手指輕掃到出租公寓范妮·海默爾（Fanny Haimerl）

每日鏡子 2022 年 10 月 31 日一家初創公司希望通過應用程序將房東和搜索者聯繫起來。租戶協會相當懷疑

柏林企業家 Lena Tuckermann 說，她在最後一次尋找公寓時投入了大約 50 個小時。這太過分了。她總共向房東發送了 200 條信息。任何尋找公寓的人都必須篩選出市場上合適的報價，打多個電話並發送消息。 Tuckermann 說，這是“一個乏味、低效的手動過程”。這就是為什麼她在 2021 年 5 月與 Johann Kim 一起創立了初創公司 Mietz，該公司旨在簡化使用應用程序搜索住宿的過程。

這位在公司成立時仍在學習法律的現任企業家說，通過個人經驗，她清楚地知道，在房東和尋找公寓的人聚在一起之前，往往會浪費太多的時間和精力。 “我們希望為雙方簡化流程。”該應用程序最近已可用。

對她來說重要的是，習慣了 Instagram 和 Tik Tok 等社交媒體應用程序的年輕人在尋找公寓時不會有坐在“一種數字報紙”前的感覺。相反，她想用她的產品為用戶提供一種“社交媒體的感覺”。

租戶和房東都可以在 Mietz 應用程序中創建自己的個人資料，並在其中展示自己的個性。該軟件的功能原理類似於Tinder約會應用程序。用戶可以在照片的幫助下展示自己，並寫下自己和他們的興趣。

然後，用戶可以通過滑動手指在不同的優惠之間進行選擇。但是，公寓優惠不是潛在的日期，而是向左或向右“滑動”。右邊的意思是“我喜歡”，左邊的意思是“我不喜歡”。

但是，在 Mietz 不應存在基於外表的歧視。因此，第一印像不是由尋找公寓的人的照片決定的。但是，房東可以出示入學證明等文件。如果房東對提供的數據感到滿意，他們還可以查看帶有照片的個人資料。

如果房東或女房東有興趣，則形成“匹配”。這意味著，與 Tinder 一樣，兩個配置文件都相互聯網。這樣的“匹配”是數據可以發布的前提。因此，您不會將文件發送給所有潛在的房東，而只會發送給那些已經表示有興趣的人。

Tuckermann 從她的角度列舉了通過應用程序尋找公寓的優勢：潛在客戶可以存入文件一次，因此不必一遍又一遍地發送文件。 “任何將文件存放在 Mietz 上的人都可以不斷控制它們，”Tuckermann 說。

Mietz 團隊還開發了一個系統，允許直接在應用程序中籤訂租賃合同。根據 Tuckermann 的說法，還應該可以以合法安全的方式以數字方式處理定期租賃，無需紙張。這是通過使用所謂的合格電子簽名來實現的。

因此，書面形式可以以數字方式表示，並具有更高的安全標準。從技術上講，這個過程非常複雜。簡單來說，可以解釋為：與銀行應用程序類似，進行身份檢查，即數據可以與合同中的數據進行比較的驗證。

“只有滿足所有技術安全要求，簽名才合格，”Tuckermann 說。 “通過這種方式，我們可以確保簽名者的正確身份”。

但這並不是這家年輕公司想要用來保證其用戶安全的唯一方法。 “在房東方面，我們與我們熟悉的公司合作很多，”塔克曼說。還將有一個報告系統，用戶可以通過該系統報告異常情況。

在所謂的種子前融資輪中，即在其成立初期，年輕的 Mietz 團隊籌集了 100 萬歐元的投資者資金。 “我們決定面向天使投資人，這些是願意貢獻個人專業知識的個人，”塔克曼說。然而，從長遠來看，米茨希望通過與大型房地產公司的合作來為自己融資。對於那些正在尋找公寓的人來說，該應用程序應該保持免費。來自柏林租戶協會的 Ulrike Hamann 說，她發現每一個新機會都對在負擔過重的德國房地產市場上購買公寓很有幫助。但她指出

