United Kingdom

<html><body>
<div>EXPERT OBSERVER</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As Australia gets back to business I've been following the UK government's inept handling of the Coronavirus with increasingly wide-eyed incredulity.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The cost to date has now been estimated at a mind-boggling £284 billion according to the government's own spending review this week. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>If you were wondering what exactly has been achieved by this interplanetary level of spending (so far), then you wouldn't be Robinson Crusoe there.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>With the Brits expected to announce approval of the rollout of a Biontech/Pfizer jab as early as this coming week then the UK's effective lockdown will likely continue through until the new year, accounting for thousands more blameless small businesses.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To add insult to injury the botched and inoperable test-and-trace system has alone cost an absurd £22 billion, single-handedly erasing years of pointless austerity measures.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Britain's public sector net debt will soon be well above 100 per cent of GDP and back to the highest level since the post-war years. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Higher taxes will doubtless be back on the agenda soon enough to pay for it all, but this time around capital will likely up and leave. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Just the Brexit debacle to finish off now before the incumbent PM gets ushered out of politics...</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Money printer go #Brrr...</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>It's remarkable how quickly views have changed in respect of quantitative easing and related stimulus. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Fears of inflationary spirals in the financial crisis aftermath have been replaced the money printers being embraced with joyful abandon. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Grant Williams of RealVision and TTMYGH rustled up this belter of an infographic this week to compare the scale of the Covid-19 stimulus to that of the 2008 financial crisis. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div class="separator"><img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Z8fJVDAqWXQ/X8P9QxCvh9I/AAAAAAAA5h8/sEVcHmlohJg_2QA_I1bHON3L0gje6t2GQCNcBGAsYHQ/w640-h466/TTMYGH.jpg" width="640" height="466" data-original-height="732" data-original-width="1005"></div>
<div class="separator"> </div>
</div>
<div>With interest rates mired at zero for the foreseeable future capital has been flowing into real estate, stocks, and cryptocurrencies. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Lucky country</strong></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Numerous medical journal studies are now showing how Vitamin D can play an important role in reducing Covid-19 infection.</div>
<div> </div>
<div class="separator"><img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ox9pY_ZatEc/X8QAlWZKLaI/AAAAAAAA5iI/LA-014I42p4wevQTXCa4xXcCX7j1XF3HgCNcBGAsYHQ/w640-h266/RP.jpg" width="640" height="266" data-original-height="302" data-original-width="728"></div>
<div> </div>
<div>This might go some of the way to explaining Australia's near elimination of the virus, with zero deaths or cases in ICUs or on ventilators for a long time now. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Whatever the reasons, it's looking increasingly likely that Australia has dodged another sizeable bullet and will become a remarkably sought-after destination once its international borders are reopened.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Data due to be released this week will show that the Aussie economy began to expand again with output growing by about 3-4 per cent in the third quarter of 2020, with another pumping current account surplus, and housing prices rising by +0.6 per cent in the month of November. </div>
</body></html>

