Author Archives: James Yardley

FIRST TIME BUYERS BEWARE: The Shared Equity Con

Posted on by

First time buyers are finding it increasingly difficult to get on the property ladder. Incomes and property prices remain distorted and banks have become increasingly stringent.

With the situation as it is many first time buyers are turning to shared equity housing schemes. Instead of buying the whole of a property you only buy a percentage. The local government housing authority or a building company own the rest. You pay rent on the remaining percentage but the amount you borrow is significantly reduced and so are your mortgage repayments. You also require a smaller deposit.

The government loves the scheme, it helps the construction industry and keeps the property market booming.

As someone looking to get onto the property ladder I had been considering such a scheme. I was therefore appalled when I came across some of the horror stories people have had with shared equity schemes.   I felt it was important that anyone looking into the scheme should be aware of what they are getting into. Here is a selection of people’s experience.  All comments are taken from the evening standard see the full article here and all the other comments as well.
– Marlise, Reading, 01/07/2010

Biggest mistake of my life! I bought a 40% share of a property through Thames Valley Housing Association in 2005. After a couple of years, rent had gone up by almost £200 and service charges sky rocketed, for a very poor service. Due to personal circumstances I had to move to London, to which TVHA gave me permission to rent via the local council. The council tenants did not pay rent for close to a year, and after struggling to pay living expenses in London and Rent/Mortgage on the shared ownership property, I went into serious debt, as well as mortgage debt. TVHA have been extremely unhelpful in this situation. Not making it easy for me to sell my share of the property (the costs of which are ridiculous). I am now unemployed and left to deal with mortgage debt collectors’ calls and harassment from TVHA for their rent. I no longer have an attachment to this property and would love to see it go as it has caused me so much stress, but I am trapped.

 

 

– SR, London E14, 15/04/2010

Biggest mistake of my life wish I had read this four years ago. Desperately need to sell to move closer to a disabled relative, there are errors in the lease preventing me from selling and the housing association are taking their time to sort it out. Paying a fortune in service charges for poor service.

 

 

– Lewis, Southampton – England, 02/03/2010

Very Interesting reading all the comments, only wish the info had been out there 2 years ago before I bought my 40% share. Rent and charges have jumped up by 75% in 2 years, flat has dropped £40,000 in value, can’t afford to increase my share, can’t afford to sell, and now paying more in combined rent and mortgage than I would have if I were privately renting….
Whatever anybody thinks, it is genuinely a mistake to get involved in shared ownership (even in a rising market) believe me!!
– Josh, London, 17/07/2009

 

Hi, I have just bought on shared ownership. This was the only means of myself and girlfriend to get on the ladder. We are paying a good £450 cheaper than renting in that area. Our incomes are low but we still managed to get a 4.5% fixed rate. This was the only option for us. To be honest all the problems are down to lack of research and thought. In a falling climate you will obviously find it hard to sell property. Not only this but we have gone into this scheme planning on staircasing to 100%. I don’t think anyone can say this is worse than renting as I am saving £450 per month to go on more equity.


As a long term I don’t see this as an investment but a foot up. To me it’s less risk of neg equity if circumstances change i.e break up. If you go in to this thinking it’s an easy way then you will find problems every day. As for the overpriced bit. Ours was on the market for 300,000. We got them to go down to 250,000 due to our independent survey we got and they accepted as they knew we would pull out otherwise. This is about 10% cheaper than all 2 beds in the area on the open market.


I think if you look at this as an easy way to own a home by still having the same rights as renting you will be in for a big awakening. I also have friends who have bought and sold on this scheme and because they did their research they have come out with no problems and quids in.
So I part own a 2 bed apartment right on the river in London next to canary wharf for 800pcm inclusive. Bad??!!

– Sarah, London, 09/07/2009

I am in the same situation trying to sell my 45% of shared ownership property to no success.
My rent and service charge has doubled it is just ridiculous! Now in the predicament of taking it off the market to try and gain some equity as if we sold now we would lose so much, however have a baby on the way and need out! Feel completely stuck in this flat, but had nowhere else to live and no deposit so had to go shared ownership! A2 Dominion housing associations are also unhelpful, time wasters and money grabbers. Good luck to anyone trying to get out!