Infoman

魚餌、鮮花、Pixi 書籍：柏林的自動售貨機可以做的不僅僅是口香糖

城市之旅

聯邦議院、電視塔、勃蘭登堡門？呸!如果你真的想了解這座城市，那就去參觀它最奇異的自動售貨機吧。作者驅車十二輛，沿途收集了不少紀念品。另一個城市之旅。

磁鐵自動

柏林最奇怪的機器可能是《婚禮》：活蛆蟲的機器。在“Koss”釣魚店前，一台值得上 Instagram 的自動售貨機提供覆蓋著魚的魚餌。這些通常可以在收銀台獲得，但如果商店關門，機器就會接管。這台機器以 1 歐元的價格出售 150 條鋸末蛆蟲，並在周五晚上和周六下午補貨。然後：我們去Plötzensee！（泰格勒大街 37 號）

自動噴霧器

我們在 Gleimstrasse 的最北邊找到了下一個自動售貨機。在地鐵高架橋後面幾步，“作家角”商店出售噴霧器塗鴉所需的一切：標記、油漆和噴頭。因為：罐頭通常沒有，附件必須單獨購買。改裝後的口香糖機的附件售價 50 美分，有標準尺寸、窄尺寸或大尺寸。（格萊姆大街 22 號）

自動膠粘劑ATTOOMAT

筆者找了一下這台機器，網上只透露了街道的位置。這位友好的郵政員工透露：“那是那邊的東西，看到了嗎？” 在“Regalrocker”禮品店前，有一台自動售貨機可以美化顧客的身體——帶有粘性紋身。每個盒子裡有兩個極簡主義的手工紋身，“Tattoomat”賣 4 歐元。您可以從鹿、狐狸、浣熊中進行選擇，毫無疑問，還有《每日鏡報》的最愛：霸王龍。（星閣街 17 號）

貝托馬特

Moabit 的 Arminiusmarkthalle 的自動售貨機是完全免費的：在炸薯條攤旁邊有 Prayeromat。任何坐在亭子裡的人——這台機器就像一個照相亭——點擊觸摸屏上來自世界宗教的祈禱並傾聽。您可以從數十個國家/地區的錄音中進行選擇，其中一些帶有音樂。拉開窗簾後嘈雜的市場大廳很快就消失了——直到飢餓來襲。（Arminius 市場大廳，Arminiusstrasse 1-4）

隱形眼鏡自動

再往下走幾分鐘，我們就到了 Turmstraße 地鐵站：在 U9 的站台上，有一台來自“Lens2Go”公司的機器。這台機器裝有大約 70 種不同的隱形眼鏡包裝，有幾十種處方和設計。一盒處方為 -2.50 屈光度和額外水分的盒子售價 35 歐元。對於回家路上的清晰視野很重要。 (U-Bahnhof Turmstrasse)

狗糧機

Mitte 的 Torstrasse 附近的小型老虎機恰到好處地處於狗的高度：在這裡投入 50 美分的人將得到軟食。根據標籤，“介於兩者之間的狗零食”適用於所有品種和年齡，並且與首都一樣，不含糖和穀物。但菜單上只有一種口味：雞肉。（波西街 1 號）

PIXIB書機

每趟火車旅行都需要閱讀材料，亞歷山大廣場站 U8 站台上的小冊子機操作員宣稱。巧克力棒和薯片袋上方的機器裡有小冊子：Pixi書（“發現馬場”、“吉姆巴頓”）一歐元可以拉，而成年人可以從Sukultur出版社購買散文小冊子，價格是雙倍的價格（“Sterben mit den Philistern”、“Metro”）。 (U-Bahnhof 亞歷山大廣場)

花束機

忘記你的生日，一切都關門了？去勳伯格！在這裡，花店“Blumen Dilek”設置了一個下班後的機器，為匆忙的顧客提供花束、玫瑰和佈置。機器使花朵保持涼爽和濕潤，這就是窗戶起霧的原因。店主 Yusuf Dinc 說他每晚（晚上 8 點到早上 8 點）賣出 1 到 2 束花束——週日更多。但是，這家商店允許您為這項服務付出高昂的代價：一束鮮花 27 歐元起。（主街 147 號）