pwargent-M4siyDbqQY

The UK; a case study on botched COVID-19 stimulus: Pete Wargent

<html><body>
<p>GUEST OBSERVATION</p>
<p>In the midst of England’s housing crisis, when many young people face <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/09/rents-in-uk-will-rise-for-next-five-years-experts-predict" target="_blank">rising rents</a> in major cities, alternative forms of accommodation have emerged. <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/plpg.pdf" target="_blank">Property guardianship</a> is one example, where disused buildings are converted into residential quarters, and let out temporarily until the owners make further plans for the buildings.</p>
<p>The arrangement helps keep squatters out, offers young people more affordable rent and allows the owners to <a href="https://liveinguardians.com/owners" target="_blank">avoid paying</a> the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-business-rate-relief/exempted-buildings-and-empty-buildings-relief" target="_blank">higher rates</a> imposed on empty buildings. It might sound like a win-win situation for tenants and building owners, but in a sellers’ market, where tenants are easy to find, landlords can be less concerned with keeping accommodation in good repair.</p>
<p><a href="https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8185" target="_blank">In response</a> to reports of hazardous conditions the UK government passed <a href="https://theconversation.com/renters-in-england-can-now-sue-landlords-over-mouldy-cold-or-noisy-properties-an-expert-explains-93299" target="_blank">a new law</a> which gives tenants in England and Wales the right to demand a basic standard of accommodation. This builds on tenants’ existing rights, which include <a href="https://www.gov.uk/tenancy-deposit-protection" target="_blank">deposit protection</a> and <a href="http://england.shelter.org.uk/legal/security_of_tenure/notices/notices_assured_shorthold_tenancies/section_21_notices" target="_blank">longer notice periods</a>.</p>
<p>Yet the law for property guardians remains unclear: if they wanted to take their landlord to court to enforce basic repairs under the new law, a judge could rule that they are not tenants at all – merely licensees, which would leave them without legal protection.</p>
<p>This has happened already: while in one 2017 case a property guardian was <a href="https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2017/02/aint-way-property-guardians-licences/" target="_blank">held to be a tenant</a>, in another 2018 case <a href="https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/10/property-guardians-licence-not-tenancy-in-office-building/" target="_blank">the guardian was held</a> to be a licensee. In each case, the lower court judges took different positions on how to interpret the law.</p>
<p>If property guardians find themselves needing to appeal a judge’s ruling, in order to secure repairs for their home, they would <a href="https://whaymand.wordpress.com/2019/03/20/article-old-issues-new-incentives-new-approach-property-guardians-and-the-lease-licence-distinction/" target="_blank">have to take the matter</a> to a higher court. This raises two difficult issues: for one thing, should it be the guardians’ job to take an active role in settling the law in the appeal courts, rather than leaving it to parliament – and for another, how should such challenges be funded?</p>
<p><strong>Review overdue</strong></p>
<p>The law is conventionally divided into lawyers’ law (such as contract law) and public interest law (such as family law and criminal law). Unelected appeal judges can legitimately change lawyers’ law, because its subject matter is less politically sensitive. But public interest law is for elected politicians to change.</p>
<p>When guardians try to enforce repairs against landlords, the case will be governed by both models: the judges decide who is a tenant, while parliament decides on what protections tenants are offered. Conventionally, this is considered legitimate, because if parliament does not like a court’s decision, it can change the law afterwards.</p>
<p>Yet the law determining whether a resident is a tenant was settled the 1970s and 1980s, when <a href="https://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Bach-Commission-Appendix-6-F-1.pdf" target="_blank">legal aid was widely available</a>. Back then, tenants also benefited from <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/42/part/III" target="_blank">rent control</a> and <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/42/part/I" target="_blank">secure tenancies</a>. Now the context has changed, it’s not surprising that the law needs to be reviewed.</p>
<p>The problem is that taking a case to the <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/court-of-appeal-home/" target="_blank">Court of Appeal</a> or the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/" target="_blank">Supreme Court</a> is expensive, and disproportionately so if one case is considered on its own. Depending on its complexity, by the time a case reaches even the county court costs can reach <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2016/B67#para56" target="_blank">many thousands or tens of thousands of pounds</a>. Appeals will cost more still.</p>
<p><strong>Protecting public interest</strong></p>
<p>When guardians take landlords to court over tenants’ rights, they’re not just deciding an individual case – they’re also setting a precedent for future cases, which helps to settle what the law actually means. Because of this, such cases are in the wider public interest. The legal aid system has a facility to provide extra funding for such cases – even to appeal.</p>
<p>If members of the public are to be co-opted in settling the law for the public benefit, they should be funded from the public purse. If funding is denied, it doesn’t just affect those bringing the case – it has an impact on the legal system itself, which becomes paralysed and unable to deal with more modern circumstances. And if the law is uncertain, the wider public are at a disadvantage too, because they will not know their rights.</p>
<p>There are nonetheless barriers to this process. Property guardian companies may prefer to settle, rather than risk getting a firm ruling that their residents are tenants, which may undermine their business model. Tenants might also prefer to avoid the stress of litigation and simply decide to find somewhere else to live. But the biggest barrier is the lack of state funding.</p>
<p>In an age of austerity, which has seen <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/legal-aid-cuts" target="_blank">massive cuts to legal aid</a>, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/legal-aid-agency" target="_blank">Legal Aid Agency</a> may be unwilling to fund such cases to appeal. But failing to fund public interest litigation because of <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&amp;q=legal+aid+cuts&amp;sort=relevancy&amp;language=en&amp;date=all&amp;date_from=&amp;date_to=" target="_blank">budgetry concerns</a> is shortsighted and will cost the public in the long run.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114943/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;"></p>
<p><em><strong>Derek Whayman</strong>, Lecturer in Law, Newcastle University</em></p>
<p><em>This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/property-guardians-live-in-legal-limbo-despite-new-law-to-protect-tenants-from-exploitation-114943" target="_blank">original article</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Main photo: A guardianship property in London. <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sarflondondunc/25962547431/sizes/l" target="_blank">sarflondondunc/Flickr.</a>, <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-NC-ND</a></em><br><a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/newcastle-university-906"></a></p>
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