– Gillian, London, 16/07/2009

I too, am in a similar predicament to the other people commenting. After securing a good job in Norfolk I informed my housing trust (Metropolitan Homes) that I needed to sell my 40% share of my one bedroom flat. It has taken them 5 weeks to market the property, a valuation (for which I had to find and pay a surveyor) £15,000 below one estates agents valuation and £30,000 below a second estate agents valuation. They have sent only two people to view in the two weeks since marketing and I now have only 6 weeks till I take up my new post with NHS Norfolk. (I am a nurse)
Everyone recognises that selling a house is stressful but the ‘don’t care’ attiutude of housing associations just makes the whole situation worse!

 

 

– Aji, London, 09/09/2008

The shared-ownership scheme has been around for years and the Government are always attempting to promote it, it’s a way of getting people off council waiting lists. I have lived in a shared-ownership property for 15 years and I would never recommend it to anyone, in fact I would advise people to think very, very carefully before taking part. My housing association owns the larger percentage of the house, but do not pay a penny towards the upkeep, as a ‘home owner’ I am expected to do this myself. There are lots of pitfalls with these schemes so my advice is “buyer beware”!

I offer my condolences to all those who have suffered but I also thank them for sharing their experiences. Hopefully we can now avoid making the same mistakes they have. This was not a case of me cherry picking the worst stories. This was the majority experience; please check the evening standard article for yourself.

If you are considering a shared-equity scheme the message is clear, do your research and don’t rush into anything. Make sure you read the small print.

More articles on property coming soon.

 

POKER SHUT DOWN – UPDATE

Posted on by

On Wednesday there was some good news for online poker players following the shutdown last Friday. The two biggest sites in the US, Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars, came to an agreement with the United States Attorney Office for the Southern District of New York. The deal means the sites get there domains back but US players will still not be allowed to play. However the agreement means that the sites are once again open for all non-US players.

Although unable to play, many US players believe this is an important first step to getting their money back. This was affirmed by FullTilt.

‘The agreement represents an important first step towards returning funds to U.S. players because it allows Full Tilt Poker to utilize its domain to facilitate the withdrawal of player funds. But, unfortunately, there remain significant practical and legal impediments to returning funds to players in the immediate future.’

Since the shutdown, poker players have exerted a substantial amount of pressure on US politicians and many believe this is the reason for the swift agreement. Well known player Andrew Robl tweeted, ‘Part of the reason for swift return of the domains is the huge public outcry. call/email your senators etc’

We can now be hopeful that US account holders will receive their money back in the future at some point.

In a statement the US attorney for the Southern District of New York stated, ‘this Office expects the companies to return the money that U.S. players entrusted to them, and we will work with the poker companies to facilitate the return of funds to players, as today’s agreements with PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker as today’s agreement demonstrates.’

See the 2+2 thread below for the poker communities reaction to the shutdown in MS Paint form!

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/mspaint-online-poker-players-before-after-1023686/

 

POKER PLAYERS PANIC AS FBI SEIZE POKER SITES

Posted on by

Millions of poker players were sent into panic on Friday as the three major US poker sites, Poker Stars, Full Tilt and Absolute Poker went offline as they were targeted by FBI

Restraining orders were issued against five internet domain names and 75 bank accounts used by the online poker companies.

The founders of PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and Absolute Poker were indicted on charges of bank fraud, money laundering, and illegal gambling.

Online poker has been illegal in the US since 2006 following the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and some sites such as party poker closed down their US operations. However the majority of big sites including Poker Stars and Full Tilt continued to operate by getting players to deposit into offshore bank accounts. Poker Stars and Full Tilt have been now been charged with money laundering (amongst other things) accused of cleaning money via transactions with fake businessess (selling golf balls, flowers and jewelery.)

Currently US players are unable to play or withdraw any funds and they are extremely worried as to whether they will be able get their money back. The amounts frozen range from a few dollars to hundreds of thousands.