藝術機器

就在拐角處，柏林 30 台藝術品自動售貨機中的一台歡迎夢幻般的嬰兒車。自 2001 年以來，Automata Art 集體已在全球安裝了 250 多台自動售貨機。只需 4 歐元，機器就會吐出一個小盒子，裡面裝著一幅令人驚訝的圖畫或拼貼畫。您可以選擇來自該地區、德國和世界各地的藝術家。盒子上的重要警告：“這種藝術會讓人迷惑、照亮、興奮並讓人上癮。”（Crellestraße 9）

種子自動化

更多鮮花：用於秘密游擊隊園藝 - 或用於您自己的陽台 - Tempelhofer Feld 的小型自動售貨機以包裝形式出售花卉種子。

Infoman

https://frogmom.com/halloween-in-london-where-to-trick-or-treat/

Infoman

狗宮格 • 29m

七位醫生今後衰過去劈友

垂涎著簽紙的豐收轉眼檔已收

這個政棍阿茂拒絕藉口

有病臥床還是未接夠還未種夠

輸官司可修例邊個夠你威

仍然入紙的好堅毅輸到你坐低

判決判到一個地步便另覓優勢

想當初港府閉翳

法治已出軌最後夾硬嚟

疫苗無限好可惜我零針

本想去仁愛最後靠錯陳醫生

想不到全禁帶來兩萬人傷感

賦權無限好廢物煉成金

高官的快感制約失陷

光輝歲月不肯等人有覺儘快瞓

多得一班鬼佬走了塊瑰寶

同來為新香港驕傲優化變更好

每句讚嘆彷似大導

出走的資金一天呼應到

講故班癲佬港股都不保

疫苗無限好醫不了良心

本想躺平過去換無劫難一生

想不到餘震帶來更震撼傷感

你們還尚好？我地近黃昏

加速的快感快過速運

超英美夢不肯稟神有撒旦獻吻

收不到的公義逆來平常事

皮毛或都市變色永遠不得已

Infoman

Hello, 我是台灣微星公司在英國的業務主管，公司在Ealing. 目前想找一位業務助理。這個職位需要跟台北還有英國客人溝通出貨以及帳務，所以希望找到台灣人，熟悉excel. 如果有相關經驗在台灣或是英國更好, 有興趣的朋友請寄CV給我. 我的信箱是jeffkuo@msi.com 薪資依照每個人的學經歷不同，在面談時可以討論。

Infoman

First impressions can easily go south, whether it’s because we feel insecure or simply lack self-awareness. Our body language, tone and ability to listen all influence how others develop their initial thoughts about us.

As a journalist and public speaking coach, I’ve spent years studying how successful people communicate. Here are four things people who make good first impressions never do, even when they’re nervous:

They never just focus on themselves.

One of the most common mistakes is rushing to talk about ourselves. That’s understandable: We want to impress the other person, so we throw out lines about our accomplishments, interests and experiences.

But this can backfire. For example, I’ve had people mispronounce my name because they weren’t paying attention the first time, or they’ll ask me a question I’ve already answered.

The best communicators make it a point to hear what the other party is saying and engage with them, rather than focusing all the attention on themselves.

They never try to be funny without context.

Until you really get to know someone, it’s impossible to predict whether your joke will inspire laughter or simply fall flat.

This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to be funny. Humor can be a great tool for easing tension or getting rid of awkwardness. The key is to use positive humor, not negative humor.

Positive humor:

Lifts each other up. Laughs with others. Gently creates a safe, comfortable and vulnerable space. Is gentle-spirited and humble. Integrates the listener with self and others. Negative humor:

Puts the other person down. Laughs at the expense of others. Humiliates, discounts or ridicules. Deals in stereotypes. Is defensive or competitive. If you say something that the other person didn’t find funny, acknowledge it with a simple: “I’m sorry, I guess that joke didn’t go over well.”

They never network without doing prep work.

This is especially crucial if you know you’re about to meet with an important person, such as a high-level executive or new boss.

If you’re going to an event where you can see the attendee list in advance, identify a handful of people you want to meet. Prepare to move beyond small talk and personalize interactions.

Then come up with questions that are unique to their experience or something that already connects you, and lead with that. Maybe you have a specific question about their area of expertise, for example, or are a fan of a book they wrote.

They never expect the worst.

In social interactions, it’s easy to overlook the potential upsides and instead obsess over all the things that can go wrong.

