Annington Research
Champagne anyone...?
This was a standard MoD get rich quick scheme that was such a monumental cock up it was untrue. I know of one case where a serving chap has been moved out of his quarter and into ERA so Annington could have his house. Appalling.
The public don't care because this is just another example of successive governments' love of getting things on the Never Never; making them look good today and sod what happens tomorrow. They'll be buying stuff at Dixons next at the knock down rate of 29.8% APR.......
As for servicemen getting cheap housing, I agree there needs to be some parity with the civvy world. If we were to lose the housing entitlement, would it be possible to see a similar concession by the civvies? How about civvy employers choose 30 staff each year, at random, take them out the back and shoot them? That would bring some parity with the military.....
The public don't care because this is just another example of successive governments' love of getting things on the Never Never; making them look good today and sod what happens tomorrow. They'll be buying stuff at Dixons next at the knock down rate of 29.8% APR.......
As for servicemen getting cheap housing, I agree there needs to be some parity with the civvy world. If we were to lose the housing entitlement, would it be possible to see a similar concession by the civvies? How about civvy employers choose 30 staff each year, at random, take them out the back and shoot them? That would bring some parity with the military.....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Continent
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do we need housing?
I have sympathy with the sentiments but I think that we - the MOD plc - will find it increasingly difficult to justify in the future to the Treasury the provision of housing. At present, SFA is heavily subsidised (where else could you rent a 3 brm detached house with a garage (albeit leaky) in the Chilterns for about GBP 300 pcm, inclusive of 'council tax') and not be subject to Inland Revenue fringe benefit taxation.
Yes, I can hear the screams now - ours is not a job, its a life style etc etc - however teachers, police, nurses, fire-fighters and other public-sector workers have to provide housing within their gnerally meagre salaries (well, perhaps not fire-fighters!). For years the RN has encouraged private home ownership away from home ports (read - discourage married patches) without any obvious operational penalty.
As one who has lived all over the country in a variety of well-maintained and spacious SFA, my most satisfying experience was to sit recently on my own front step of my modest terraced house with a mug of tea and a newspaper and contemplating my (large)mortgage. I suggest that other people try it and appreciate the concept of self-reliance. I believe - and I have socialised this with a number of colleagues - that SFA should be regarded as a transitionary step and not as a substitute womb. Too many people are still leaving the Services without adequate provision of housing. In many cases it is their own fault.
I suspect this may have upset some/a lot of people.
Yes, I can hear the screams now - ours is not a job, its a life style etc etc - however teachers, police, nurses, fire-fighters and other public-sector workers have to provide housing within their gnerally meagre salaries (well, perhaps not fire-fighters!). For years the RN has encouraged private home ownership away from home ports (read - discourage married patches) without any obvious operational penalty.
As one who has lived all over the country in a variety of well-maintained and spacious SFA, my most satisfying experience was to sit recently on my own front step of my modest terraced house with a mug of tea and a newspaper and contemplating my (large)mortgage. I suggest that other people try it and appreciate the concept of self-reliance. I believe - and I have socialised this with a number of colleagues - that SFA should be regarded as a transitionary step and not as a substitute womb. Too many people are still leaving the Services without adequate provision of housing. In many cases it is their own fault.
I suspect this may have upset some/a lot of people.
Tories - they really care!
To re-iterate a previous post, the lead manager of the bid for the houses was the Principal Finance unit of Nomura Securities. This outfit had a very high profile in the late 90s, specialising in buying up assets that produced a reliable cash flow - 3,000 pubs for example. The chief was a bloke called Guy Hands.
Generally, their ventures worked like this - you negotiate a price with the owner, keeping it as low as you can. You cough up part of the financing from your own resources (say 20%). Then you cut up that price into bonds guaranteed on the cash flow and sell them on the stock market to raise the rest of the money and pony up. (This is called "securitisation".) You now have a) the assets. b) the debt. c) the cashflow. (for example the rent) Clearly, part of the cash is written down to paying the interest coupon on the bonds. You can effectively forget about it. The rest, obviously, you pocket. This is where the clever bit comes in.