UK property guardians live in legal limbo – despite new law to protect tenants from exploitation

<html><body>
<p>GUEST OBSERVATION</p>
<p>ABC’s <em>Four Corners</em> coverage showing mistreatment of residents in Australia’s aged care facilities has led to much discussion about ideas to improve care. One proposal is to introduce ratings, which would provide a score reflecting the quality of residential aged care services.</p>
<p>Ratings have come up before in reports about aged care in Australia – in the 2004 “Hogan Review”, the Productivity Commission’s 2011 Caring for Older Australians inquiry and, most recently, in the 2017 Carnell-Paterson Review, which led to the government establishing a new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. These reports all refer to the ratings system used in England.</p>
<p>In Australia, aged care homes are expected to meet 44 accreditation standards, receiving either a pass or fail for each one. These standards will be replaced in 2019 with new aged care quality standards, but homes will still only be expected to pass or fail each standard.</p>
<p>In the past, virtually all providers passed accreditation. This means it has been impossible to tell the difference between providers that excel and those that just scrape through.</p>
<p>England has had two attempts at using ratings since 2004. The current system was introduced in 2014 by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) – the body responsible for inspecting care in nursing homes. During CQC inspections, each home is given a rating against five questions: is it safe, is it effective, is it responsive, it is caring and is it well led?</p>
<p>The four ratings are: outstanding, good, requires improvement, or inadequate. At the end of the inspection, the home is given an overall rating. Homes are legally required to display their ratings, both at the home’s location and on its website.</p>
<p>Recent research shows these ratings are a good indicator of how residents feel about their quality of life in the home. Unsurprisingly, homes with lower rates of staff turnover and fewer staff vacancies also tend to perform better.</p>
<p>So, what are the lessons for Australia?</p>
<p><strong>1. Ratings rarely affect consumer choice; they improve provider quality</strong></p>
<p>Consumers don’t usually use ratings to find care. Choosing an aged care home is not like choosing a hotel or restaurant.</p>
<p>People looking for care are often in the middle of a crisis, such as the death of a partner or an unexpected stay in hospital. The older person is too unwell to make the decision themselves. All too often, families simply choose the closest home or settle for any home that has a place.</p>
<p>Ratings work mostly because they change the behaviour of care providers. When a previous system of ratings in England was abandoned in 2008, providers that had been sceptical of the ratings beforehand argued for their re-introduction.</p>
<p>People I interviewed for my research said this was because homes with the best ratings could negotiate better rates for care, and care home companies could use the ratings to set goals and targets for their staff.</p>
<p><strong>2. Quality is subjective, but only for the little things</strong></p>
<p>Discussions about quality in aged care often come back to the issue that everyone has personal preferences and it is difficult to agree on one definition of quality. The sort of example that comes up is whether a resident would be more interested if a home had Foxtel or Sky or if wine was served with meals.</p>
<p>These are not the sorts of questions that need ratings. Older people, or more frequently their families, can answer these questions themselves by visiting homes, trying the food, seeing the quality of accommodation and asking questions about, for instance, en-suite bathrooms and menu options.</p>
<p>What people need help with is understanding what they cannot easily judge for themselves. Such as:</p>
<ul>
<li>does the home have enough staff and the right mix of skills?</li>
<li>does the home support its staff to form meaningful and supportive relationships, not only with the residents but also with families and with each other?</li>
<li>does the home use good practice in supporting people living with dementia, or in caring for people at the end of their lives?</li>
</ul>
<p>This is where the right sorts of ratings can help shed light on the parts of care that are difficult to assess. Most importantly, it gives providers a good steer on where to focus their efforts.</p>
<p><strong>3. Be prepared to publicise poor care</strong></p>
<p>An important feature of the system in England is that the CQC regularly draws attention to poor care. It does this not just through the ratings but also through other reports it produces about care in England, such as the annual State of Care report. The CQC also provides reports on specific issues – for instance, the difficulties older people with dementia face when they move between care homes and hospitals.</p>
<p>In the first three years of the current ratings scheme, while most homes were rated “good”, 21% of providers received “inadequate” or “requires improvement” ratings, something highlighted in the State of Care report. While about a fifth of the homes rated “inadequate” stayed the same at re-inspection, the CQC found 82% had improved their overall rating. Of the homes rated “requires improvement”, 58% improved at the next inspection.</p>
<p>Such transparency is currently impossible in Australia as the Aged Care Act 1997 restricts what can be made public about poor care in the first place.</p>
<p><strong>4. Ratings are part of a package</strong></p>
<p>While not perfect, the ratings system in England has helped to communicate what good care looks like and given providers something to aim for. This is demonstrated by the popularity of practice guidance on how to get an “outstanding” rating.</p>
<p>But Australian policymakers need to assess other differences with England’s system. The CQC has considerable enforcement and legislative powers when compared to the Aged Care Quality Agency in Australia. The CQC can shut down providers and even bring criminal charges. Australia’s Quality Agency has to refer providers to the Health Department for action.</p>
<p>The UK also has a raft of rights-based legislation to protect vulnerable residents, such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. In Australia, reports into human rights and elder abuse have highlighted the gaps in the legislation to protect the rights of older people.</p>
<p>There are also more organisations involved in care in England and the CQC’s activity is supplemented with safeguarding and quality monitoring by local councils, which organise care.</p>
<p>Ratings may be useful for improving quality in Australia, but should be seen as only one part of a very large and complex puzzle.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103688/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;"></p>
<p><em><strong>Lisa Trigg</strong>, Research Associate, London School of Economics and Political Science</em></p>
<p><em>This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/four-lessons-for-australia-from-englands-system-of-rating-its-aged-care-homes-103688" target="_blank">original article</a>.</em></p>
</body></html>