Meeting people for the first time can be a little awkward, and you might make mistakes. But if you don’t expect a perfect performance, you’re less likely to overthink and stumble over your words.

Keep a realistic outlook and think positively. If you’re having fun, others will be more likely to pick up on your energy and feel your enthusiasm.

Infoman

https://zoom.us/my/hyperledger.community.3?pwd=UE90WHhEaHRqOGEyMkV3cldKa2d2dz09

Infoman

HUMANS AND TECHNOLOGY Meta is desperately trying to make the metaverse happen Will web access and avatar legs be enough? By Tanya Basuarchive page October 11, 2022 a metaverse image of three people looking at the meta virtual reality headset META The star of Tuesday’s Meta Connect, the so-called “state of the union” for the company formerly known as Facebook, was Meta Quest Pro. Meta’s newest virtual-reality headset clocks in at a whopping $1,499.99. That’s a significant price jump from its previous iteration, Meta Quest 2, which could be yours for $399.99—not exactly cheap, but still in triple-digit territory.

That price hike, coupled with Meta’s insistence throughout the virtual event that the company envisioned the metaverse as a “next-generation social platform” accessible to everyone, sort of feels like a blatant contradiction. Even if you are among the lucky few who can shell out a grand and a half for a virtual-reality headset, would you really want to?

That’s the question Meta seems to be grappling with. While the headset price jumped, nearly all the company’s other big moves are aimed at a common and simple baseline: making the metaverse something people actually want to use.

THE DOWNLOAD Your daily dose of what's up in emerging technology Enter your email

Get updates and offers from MIT Technology Review Sign up Privacy Policy Meta’s metaverse hasn’t exactly had a smooth year. Less than a year ago, founder Mark Zuckerberg rebranded what was then Facebook in an effort to show that the company was pivoting to what he believed was the future of our digital lives. Since then, Meta has been saddled with hiccups and gaffes, including a much-ballyhooed avatar of Zuckerberg that got memed to oblivion, a report suggesting that the company’s employees were less than enthused about the metaverse, and allegations of virtual sexual assault.

Woman using Virtual Reality headset at night The metaverse has a groping problem already A woman was sexually harassed on Meta’s VR social media platform. She’s not the first—and won’t be the last. So its current strategy seems to be to release a string of updates to see what might get people interested—a “throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks” approach, if you will.

Besides the Meta Quest Pro, the company also announced at the event that it was going to open up Horizon Worlds, the social media platform within Meta’s metaverse, to mobile and desktop users, so people without a headset will be able to access the virtual world.

That’s a notable step: it’s a tacit admission that VR headsets aren’t taking off as quickly as the company would like. Without a critical mass of people who understand what the metaverse feels like or even is, Meta can’t hope to have its products adopted. Opening its virtual worlds to the formats consumers are comfortable with (their text messages, their browsers, the company’s beleaguered Instagram platform) gives people who aren’t open to shelling out $399.99—much less $1,499.99—a way to experience the new world.

What’s also made the metaverse a hard sell is the disorienting experience of being a floating, legless torso, and Meta announced that it won’t be that way anymore. Previously, Andrew Bosworth, Meta’s CTO, said in an Instagram AMA that full-body avatars were difficult to implement, particularly because VR tracking usually comes from someone’s real-life eyes and hands. “Tracking your own legs accurately is super hard and basically not workable just from a physics standpoint with existing headsets,” he said in February.

But Zuckerberg (or, rather, his leggy avatar) announced at the event that the company was going to use artificial intelligence to map out legs in the metaverse, allowing avatars the ability not only to walk and run but also to wear digital clothing for their legs (a marketplace that Zuckerberg has said he is eager to participate in; Roblox, a gaming platform I’ve written about before, currently has a comfortable share of the market). This would be a huge step to improving how users think about movement in the metaverse and how they decide to represent themselves there.

Screenshot of avatar buying full length outfits for the metaverse META But even with legs, and even with the ability to roam the metaverse without a headset strapped to your face, the key question remains: Is Meta’s metaverse something people will actually buy into? It’s worth noting that even employees at Meta are skeptical about the company’s vision, with one going so far as to say the amount spent on these projects to date made him “sick to [his] stomach.”