The clever bit is this - you think of a way to sell the assets for more than you bought them for. (for example, you sell some of the houses every year) Crucially, although you only have to repay the sum that you borrowed , you get the whole wad when you sell up. (NB the interest and repayments on the bonds were paid from the cashflow of those assets - the rent) So, even if the value of the assets hasn't gone up that far, you get the selling price minus the proportion of the bill you paid for yourself, rather than funding from those bonds - that is to say a killing. (This is called "leverage" - if you paid 20% out of your firm's money and securitised the rest, and the assets rose in value by 15%, you get a 95% profit - even assuming every penny of income from the asset went to paying the interest on the bonds. It is usually horribly risky as it works in the opposite sense as well, but in this case you are fairly safe due to the guaranteed cashflow, covering your repayments, and the asset backing, covering your own investment and guaranteeing those bonds doubly.)
Clever, eh? Well Mr. Hands was indeed clever - Oxford double first and a McKinsey's management consultant, they don't tend to be thick. And if that career path sounds familiar it's because it is. Hands followed it at the same time as William Hague, and was such a good friend that he could advise foetus boy to "forget about the leadership and spend the next five years f*cking your brains out with Ffyon." In '96, of course, Hague was in the cabinet. Funny that.
Generally, their ventures worked like this - you negotiate a price with the owner, keeping it as low as you can. You cough up part of the financing from your own resources (say 20%). Then you cut up that price into bonds guaranteed on the cash flow and sell them on the stock market to raise the rest of the money and pony up. (This is called "securitisation".) You now have a) the assets. b) the debt. c) the cashflow. (for example the rent) Clearly, part of the cash is written down to paying the interest coupon on the bonds. You can effectively forget about it. The rest, obviously, you pocket. This is where the clever bit comes in.
The clever bit is this - you think of a way to sell the assets for more than you bought them for. (for example, you sell some of the houses every year) Crucially, although you only have to repay the sum that you borrowed , you get the whole wad when you sell up. (NB the interest and repayments on the bonds were paid from the cashflow of those assets - the rent) So, even if the value of the assets hasn't gone up that far, you get the selling price minus the proportion of the bill you paid for yourself, rather than funding from those bonds - that is to say a killing. (This is called "leverage" - if you paid 20% out of your firm's money and securitised the rest, and the assets rose in value by 15%, you get a 95% profit - even assuming every penny of income from the asset went to paying the interest on the bonds. It is usually horribly risky as it works in the opposite sense as well, but in this case you are fairly safe due to the guaranteed cashflow, covering your repayments, and the asset backing, covering your own investment and guaranteeing those bonds doubly.)
Clever, eh? Well Mr. Hands was indeed clever - Oxford double first and a McKinsey's management consultant, they don't tend to be thick. And if that career path sounds familiar it's because it is. Hands followed it at the same time as William Hague, and was such a good friend that he could advise foetus boy to "forget about the leadership and spend the next five years f*cking your brains out with Ffyon." In '96, of course, Hague was in the cabinet. Funny that.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C Hinecap
This has nothing to do with Labour. This was a done and dusted deal before Labour came to power; they have to live with it just like the Railways problem. I am only telling you the way it was. I had a vested interest in a MQ I wanted to purchase at the time this all happened.
Some people don't seem to understand where the problem lies!
It is impossible to own shares in a Government Agency (Annington Homes) - an MOD one at that. The MOD could have resisted this in 1996, they didn't. I suspect because a lot of Senior Officers were busy feathering their own nests, as alluded to in this thread. The MOD will get no extra money from Government (Labour) to sort out a problem that another Government (Conservative) caused.
Does any one know what the present target date is for the final houses to be sold off?
It may still seem like it’s a long way off, but, as people’s experiences from Scampton will tell you – there’s a lot of turbulence to come!!
This has nothing to do with Labour. This was a done and dusted deal before Labour came to power; they have to live with it just like the Railways problem. I am only telling you the way it was. I had a vested interest in a MQ I wanted to purchase at the time this all happened.
Some people don't seem to understand where the problem lies!
It is impossible to own shares in a Government Agency (Annington Homes) - an MOD one at that. The MOD could have resisted this in 1996, they didn't. I suspect because a lot of Senior Officers were busy feathering their own nests, as alluded to in this thread. The MOD will get no extra money from Government (Labour) to sort out a problem that another Government (Conservative) caused.
Does any one know what the present target date is for the final houses to be sold off?