Four lessons for Australia from England’s system of rating its aged care homes

<html><body>
<p>A 48-year-old engineer from Mount Martha, Antony Fensome, has been sentenced to a community correction order after pleading guilty to disposing of property after bankruptcy, altering records, and leaving Australia without written permission from his trustee.</p>
<p>Magistrate Lethbridge recently sentenced Mr Fensome at Dromana Magistrates’ Court to a 15 month Community Correction Order (CCO) and 150 hours of community service.</p>
<p>Antony Sean Fensome had filed for voluntary bankruptcy on 11 September 2012 with debts in excess of $83,000.</p>
<p>At the time, Mr Fensome jointly owned a property in the United Kingdom which he sold during his bankruptcy period for £225,000.</p>
<p>Following the sale, Mr Fensome provided false information to his trustee about the amount he received, including a false bank account statement and settlement statement, showing he received only £195,000 from the sale. He has since commenced making repayments to the trustee in respect of the $37,708.48 debt owing from the unauthorised sale of the UK property.</p>
<p>During a voluntary interview with the Australian Financial Security Authority Investigators, Mr Fensome made admissions that he had provided false information about the amount of surplus proceeds from the sale and that he had produced the false documents to reduce the amount he would have to pay to his trustee.</p>
<p>Mr Fensome also travelled overseas on six occasions during his bankruptcy, without written permission from his trustee.</p>
<p>In sentencing, His Honour noted that the offences were extremely serious and, if not for the accused’s early guilty plea, personal circumstances and repayment schedule, he would have faced a period of imprisonment.</p>
<p>The matter was prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions on behalf of the Australian Financial Security Authority.</p>
<p> </p>
</body></html>

Bankrupt caught selling UK property without telling Australian trustee

<html><body>
<p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/78452/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"></p>
<p>GUEST OBSERVER</p>
<p><span>Contrary to what Labor and the banks have predicted, revenue from the bank levy will likely be higher, even with deductions.</span></p>
<p>In this year’s budget papers, Treasury estimated that the bank levy will collect about A$1.5 billion in each of the next four years for the government. But this is actually a conservative estimate.</p>
<p>Labor has argued there will be a A$2 billion dollar hole in the bank tax revenue. This is based on the disclosure to the ASX of four of the five affected banks, on what they will likely pay government.</p>
<p>But the banks’ numbers assume there won’t be change to any decisions in response to the bank levy. Research shows this is highly unlikely, as bank customers have worn the cost for bank taxes like this, imposed after the global financial crisis in the UK.</p>
<p>In fact, if the economy keeps growing as many have predicted, and banks grow too, then the amount of revenue the government collects from the levy may even be bigger than Treasury estimates.</p>
<h2><strong>What we know about the bank levy</strong></h2>
<p>When it comes to what revenue the government can get from the bank levy, both the taxable sum, and the tax rate applied, determine what gets collected.</p>
<p>The budget papers specify the taxable sum as including “items such as corporate bonds, commercial paper, certificates of deposit, and Tier 2 capital instruments” but not “Tier 1 capital and deposits of individuals, businesses and other entities protected by the Financial Claims Scheme”. The bank levy will be an annualised rate of 0.06%, applicable for all licensed entity liabilities of at least A$100 billion from July 1, 2017. Small banks and foreign banks are exempt.</p>