A free, shareable version of the metaverse accessible via weblink will open the previously closed world up to people who may not have hundreds of dollars to burn, and it’s a huge move toward democratizing the space. It might lead people to buy Meta’s claim that talking to a cartoon version of your boss is totally cool—and, more broadly, that the metaverse really is the next digital plane on which we’ll conduct our lives.

But it might also do the opposite: people might hop on the link and find that even in its now full-bodied state, the metaverse, er, doesn’t have legs.

Infoman

Tech titans and the artsThe Economist (UK) 22/10/2022

IN A FORMER gym in a gentrifying warehouse district, a maple tree, complete with roots, is suspended in the air. Immersive screens depict streams and plants. The inaugural exhibition at the Institute of Contemporary Art San Francisco (ica sf), by Jeffrey Gibson, a Native-American artist, is meant to reveal humanity’s connection to the Earth and its despoliation.

The uprooting also symbolises the disruption for which the home of the technology industry is famous. The museum itself marks a break with the past. Local artists and performers have long complained that the tech industry does little to support them. Now, for the first time, Silicon Valley’s plutocrats are underwriting a new cultural institution in their own backyard.

The founder of ICA SF is Alison Gass, a seasoned curator with many connections in Silicon Valley. The core backers are art-lovers who made fortunes in tech: angel investors, venture capitalists and the cofounders of Slack and Instagram. The arts programme at Meta (previously Facebook) pitched in. At $5.5m, this sort of giving is a new departure for a cohort of tech titans who hitherto have not matched their forebears’ artistic philanthropy.

Early Silicon Valley firms such as Hewlett-Packard, Apple and Adobe have funded local arts institutions for decades. Yet by 2016, according to a report called “The Giving Code”, only about 15% of Silicon Valley philanthropy was staying in the area. The arts were not a priority. At the same time, the influx of tech wealth has pushed up rents in the past decade, forcing out creative types, galleries and studios; today it costs 30% more to live in San Francisco than in New York. Amid this displacement, there is a “deep chasm” between tech’s resources and its artistic giving, argues SVCreates, an arts-support group.

An obvious reason is that “there are a million things” the wealthy can choose to support, says David Hornik, a venture capitalist who, with his wife Pamela, invested in the new museum. On a planet that is “flooding and burning, there are lots of alternatives to the arts that are drawing people’s dollars”. Tech tycoons have poured billions into global issues such as poverty and education; locally, Marc Benioff of Salesforce and Mark Zuckerberg have built hospitals. A few billionaires are big art-buyers, such as Larry Ellison of Oracle and the late Paul Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft, whose collection will be auctioned in November. Yet collectors alone do not sustain a cultural ecosystem.

Tech has good reasons to support culture, argue boosters of the arts, particularly in northern California. Computer technology evolved in the creative ferment of the Bay Area’s counterculture (with some help from the defence industry). Art and tech are natural bedfellows—“analogous forms of creative problem-solving”, observes Tina Vaz, head of Meta’s arts programme. Tech projects such as the metaverse need the imagination of artists, she says. Meanwhile the arts—from film and performance to painting and music—can be a means to bridge social gulfs and help tackle other problems that techies hold dear.

These messages are now being heard by a new wave of tech leaders. Founders and investors were galvanised by the health and social crises of 2020, and by the worsening inequality visible around them. The difference from previous generations lies in their approach. Museum directors and fundraisers around San Francisco Bay say today’s tech donors have little interest in galas or seeing their names on plaques. Their aim is rather to revise old ways of doing business and make the art world more responsive and accessible.

Take the ICA SF: its seed funding came from Andy and Deborah Rappaport, investors who previously started a communal arts complex to support galleries facing eviction in San Francisco. It will show living artists—with an emphasis on those neglected by the canon—and “respond to the complex social reality in which we live”, says Ms Gass. In this it resembles a tech startup, a “platform” that can quickly “pivot” to new projects. That risk-taking attitude is “a very venture-capital way of looking at things”, Mr Rappaport says.

