitter, Amazon, Meta and Vox. The backlash from affected employees has been swift.... It's not just tech and media. Companies in a range of industries claim this is the only efficient way to do a lot of layoffs. Informing workers personally is too complicated, they say — and too risky, as people might use their access to internal systems to perform acts of sabotage. (These layoff emails are often sent to employees' personal email; by the time they check it, they've been locked out of all their employer's own platforms.)

As someone who's managed people in newsrooms and digital start-ups and has hired and fired people in various capacities for the last 21 years, I think this approach is not just cruel but unnecessary. It's reasonable to terminate access to company systems, but delivering the news with no personal human contact serves only one purpose: letting managers off the hook. It ensures they will not have to face the shock and devastation that people feel when they lose their livelihoods. It also ensures the managers won't have to weather any direct criticism about the poor leadership that brought everyone to that point.... Future hiring prospects will be reading all about it on Twitter or Glassdoor. In a tight labor market, a company's cruelty can leave a lasting stain on its reputation....

The expectation that an employee give at least two weeks notice and help with transition is rooted in a sense that workers owe their employers something more than just their labor: stability, continuity, maybe even gratitude for the compensation they've earned. But when it's the company that chooses to end the relationship, there is often no such requirement. The same people whose labor helped build the company get suddenly recoded as potential criminals who might steal anything that's not nailed down....

Approval of unions is already at 71 percent. Dehumanizing workers like this is accelerating the trend. Once unthinkable, unionization at large tech companies now seems all but inevitable. Treating employees as if they're disposable units who can simply be unsubscribed to ultimately endangers a company's own interests. It seems mistreated workers know their value, even if employers — as they are increasingly prone to demonstrate — do not.

Saludos.

[Cadavre Exquis]

Amazon is Selling Its 29-Acre Bay Area Property as Return to Office Stalls
Posted by EditorDavid on Monday January 30, 2023 @12:34AM from the change-of-plans dept.

Amazon is "selling a vacant Bay Area office complex purchased about 16 months ago," reports Bloomberg, "the company's latest effort to unwind a pandemic-era expansion that left it with a surfeit of warehouses and employees."

Amazon in October 2021 paid $123 million for the 29-acre property in Milpitas, California, part of a strategy to lock up real estate near big cities that could be used for new warehouses and facilitate future growth.... Amazon is expected to take a loss on the sale of the Metro Corporate Center, according to one person familiar with the terms of the deal, who spoke on condition of anonymity....

Amazon last year began its biggest-ever round of job cuts that will ultimately affect 18,000 workers around the globe. The world's largest e-commerce company, which is scheduled to report earnings on Feb. 2, warned investors that fourth-quarter sales growth would be the slowest in its history.

SFGate writes that the possible sale "is indicative of broader trends in Bay Area corporate real estate, which has struggled with remote work, tech layoffs and broader economic shifts."

"According to a report by commercial real estate firm Kidder Mathews, direct office vacancies in San Francisco rose to more than 18.4% in the fourth quarter of 2022, while a Kastle Systems report found that office occupancy rates rose to 41.8%, just 1% higher than the rates in September 2022."

Saludos.

[wanderer]

En fin, tanto que hablan los globalistas ecologetas y ecoansiosos de lo malo malísimo que es tener hijos, y no hay mayor depresor de la demografía que la burbuja inmo. Por lo que han explicado arriba de Londres y de nuestra nuevo pepito relámpago aka Valeria, difícil asegurar un futuro a la prole pasa por el hijo único, incluso para familias supuestamente de "clase media/media alta".

Y reconocer esa simple verdad y lo que implica no pasa por la deshumanización inherente a los dichos globalistas...

P.S: Y se me olvidaba, ecoansioso pijoprogre y pisitófilo de libro no son en absoluto contradictorios. El diminuto Wyoming es buen ejemplo de ello.

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1619953598216953857

Saludos.

[Derby]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/philips-lays-off-more-roles-sales-fall

Philips cuts 6K more jobs to improve profitability

Philips cut a total of 10K roles since October 2022

Philips announced Monday that it's cutting another 6,000 jobs worldwide as it works to boost profitability.

The workforce reduction will occur over the next two years with the first 3,000 cuts taking place this year, the Dutch consumer electronics and medical equipment maker said on Monday. In its earnings report, the company revealed it suffered a net loss of 1.6 billion euros in 2022, which is down from a net profit of 3.3 billion euros last year.

"2022 has been a very difficult year for Philips and our stakeholders, and we are taking firm actions to improve our execution and step up performance with urgency," CEO Roy Jakobs said in a statement. 

Monday's news brings the total number of job cuts to 10,000 since Jakobs took over in October to help the company turn around its business, which had been reeling from a recall of its sleep apnea machines. Philips also grappled with economic headwinds including COVID-related issues in China and the war in Ukraine. (...)

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://twitter.com/sninobecerra/status/1619942506787143686

https://elpais.com/sociedad/2023-01-30/la-escasez-de-antibioticos-obliga-a-partir-las-pastillas-de-adultos-para-los-tratamientos-infantiles.html

Saludos.

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://elpais.com/espana/comunidad-valenciana/2023-01-29/115-familias-viven-en-vilo-por-la-venta-de-una-torre-en-valencia-llego-una-carta-para-tirarnos-de-casa.html

Saludos.

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://elpais.com/economia/2023-01-30/los-fabricantes-de-molinos-de-viento-despiden-a-centenares-de-trabajadores-en-un-ano.html

Saludos.