<p>Although it is possible the bank levy would not be a deductible expense in calculating corporate income, precedent and statements by government indicate the levy will be deductible. Special taxes on the mining industry (including royalties and the petroleum resource rent tax), state payroll, land taxes, stamp duties and indirect taxes such as petroleum excise are all deductions in the calculation of taxable corporate income.</p>
<h2><strong>Errors in the assumptions about banks</strong></h2>
<p>Labor and banks also assume that the bank levy is a deduction in assessing corporate income. The preliminary data made public by four of the five affected banks indicates the gross revenue gain of the bank levy, less the reduction in corporate tax, will be less than the budget numbers.</p>
<p>That is, the net revenue reflects a 0.042% levy rather than the 0.06% rate. This also assumes shareholders will bear all of the net additional taxation.</p>
<p>But it also assumes the banks will not change any decisions. This is both a simplistic and an unlikely scenario.</p>
<p>In essence, the bank levy is a selective indirect tax on one of the inputs used by the large banks to provide financial services to their customers.</p>
<p>A more likely scenario is that the banks will seek to, and succeed in, passing forward most of the new indirect tax to their customers as a combination of higher interest rates and fees. From past experience, banks pass forward higher Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) interest rates, just as they pass forward lower rates.</p>
<p>Given that the affected five banks account for over 80% of the market, together with the reluctance of most Australian business and household customers to switch banks, there is a high probability that most of the levy will be passed forward as higher bank interest rates and fees.</p>
<p>Should the banks pass forward most of the levy to their customers, the increase in bank revenue will match the increase of bank costs caused by the levy. That is, taxable corporate income will remain about the same. Then, the overall government revenue gain is given by the gross 0.06% bank levy.</p>
<h2><strong>The bank levy could even collect more</strong></h2>
<p>If the output and incomes of the five banks to pay the levy expand over the next four years, then we would expect additional revenue to be collected by government to increase over time. The budget papers, the RBA, international agencies and private sector economists all forecast economic growth. It’s unlikely that the big five banks would not also experience economic growth.</p>
<p>So the budget paper forecast that the bank levy revenue collection of about A$1.5 billion a year for each of the next four years, has to be on the conservative side.</p>
<p>The revenue estimates for the levy are forecasts or projections compiled in a world of uncertainty. So a lot is still up for debate, including not only the design of the levy but the future path of the economy in general and for the large banks in particular.</p>
<p>Details and assumptions underlying government estimates of the revenue from the bank levy are unclear. It would be an unusual precedent not to allow the levy to be a deduction in calculating corporate income tax, and so reducing the net revenue gain. But the implicit assumption of the bank released numbers of no decision changes by the banks is unrealistic.</p>
<p>If banks, as businesses in general, pass forward to customers much of an input tax, a large part of the first-round fall in corporate income, is offset by higher revenue. Government forward estimates of additional government tax revenue collected by the levy likely are on the conservative side.</p>
<p><em>John Freebairn is a Professor in Department of Economics, University of Melbourne and the author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-freebairn-90" target="_blank">here</a>.</em></p>
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