Famous young poker player Tom Dwann only added to the panic by speculating on his twitter that absolute poker accounts were only worth 40 cents on the dollar and Cake poker accounts were worth 70cents. Although he did later add that he felt Pokerstars and Full Tilt accounts should be safe, he is however a member of the Full Tilt Poker team.

Some players have frantically been trying to sell their accounts. Theoretically PokerStars accounts should be safe since under Isle of Man law (where they are based) players accounts are required to be held in a trust. Whether this will prove to be the case is open to debate.

The Department of Justice is seeking 3 billion dollars in fines from the major sites. The DOJ’s statement also stated that it would seize all assets from the owners of the company, so this includes the companies themselves.

The 3 billion dollar fine has worried poker players as to whether the 3 companies will be able to remain solvent, particularly when combined with a huge spate of withdrawals, similar to that of a run on a bank. All the sites involved state that player’s money is safe.

Poker Stars stated, ‘Please be assured player balances are safe. There is no cause for concern about loss of funds in your PokerStars account. For all customers outside the US it is business as usual.

The PokerStars website has been moved to www.pokerstars.eu, and the PokerStars Support email address is now support@pokerstars.eu. PokerStars apologises to all players for any inconvenience caused by this disruption.’

The situation regarding non-US players is very unclear. Many players are still able to play as well as withdraw funds although some are not.

One panicked forum member said,

I don’t get why people are even asking if it’s only going to affect US players. If you’re outside the US you can still play but you’re basically playing for play chips because tilt and stars don’t have any money to give you if you cash out.

According to @GamblingComp, all the indicted sites, around the world, will be down within 48 hours. So far this has not proven to be the case. Non-US players are currently able to play.

Full Tilt said, ‘We assure all players on Full Tilt Poker that your online playing experience will not change and that you will be able to both deposit and withdraw funds as needed. Your money remains safe, secure, and accessible at all times.’

The Poker Players Alliance stated, “On behalf of the millions of poker players across the country, we are shocked at the action taken by the U.S. Department of Justice today against online poker companies and will continue to fight for Americans’ right to participate in the game they enjoy,” said former Senator Alfonse D’Amato, chairman of the Poker Players Alliance. “Online poker is not a crime and should not be treated as such. We are currently gathering all of the information around today’s announcement and will offer detailed analysis when the full facts become available.”

Some have speculated that the recent crackdown by the US government may be about to pave the way for a government approved site. A D.C. Internet gambling law cleared Congress just a few days ago. The law allows the D.C Lottery to create online poker and other “games of chance”.

Many US States have been calling for the legalisation  of online poker so that it might be used to raise additional tax revenues that might be used to help balance struggling state budgets.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/dc/2011/04/dc-internet-gambling-law-clears-congress

 

AV: Vote Yes or NO; Reasons For and Against the Alternative Vote

Posted on by

I’ll be honest this AV debate has me confused and I’m usually pretty certain of where I stand on things. I started off thinking that I was going to vote no but some friends of mine made a strong case to vote yes. So I’m writing this article to help my own thought process and hopefully yours as well.

I’m not going to explain the whole system in detail. With AV instead of having just one vote you have the option but not obligation to also vote for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. preference.

Reasons For and Against

Argument For – More voter choice

The main argument for AV is that it gives voters more choice. Instead of just voting for your first choice you can also indicate you’re second choice and more if you wish. This makes it more likely the candidate will achieve a majority share of the vote.  The argument goes that this will act as a stronger mandate and encourage people to get more involved in the political process.

J’s thoughts

It sounds like a good idea in theory. I imagine many voters would welcome the opportunity to add a second or more preferences to their vote.

J’s concern

Imagine a marginal constituency with the two main competitors Labour and Lib Dem. The Conservatives have no chance of winning.

A strong Labour supporter votes just for the Labour party. He ignore any other preferences because he doesn’t want the Lib Dems to win and he certainly doesn’t want to vote conservative.

A Conservative supporter votes for the Conservatives first and then because he doesn’t want Labour in he puts the Lib Dems as his second choice.