Giving in a material world

Other tech donors are innovating, too. New models include direct payments to artists, an approach tried by some European governments but uncommon in America. This year a guaranteed-income scheme in San Francisco is supported by $1.3m from MacKenzie Scott, the former wife of Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, and #StartSmall, a foundation created by Jack Dorsey, cofounder of Twitter. Mikkel Svane, the founder of Zendesk, a web-based customer-support service, recently donated $1m to the de Young Museum with the proviso that it must be used to buy contemporary art from local galleries and artists. “It’s like watering your own front garden,” enthuses Ana Teresa Fernández, an artist whose work the museum acquired.

Savvy arts bodies are inviting tech innovators onto their boards and leadership teams. Take SFJAZZ, whose state-of-the-art performance space benefited from a $20m gift from Bob Miner, a co-founder of Oracle. The new chair of its board, Denise Young, is a singer and former Apple executive. Or consider the fundraising campaign for Berkeley Repertory Theatre that has been led by Bruce Golden, a venture capitalist and theatre-lover.

It remains to be seen whether such largesse will endure in a downturn. But one thing is clear: the era in which donors wrote big cheques without measurable results, as the Rockefellers and Guggenheims once did, is passing. Today’s munificent tech entrepreneurs expect to see a return on investment. Ms Gass is sure that institutions such as hers will provide one. The arts, she avers, can “forge civic progress and make the city a better place”.

通過分享 PressReader

通過新聞連接世界

Infoman

Britain and ItalyThe Economist (UK)

22/10/2022

BRITAIN HAS long thought of itself as being part of the same economic club as America, France or Germany. It is, after all, the third-biggest economy in the West. So it is a mark of the glum mood in the country that commentators are now drawing comparisons to Italy instead—a place that, aside from la dolce vita, is known for interminable political drama, economic stagnation and nervous bond markets. The two countries’ economies and fiscal positions differ considerably, not least because Italy uses the euro and does not have its own monetary policy. A comparison is revealing nonetheless.

Both Britain and Italy have an economic-growth problem that stems from underinvestment and lacklustre productivity, which in turn reflects deep-rooted structural factors. But Italy’s disease is considerably more advanced. Its living standards, measured by real gdp per person, have not risen since 2000. That in part reflects an ageing population. Italy has 37 old people for every 100 of working age, compared with 30 in Britain and 26 in America. Its courts and public administrators make decisions at glacial speed, which impedes business. A thicket of regulations is one reason why the country’s many small, often family-run firms do not expand.

Britain’s decline is at an earlier stage. gdp per person is still growing, although it has fallen behind America and Germany since the mid-2000s. Impeded credit flows after the financial crisis, restrictive planning rules and a poorly skilled workforce mean that investment and productivity growth is nearly as low as in Italy (see chart 1). Investment as a share of gdp was 18% in 2019, below 21-23% in America, France and Germany, but in line with that in Italy (see chart 2). All of this has dire consequences for living standards in the future.

The malaise is apparent in stockmarkets, too. As companies elsewhere, chiefly in America and China, have innovated and swelled, Britain’s stockmarket has shrunk in importance. Its share of global market capitalisation has fallen from 8% to 3% over the past 20 years. Its importance in Europe’s total market value has declined, too. Italy’s share of the world’s stockmarket was never as big as Britain’s was, but it has shrunk at a similar pace.

Both countries have serious regional imbalances. In Italy, the richer manufacturing-oriented north has long left the south in the dust. In 2019 gdp per person in the south was about half of that in the north. Britain is also unbalanced, with output per worker in London around 70% higher than that in the north-east of England. It is possible to construct lots of other measures of regional inequality, depending on the size of the region and the measure of income used. In 2019 Philip McCann, then an economist at the University of Sheffield, put together 28 of them for 30 of the mostly rich members of the oecd. He concluded that Britain was the most geographically unequal large advanced country, with Italy a close second.

When it comes to the countries’ financing positions, however, the picture is more complex. Italy has high net public debt, of around 138% of gdp in 2021. Its slow economic growth means that those debts risk becoming unsustainable. Moreover, it is a member of a currency union with shared monetary policy, which means it cannot benefit from a weaker currency to boost its economy or prevent a run on its public debt. Its failure to implement reforms, revive growth and lighten its debt burden means that investors tend to worry about its creditworthiness. As a result, they demand a premium, or a “spread”, to hold Italian debt over safer German Bunds. Over the years, fears about spreads widening have led the European Central Bank to devise various schemes to buy government bonds in times of trouble.