The government will likely get more from the bank levy than Labor or the big four think: John Freebairn

<html><body>
<p>The UK commercial property investment markets were already past their peak in both pricing and volume terms a year ago, and the result on the referendum on EU membership has arguably done little to change the trend, according to Savills’ latest report.</p>
<p>Confidence was definitely rocked in the third quarter of 2016, but by the end of last year there was acceptance that Brexit is a long process, rather than a one-hit event.</p>
<p>What has changed since the referendum is the make-up of investors that are active in the UK, with less activity by institutions and a sharp rise in demand from overseas private investors.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/02/21/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-21%20at%207.03.04%20pm.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></p>
<p><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/02/21/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-21%20at%207.03.04%20pm.jpg" alt=""></p>
<p>Many investors have been attracted by the weakening of the pound, and at present this is seen as enough to compensate for a perceived increase in occupational risk.</p>
<p>Overall, our predictions for 2017 and beyond are investment volumes are expected to trend downwards towards £50 billion per annum, with a swing away from opportunistic deals to income-security plays.</p>
<p>Yields are expected to rise in most sectors, though the stable debt market, low vacancy rates, and global investor demand is expected to put a lower ceiling on prime yields than was reached during the GFC.</p>
<p>Brexit definitely carries a risk of creating a sustained period of occupier uncertainty, but to some degree this should be balanced by lower levels of development activity.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/02/21/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-21%20at%207.03.12%20pm.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></p>
<p><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/02/21/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-21%20at%207.03.12%20pm.jpg" alt=""></p>
<p>However, until some clarity emerges as to how Britain will exit from the EU, the real impact on the UK market will be hard to quantify.</p>
<p>“We expect investment volume in Continental Europe in 2017 to be similar to that of 2016,” the report stated.</p>
<p>Although interest rates are expected to rise to 1.16% in the Eurozone, the property market should remain high on investors’ radar.</p>
<p>“In France, Germany and the Netherlands, where elections will be held, we expect a wait and see attitude by some investors during the first half of the year,” the report stated.</p>
<p>However, the prevailing story regarding core countries is the lack of prime product.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/02/21/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-21%20at%207.03.21%20pm.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a></p>
<p><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/02/21/Screen%20Shot%202017-02-21%20at%207.03.21%20pm.jpg" alt=""></p>
<p>At the other end of the spectrum, prime yields in non-core countries are still above the European average, offering more attractive returns and yield compression potential.</p>
<p>This is especially so in countries like Spain and Italy where strong property fundamentals combined with the availability of portfolio opportunities are attracting foreign investors.</p>
</body></html>