The first and second preferences count for the same and because this is a marginal constituency there is no chance of a majority with the first round of votes. Essentially the Labour supporter’s vote counts once and the Conservative supporter’s vote counts twice. (In the first round he votes conservative, in the second he votes for the lib-dems instead when the conservatives drop out.) Is this fair? AV supporters would argue it is, during any one round everyone is still voting once. I’m not so sure it is fair and this leads me on to the next point against AV.

Argument Against – All preferences have the same Weight

I’m not sure it’s right that someone’s 5th choice has the same weight as someone else’s 1st.  In fact it almost feels undemocratic. Why didn’t they just weight the vote prefences differently! i.e. a first choice counts for more than a second and a second more than a third etc… Increasingly as I write this article I can’t help thinking that the whole system is half baked and badly thought out.

Argument For – Less Tactical Voting

Pro AV supporters argue that the AV system eliminates the need for tactical voting therefore making the system fairer.

J’s thoughts

I do believe that AV will reduce the amount of tactical voting. With the current system many voters vote for parties other than the ones they support because their own parties have no chance of winning. With the AV system you can vote for both your own party (even though it won’t win) and another party as a second choice.

I think we would be kidding ourselves if we thought this would eliminate tactical voting entirely. People will always come up with elaborate ways to support their party. That said I do believe AV would help with the problem of tactical voting.

Argument Against – Time and Cost

There’s no doubt AV will take a lot longer to count (estimates suggest 5 times longer and because of this you will have to pay counters more.) There will also be costs in switching over to the new system. Overall costs have been put at £250million

J’s thoughts

At this time of austerity it does seem stupid to waste money on changing the voting system. That said of the £250 million almost £100million has already been lost on the referendum alone. We might as well spend the other £150 million if AV really is the right system but we better be damn sure.   

Argument For – Fairer and More Engaging

One of the strongest arguments against the current voting system is that people in safe seats feel disempowered. There votes ultimately mean almost nothing since the same party is always bound to win.

J’s thoughts

AV will do very little to solve this problem, safe seats will continue to remain safe. This problem is really more of an argument for proportional representation.

Argument Against – It’s Complicated! Would it Put People Off Voting

Whatever people say about this AV system it’s definitely more complicated than the current system. For me this is the biggest and probably decisive point against AV. The system is complicated.

Do I have to put a second preference? / How many prefences do I or can I put?/When does my 4th preference count? Etc.  !#$%^&*

J’s Thoughts

My biggest concern is that it might discourage people from voting. Am I being patronising? I don’t think so. People are busy and who can be bothered to go through the rules of a voting system? Are you going to vote if you don’t know how the system works. Some will but I fear some will be put off. 1 vote keeps it simple.

My Conclusion

Keep it Simple. I started off writing this article genuinely not sure which way I would vote. I’ve concluded the current system may not be perfect but AV isn’t the right replacement for us. Our democracy is strongest when we keep things simple.

New York Times Paywell Web Charging: Will it Work?

Posted on by

On March 28th the New York Times will start charging for access to its website with monthly subscriptions between $15 and $35. Although anyone will still be allowed access to 20 articles a month for free.

The question is will it work? If you’re like me then you’ll be hoping that it doesn’t. Like in the case of the London Times the industry will be watching closely to see if the model is successful. The worry for the average punter is that all the major papers might follow with similar models leaving us with no free option for our news. Worse still, what if Paywall models spread to other areas of the web, denying us the huge resources of free information which we are now so used too? Whether it works or not there’s no doubt it’s a massive gamble by the New York Times, currently one of the most visited websites in the world. In March 2009 the New York Times had 20 million unique visitors making it the most visited newspaper site in the world and more than twice as popular as the next best newspaper site.

The London Times traffic has collapsed since it introduced its charging model. It was a brave decision to be the first to introduce such a model but it also appears to have been a costly one. The Times traffic has disintegrated and its competitors have thrived. They now enjoy far bigger worldwide audiences. Websites such as the Guardian, Mail and Huffington Post will be rubbing their hands at the New York Times decision. These website saw large increases in traffic following the London Times decision to start charging and will likely see the same again.