It may still seem like it’s a long way off, but, as people’s experiences from Scampton will tell you – there’s a lot of turbulence to come!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: World
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the original purpose of the thread:
TVM for info thus far, but I need to work in specifics. If you have details of local newspapers, property mags etc where properties have been advertised at above prices with approximate dates I can get mates to obtain them. If there are any property websites where there are adverts please let me know. If you have anything you can send me please contact me and I'll give you a forwarding address.
Feel free to contact me. I will keep all names and sources discreet. The purpose of the research is to work towards some sort of conclusion as to how much money has been lost to the public purse and how. After all, it was never beyond the wit of man to set up an internal MoD agency that could maximise profit for the taxpayer. An MoD agency would not have been allowed to sell off houses that were still required.
Anything specific on named individuals is gratefully received, especially Mr Woodburn from Henriques Griffiths in Bristol. Nothing libellous or unsubstantiated can be used, but useful leads can be followed up.
Once again, TVM
TVM for info thus far, but I need to work in specifics. If you have details of local newspapers, property mags etc where properties have been advertised at above prices with approximate dates I can get mates to obtain them. If there are any property websites where there are adverts please let me know. If you have anything you can send me please contact me and I'll give you a forwarding address.
Feel free to contact me. I will keep all names and sources discreet. The purpose of the research is to work towards some sort of conclusion as to how much money has been lost to the public purse and how. After all, it was never beyond the wit of man to set up an internal MoD agency that could maximise profit for the taxpayer. An MoD agency would not have been allowed to sell off houses that were still required.
Anything specific on named individuals is gratefully received, especially Mr Woodburn from Henriques Griffiths in Bristol. Nothing libellous or unsubstantiated can be used, but useful leads can be followed up.
Once again, TVM
I was told by an ex DHE person at secret wilts airbase that the MQ's there were bought for the equivalent of £12000 a house! The first tranche were sold off @£69000 some years ago. Not a bad profit what? Then the recent sale at Compton Bassett near said secret airbase, the lowest price 2 bed went for £109,000. Some £97k profit. This is disgusting. Why on earth should a bunch of eastern greedy mongs ( the crimes of their forefathers should never be forgotten!) make so much money out of the British tax payer. Portillo should be taken to court over the fiasco and be banned from any future governmental decisions!
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nil Nos
No problem, I will sort you this next Fridays Lincs Echo property pages. Theres always loads of RAF Scampton houses in it!!
Good Luck
No problem, I will sort you this next Fridays Lincs Echo property pages. Theres always loads of RAF Scampton houses in it!!
Good Luck
The Gorilla
I agree with most of what you say. I cannot deny it. However, the bit of the equation that you are missing is that a large chunk of the money paid by the Japanese was supposed to be returned to DHE to modernise all of the quarters. When Tony Bliar came to power the Treasury renaged on the deal and hey presto no modernisation for those of use that move on a regular basis. Apart from double glazing my quarter hasn't had anything done to it since the 50s.
Given that the south of England is desperate for accommodation for policemen, nurses, teachers and doctors, wouldn't it have been far more sensible to keep the family jewels and rent "excess" properties to these professions at military rental rates. That way the properties could have paid their way. Doctors, policemen etc could afford to live in the SE!! Still too late now, jewels sold, armed forces personnel forced to buy own properties, therefore less willing to move, therefore less flexibility?!?
Still at least the large secret airbase in Oxfordshire will be the first of the new (PFI) married quarter build to replace those MQs built, paid for by servicemans rent and sold off by Portaloo. And the taxpayer got a good deal!!!!!!!!!
I agree with most of what you say. I cannot deny it. However, the bit of the equation that you are missing is that a large chunk of the money paid by the Japanese was supposed to be returned to DHE to modernise all of the quarters. When Tony Bliar came to power the Treasury renaged on the deal and hey presto no modernisation for those of use that move on a regular basis. Apart from double glazing my quarter hasn't had anything done to it since the 50s.
Given that the south of England is desperate for accommodation for policemen, nurses, teachers and doctors, wouldn't it have been far more sensible to keep the family jewels and rent "excess" properties to these professions at military rental rates. That way the properties could have paid their way. Doctors, policemen etc could afford to live in the SE!! Still too late now, jewels sold, armed forces personnel forced to buy own properties, therefore less willing to move, therefore less flexibility?!?
Still at least the large secret airbase in Oxfordshire will be the first of the new (PFI) married quarter build to replace those MQs built, paid for by servicemans rent and sold off by Portaloo. And the taxpayer got a good deal!!!!!!!!!