Britain has far lower public debt, of 85% of gdp. It has its own currency and a central bank that sets interest rates for the country alone. The government’s mindless mini-budget jolted investors into expecting higher inflation, and therefore higher interest rates from the Bank of England, which pushed up government-bond yields. It also prompted an emergency intervention by the bank to stop a fire-sale of assets by pension funds. The market turmoil has prompted the government to reverse its plans, rather as bond markets forced Italy’s governments to change course in 2011 and 2018. But few investors worry that Britain will default on its debts (see Buttonwood).

The kindness of strangers

Britain relies more on external financing than Italy does, however. According to the imf, it is likely to run a current-account deficit of nearly 5% of gdp this year, meaning that it is a net borrower from abroad. (Italy’s deficit is expected to be 0.2%.) That means financing conditions rely in part on the appetite of foreign investors for domestic assets. And the less the country does to fix its growth problem, the less attractive it becomes for investment. Political paralysis has consequences. 

通過分享 PressReader

通過新聞連接世界

Infoman

House prices The horror showThe Economist (UK)

22/10/2022

OVER THE past decade owning a house has meant easy money. Prices rose reliably for years and then went bizarrely ballistic in the pandemic. Yet today if your wealth is tied up in bricks and mortar it is time to get nervous. House prices are now falling in nine rich economies (see Finance and economics section). The drops in America are small so far, but in the wildest markets they are already dramatic. In condo-crazed Canada homes cost 9% less than they did in February. As inflation and recession stalk the world a deepening correction is likely—even estate agents are gloomy. Although this will not detonate global banks as in 2007-09, it will intensify the downturn, leave a cohort of people with wrecked finances and start a political storm.

The cause of the crunch is soaring interest rates: in America prospective buyers have been watching, horrified, as the 30-year mortgage rate has hit 6.92%, over twice the level of a year ago and the highest since April 2002. The pandemic mini-bubble was fuelled by rate cuts, stimulus cash and a hunt for more suburban space. Now most of that is going into reverse. Take, for example, someone who a year ago could afford to put $1,800 a month towards a 30-year mortgage. Back then they could have borrowed $420,000. Today the payment is enough for a loan of $280,000: 33% less. From Stockholm to Sydney the buying power of borrowers is collapsing. That makes it harder for new buyers to afford homes, depressing demand, and can squeeze the finances of existing owners who, if they are unlucky, may be forced to sell.

The good news is that falling house prices will not cause an epic financial bust in America as they did 15 years ago. The country has fewer risky loans and better-capitalised banks which have not binged on dodgy subprime securities. Uncle Sam now underwrites or securitises twothirds of new mortgages. The big losers will be taxpayers. Through state insurance schemes they bear the risk of defaults. As rates rise they are exposed to losses via the Federal Reserve, which owns one-quarter of mortgage-backed securities.

Some other places, such as South Korea and the Nordic countries, have seen scarier accelerations in borrowing, with household debt of around 100% of gdp. They could face destabilising losses at their banks or shadow financial firms: Sweden’s central-bank boss has likened this to “sitting on top of a volcano”. But the world’s worst housing-related financial crisis will still be confined to China, whose problems—vast speculative excess, mortgage strikes, people who have pre-paid for flats which have not been built—are, mercifully, contained within its borders.

Even without a synchronised global banking crash, though, the housing downturn will be grim. First, because gummed-up property markets are a drag on the jobs market. As rates rise and prices gradually adjust, the uncertainty makes people hesitant about moving. Sales of existing homes in America dropped by 20% in August year on year, and Zillow, a housing firm, reports 13% fewer new listings than the seasonal norm. In Canada sales volumes could drop by 40% this year. When people cannot move, it saps labour markets of dynamism, a big worry when companies are trying to adapt to worker shortages and the energy crisis. And when prices do plunge, homeowners can find their homes are worth less than their mortgages, making it even harder to up sticks—a problem that afflicted many economies after the global financial crisis.

Lower house prices also hurt growth in a second way: they make already-gloomy consumers even more miserable. Worldwide, homes are worth about $250trn (for comparison, stockmarkets are worth only $90trn), and account for half of all wealth. As that edifice of capital crumbles, consumers are likely to cut back on spending. Though a cooler economy is what central banks intend to bring about by raising interest rates, collapsing confidence can take on a momentum of its own.

