"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Big Les Wade" wrote in message ...
Nightjar posted
On 17-Jun-16 9:34 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/16 09:20, Nightjar wrote:
Those who are still investing are almost all insisting upon a get-out
clause that will allow them to walk away if the vote is to leave.

Now where on earth did you dream that little gem up from?


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...-idUSKCN0YR0EH



Let me give you just *one* example of why that article is a pack of lying propaganda:

"Transactions in commercial property fell by 40 percent in the first quarter,
according to the Bank of England, with many buyers and sellers waiting to see the
outcome of the June 23 referendum in case an exit vote hurts property prices."

Clearly this is intended to imply that the sharp fall in commercial property
transactions was caused by the impending referendum. So is that true? Could something
else have caused it? Were there, for example, any taxation changes in that first
quarter (I assume Q1 of the 2016/17 FY although they don't say)?

"16 Mar 2016 - Major changes are being introduced to stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on
commercial property from midnight tonight, the UK chancellor announced in today's
Budget speech. ... The rates of SDLT are also being amended, with the top rate
increasing from 4% to 5% on the portion of the price that exceeds £250,000. The
increase in rates on purchase price and lease premiums to 5% will catch virtually all
investment acquisitions and reduce returns in investment appraisals."

Now, is it *just* possible that the sharp drop in commercial property deals was caused
by the government's own taxation policy, and not by the referendum?

Surely if charges are being *increased* in March, and taxation policy
is a factor governing the number of transactions, then there should be
an *increase* in the number of first quarter transactions
which would include those up to March 16 so as to avoid the
increase. Not a fall.

Or now, having actually read the post

They could only have reacted after March 16th, with only 15 days
left of the first quarter.

The first quarter is 91 days. 15 days is 16% of this.
So that even if absolutely no transactions were filed
in the 15 days following the announcement, then all
other things being equal this would only amount to a
16% decrease in transactions as compared with the Ist
quarter of 2015. Which stil leaves the other 24% to
be accounted for,

michael adams

....