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland
I agree with everything you say 110%
People aren't going to join if they are required to move every 3 to 5 years and have obstacles in their way.
Perhaps the idea of local service will raise its ugly head yet again??
I agree with everything you say 110%
People aren't going to join if they are required to move every 3 to 5 years and have obstacles in their way.
Perhaps the idea of local service will raise its ugly head yet again??
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Global
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2/3 beds at Halton for 155,000, some 4 beds for 200,000 GBP.
You might find the investor statements at the Annington Homes website interesting. Their own figures in the latest investor statement show the average value per 'unit' as 121,830 GBP.
Where are the really cheap MQs that are dragging this average value down?
You might find the investor statements at the Annington Homes website interesting. Their own figures in the latest investor statement show the average value per 'unit' as 121,830 GBP.
Where are the really cheap MQs that are dragging this average value down?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the provision of SFA still in the terms of service?
If so, do we all get ERA when Annington has sold all the quarters?
Private accommodation near a secret Oxfordshire airbase currently rents at around £1500 pcm for a 4 bedroom property...
If so, do we all get ERA when Annington has sold all the quarters?
Private accommodation near a secret Oxfordshire airbase currently rents at around £1500 pcm for a 4 bedroom property...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: World
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CDS,
Is that Taylor Downs & Co. Ltd v. Henriques Griffiths - "solicitor's negligence relating to commercial property and company directors' conduct"
You don't know which solicitor was negligent do you?
Is that Taylor Downs & Co. Ltd v. Henriques Griffiths - "solicitor's negligence relating to commercial property and company directors' conduct"
You don't know which solicitor was negligent do you?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: England
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taylor Downs folded earlier this year. Hope it was nothing to do with the negligence of Henriques Griffiths.
Woodburn has links with the Small Landlords Association in the west country. Annington are a slightly larger landlord.
Woodburn has links with the Small Landlords Association in the west country. Annington are a slightly larger landlord.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: World
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the various offers of support. The forwarding address for documents is:
E Smith
Independent Research and Support
c/o 11 Kingsway
Rugby
Warwickshire
CV22 5PA
Things will make their way to me in due course.
E Smith
Independent Research and Support
c/o 11 Kingsway
Rugby
Warwickshire
CV22 5PA
Things will make their way to me in due course.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NNT, I was going to get you the details of the Devizes MQ's but it's all on their website, so I won't bother.
http://www.anningtonhomes.co.uk/index.html
The 2 beds started at £123K and all went on the first day to the campers.
The 3 bed semis are not selling well at all, and start at £138K
They've been on the market for a couple of months now.
That should keep the hoi polloi away!
It seems that Devizes is slightly more desirable than Valley
http://www.anningtonhomes.co.uk/index.html
The 2 beds started at £123K and all went on the first day to the campers.
The 3 bed semis are not selling well at all, and start at £138K
They've been on the market for a couple of months now.
That should keep the hoi polloi away!
It seems that Devizes is slightly more desirable than Valley
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You want to look at Army Housing News Nov 03 Page 19
North Lincolnshire's about as undesirable as Valley
North Lincolnshire's about as undesirable as Valley
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: new zealand
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curiouser and Curiouser
According to the Banbury Guardian Annington aren't the only ones to own property at Kineton.
Apparently CCRE do too; 25 properties, which couldn't be put up for sale with the Annington ones in August because of "legal complications".
What legal complications could there be in a legitimate agent of Annington selling Annington property? Were these properties included in Annington's figures for the houses going on sale in Kineton on 17 October?
CCRE claims their properties will go for between 60000 - 90000 GBP. Annington are selling theirs at 106000 GBP (2 beds) to 130000 GBP (4 beds). Why the difference in price? Or have CCRE changed their mind since they set the price band back in July?
Apparently CCRE do too; 25 properties, which couldn't be put up for sale with the Annington ones in August because of "legal complications".
What legal complications could there be in a legitimate agent of Annington selling Annington property? Were these properties included in Annington's figures for the houses going on sale in Kineton on 17 October?
CCRE claims their properties will go for between 60000 - 90000 GBP. Annington are selling theirs at 106000 GBP (2 beds) to 130000 GBP (4 beds). Why the difference in price? Or have CCRE changed their mind since they set the price band back in July?