Unlike the London Times model the New York version will still allow some free access. Visitors will still be able to access twenty articles a month for free. This should help to mitigate a catastrophic crash in traffic such as in the London Times case. Occasional casual users will still be able to access the site without worry. However will regulars be prepared to pay $180 to $425 a year when so many free alternatives exist? I very much doubt the majority will, particularly in this time of weak consumer confidence. Polls suggest about 90% of current users will only use their free 20 article a month allowance before leaving. Whatever happens, Frost Magazine readers need not worry, we will always be free.

How to Be the Perfect Boyfriend and Make Your Woman Happy.

Posted on by

There is a myth in society that women are incredibly complicated and you can’t make them happy. Well that’s a load of rubbish, women are actually simple and, yes, you can make her happy! Here are a few tips below which will hopefully make you a better boyfriend and make your girlfriend happier.

Be independent, have your own goals and purpose and never depend upon her

This is vitally important; a woman will never love a man whom depends on her. A woman wants to feel the strength of her man and his ability to confront any situation. If a man is constantly depending on his woman for support, whatever that may be financial, emotional, physical etc; he appears weak. In other words he is not really a man.

When you depend upon your girlfriend. Your girlfriend will think she is acting like your mother. Nothing could be less attractive to her. Always remember, your girlfriend is not your mother.

This poor guy never stood a chance: Guy calls out a girl who rejected him for years on Facebook

Don’t moan or complain

Women hate it when their men constantly moan and whine. Well it’s not just women, everybody hates it. We all know whining or moaning is unattractive and yet many of us continue to do it regularly because it makes us feel better.

When you moan or complain your basically saying life is unfair. Whether it is or isn’t doesn‘t matter. By moaning or whining you’re not taking responsibility for your own actions. You’re feeling sorry for yourself. It’s not just unhealthy for your relationship, it’s unhealthy for yourself. Successful people don’t complain, they don’t feel sorry for themselves they get on with things. They create solutions and work around tricky situations.

Your girlfriend is not someone to unload all your grievances onto. Remember, your girlfriend is not there not support you, you are there to support her. When we moan and say how everything is so unfair we are showing ourselves as weak. We are using our women as a crutch and this goes back to our first fundamental principle. Never depend on your women.

Why would your girlfriend want to be with a moaner? This is clearly a man who can’t cope with the world, who will never be successful and who most importantly won’t be able to support her and can’t be relied upon.

She will test you

A good girlfriend will test her man. Women may often pick at things which may seem trivial. Men often don’t seem to understand this and some men get bothered and annoyed by it. Why do women test their partners, because they want to be certain about their man? Is he trustworthy, does he have integrity is he strong and can he cope? The strong man relishes such challenges and is more than happy to be tested. What sort of things will she do? A test might take many different forms, perhaps you contradicted yourself (integrity test), A weak man may think her picking as unnecessary and trivial but the strong man recognises his integrity has been questioned and will then seek to allay his girlfriend’s fears. Other tests might be physical or mental strength tests etc.

Use body language, don’t try and have an argument with her

This is a classic problem which most men fall into at some point. Weaker men may joke about how it’s impossible to have a rational argument with a woman. But men often fail to see things from the women perspective. For a start she usually doesn’t give a damn what your arguing over and this isn’t to say she can’t have a rational argument when she wants to. As an example maybe you were supposed to do something with her but you didn’t. What’s she’s really upset about is usually that you’ve shown you lack integrity and can’t be trusted, not that you didn’t do thing were you were going to.
Maybe you had a great reason for not doing that thing with her. But here’s the thing NOBODY CARES, least of all her. Never try and talk or argue her round. Instead use your body and body language to communicate with her. Reassure her of who you truly are.

Are Computer Games the Future of Sport?

Posted on by

We’ve been playing computer games for years but are they now about to become a spectator sport in their own right. Perhaps this is already the case. Computer game sports (E-sports) are big business in South Korea where matches are televised and whole stadiums are filled. The most popular game by far is the real time strategy game Starcraft. Despite being over 10 years old with outdated graphics the game continues to grow in popularity and there is no doubt the games are extremely entertaining. Since its release Starcraft has sold 11 million copies worldwide. Below is an example of an exciting rush game between top two current players in the world.