Little change in the United Kingdom commercial property market despite Brexit: Savills

<html><body>
<p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/68791/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"></p>
<p>GUEST OBSERVER</p>
<p>The UK has long been in the grip of a housing crisis. Back in 2004, respected economist Kate Barker carried out a major review of housing, concluding that if the low rates of construction continued, it would increase levels of homelessness and continue to make housing less affordable. </p>
<p>Ten years later, it’s clear that these urgent warnings fell on deaf ears. In 2004/05, when Barker’s report was published, 205,000 houses were built in the UK. In 2014/15, only 153,000 homes were constructed. As each year passes, the backlog of demand for housing grows larger, leading to rising house prices and greater numbers of households in rented accommodation. </p>
<p>Currently, almost 80 percent of all new dwellings are built by private house builders. In 2014/15, just ten companies were responsible for nearly half of the new homes developed. But it has not always been this way. In the 1960s and 70s, there were several years when local authorities and housing associations developed more houses than all private companies put together. </p>
<p>Prioritising profit</p>
<p>The issue of who builds housing matters, because government has so little control over the decisions and actions of private house builders. And since the 2008 recession, what has become clear is that the biggest house builders have been growing their profits much faster than they have been building new houses. </p>
<p>Our recent research shows that from 2012 to 2015, the number of new houses built by the five largest private house builders grew by 31 percent. Meanwhile, their revenues increased by 76 percent, and their end-of-year profits (after taxation and various other deductions) increased by over 200 percent. It seems that maintaining the scarcity of new housing keeps sale prices high, which removes the incentive to significantly increase the number of dwellings being built.</p>
<p>Of course, profit-making can be helpful, if firms then reinvest in more house building. But in 2015, the five biggest house builders returned 43 percent of their annual profits to shareholders in dividends. Our research suggests that if this had been reinvested in building more homes, nearly 9,000 extra houses could have been built – equivalent to a 6 percent increase in annual output.</p>
<p>It could also be argued that shareholder investment makes such house building possible, and that dividends are a fair price to pay. Yet this still leaves us with an uncomfortable conclusion; that an increase in housing supply depends on whether just a few companies decide to reinvest or pay out to shareholders.</p>
<p>Changing direction?</p>
<p>For many years after the 2008 financial crash, senior politicians did little to highlight or address this issue. But recent announcements by the government suggest a shift in political direction. Sajid Javid, the government minister responsible for housing, recently declared that “the big developers must release their stranglehold on supply”. </p>
<p>This echoes the more general statements made by the new prime minster: Theresa May has suggested that her government will intervene in dysfunctional markets – and the market for new houses could well be the first in line. </p>
<p>The forthcoming Autumn Statement promises increased government investment in housing. A series of new measures were recently announced, including the £3 billion Home Building Fund. This will be targeted at small and medium-sized developers, and may work to lessen the dominance of the large firms. </p>
<p>What does not seem to be on the government’s agenda, however, is the introduction of measures that would increase building by local authorities, housing associations and other non-profit bodies – in spite of proposals by sector representatives which outline how this could be achieved. </p>
<p>The government could do much more to increase public sector house building. Possible measures include allowing not-for-profit and public bodies to use more of their reserves for housing, and lifting borrowing restrictions. A wide range of economists have advised the government to borrow for investment in physical infrastructure. </p>
<p>Housing is not currently categorised as infrastructure, but treating it as such could generate economic gains, while addressing the growing shortfall in housing. What is for sure is that the house building industry on its own will not supply the homes which the UK so desperately needs.</p>
<p><em><span class="fn author-name">Tom Archer is </span>PhD Candidate, Sheffield Hallam University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tom-archer-315893" target="_blank">here</a>.</em></p>
</body></html>

United Kingdom

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

United Kingdom

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News