Now 12 years after the original and 4 years late Starcraft 2 the sequel is about to be launched. One of the main reasons Blizzard made the game was that it believed there could be huge potential in growing e-sports in the west. Will it take off? We will have to wait and see. Starcraft 2 is released worldwide on July 27.

by James Yardley

James Yardley on The Elusive Peace – An examination into the future of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Part 2.

Posted on by

The Elusive Peace – An examination into the future of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Part 2 – What are the internal divisions within Israel and how does this affect the chances of a future peace settlement with the Palestinians.

Israel

At first glance Israel appears a united country but when it comes to the question of the Palestinians, Israel is deeply divided. These divisions are exacerbated by Israel’s electoral system which is one of proportional representation. Israel has a wide range of different political parties. Many are very small special interest parties often campaigning on a single policy. The Israeli parliament, the Knesset is made up of 120 seats. To form a government a party needs to gain 61 seats. However because of the system of proportional representation no party ever forms a majority. In 2009 the largest party Kadima achieved only 22% of the vote gaining 28 seats. Miles short of the 61 needed for a majority.

Israeli governments tend to be a fragile coalition of various parties and as a result tend to be weak. Often the main body of a coalition may struggle to appease more radical elements. Unsurprisingly the average Israeli government has only lasted 25 months as inevitably elements within the coalition fall out with one another. A series of weak governments has made it difficult for an Israeli prime ministers to take decisive action regarding the Palestinian question.

An important point to consider in regard to the Palestinian question is that Israel is surprisingly only about 70% Jewish. There is a substantial and growing Arab minority making up around 20% of the population. There are two Israeli Arab political parties, United Arab List (4 seats) and Balad (3seats). Some commentators have speculated there is potential for internal conflict should this minority continue to grow. The strained situation is heightened by the fact that the Arab minority maintains very close ties with those in the occupied territories. There have already been incidents of rioting and unrest during the first intifada (1987-1993) and the second intifada (2000- ).

Many in Israel are also very much aware of this threat. This is illustrated by Yisrael Beiteinu, a secular nationalist party which uses the slogan, ‘no loyalty, no citizenship’ towards Israeli Arabs and is described by the Israeli media as ‘far right’. The party wants to create a new Palestinian state and then transfer areas of high Arab population in Israel to this new state in exchange for Jewish areas in the West Bank. Despite being a very new party founded in 1999, which initially only achieved 4 seats, it has now grown to be the third largest party in the Knesset gaining 15 seats in the 2009 general election. Israeli Arabs remain vehemently opposed to the idea. Israel has a much greater standard of living compared the occupied territories.

Likud (27 seats) the party of the current prime minister Netanyahu continue to oppose the creation of a Palestinian state and supports the building of more settlements within the West Bank. Shas (11seats) a religious party also tends to support this policy.

It has always been Likud’s policy to seek the whole land of Israel including in particular the areas of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). They believe Israel has a right to own this land. This is why Israeli settlement building continues.

In the past their have been big internal divisions within the party and the country regarding the policy. This was most famously highlighted when Ariel Sharron (then prime minister and leader of Likud and previously known as the champion of the settlers) abandoned the policy and his party in 2005 forming a new centrist party (Kadima) in order to carry out a disengagement plan. Removing Israeli settlements from Palestinian areas in Gazza and some areas of the West Bank.

The withdrawal has been heavily criticised within Israel for many reasons and many view it as a failure given the Hamas rocket attacks from Gazza in 2008. Since the withdrawal Israeli public opinion has seen a large shift in support back towards the right. In the most recent elections Likud more than doubled its number of seats.

A combination of deep internal divisions and successive weak governments continue to contribute to the lack of progress regarding a settlement with the Palestinians. Although these are by no means the only or most important factors. In the next article we will examine the impact of internal Palestinian divisions on a future peace settlement.

by James Yardley