A further problem is concentrated pain borne by a minority of homeowners. By far the most exposed are those who have not locked in interest rates and face soaring mortgage bills. Relatively few are in America, where subsidised 30-year fixed-rate mortgages are the norm. But four in five Swedish loans have a fixed period of two years or less, and half of all New Zealand’s fixedrate mortgages have been or are due for refinancing this year.

When combined with a cost-of-living squeeze, that points to a growing number of households in financial distress. In Australia perhaps a fifth of all mortgage debt is owed by households who will see their spare cashflow fall by 20% or more if interest rates rise as expected. In Britain 2m households could see their mortgage absorb another 10% of their income, according to one estimate. Those who cannot afford the payments may have to dump their houses on the market instead.

That is where the political dimension comes in. Housing markets are already a battleground. Thickets of red tape make it too hard to build new homes in big cities, leading to shortages. A generation of young people in the rich world feel they have been unfairly excluded from home ownership. Although lower house prices will reduce the deposit needed to obtain a mortgage, it is first-time buyers who depend most on debt financing, which is now expensive. And a whole new class of financially vulnerable homeowners are about to join the ranks of the discontented.

Dangerous properties

Having bailed out the economy repeatedly in the past 15 years, most Western governments will be tempted to come to the rescue yet again. In America fears of a housing calamity have led some to urge the Fed to slow its vital rate rises. Spain is reported to be considering limiting rising mortgage payments, and Hungary has already done so. Expect more countries to follow.

That could see governments’ debts rise still further and encourage the idea that home ownership is a one-way bet backed by the state. And it would also do little to solve the underlying problems that bedevil the rich world’s housing markets, many of which are due to ill-guided and excessive government intervention, from mortgage subsidies and distortive taxes to excessively onerous planning rules. As an era of low interest rates comes to an end, a home-price crunch is coming—and there is no guarantee of a better housing market at the end of it all.

通過分享 PressReader

通過新聞連接世界

Infoman

Turmoil in Britain Welcome to BritalyThe Economist (UK) 22/10/2022

IN 2012 LIZ TRUSS and Kwasi Kwarteng, two of the authors of a pamphlet called “Britannia Unchained”, used Italy as a warning. Bloated public services, low growth, poor productivity: the problems of Italy and other southern European countries were also present in Britain. Ten years later, in their botched attempt to forge a different path, Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng have helped make the comparison inescapable. Britain is still blighted by disappointing growth and regional inequality. But it is also hobbled by chronic political instability and under the thumb of the bond markets (see Britain section). Welcome to Britaly.

The comparison between the two countries is inexact. Between 2009 and 2019 Britain’s productivity growth rate was the second-slowest in the G7, but Italy’s was far worse. Britain is younger and has a more competitive economy. Italy’s problems stem, in part, from being inside the European club; Britain’s, in part, from being outside. Comparing the bond yields of the two countries is misleading. Britain has lower debt, its own currency and its own central bank; the market thinks it has much less chance of defaulting than Italy. But if Britaly is not a statistical truth, it captures something real. Britain has moved much closer to Italy in recent years in three ways.

First, and most obviously, the political instability that used to mark Italy out has fully infected Britain. Since the end of the coalition government in May 2015, Britain has had four prime ministers (David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Ms Truss), as has Italy. The countries are likely to stay in lockstep in the near future. Giorgia Meloni is expected to be sworn in as the new prime minister in Rome; Ms Truss’s future could not be more precarious. Ministerial longevity is now counted in months: since July Britain has had four chancellors of the exchequer; the home secretary resigned this week after just 43 days in office. Trust in politics has declined as chaos has increased: 50% of Britons trusted the government in 2010 and less than 40% do now. The gap with Italy on this measure has shrunk from 17 percentage points to four.

Second, just as Italy became the plaything of the bond markets during the euro-zone crisis, so they are now visibly in charge of Britain. The Conservatives have spent the past six years chasing the dream of enhanced British sovereignty; instead they have lost control. Silvio Berlusconi was removed from power in Italy in 2011 after falling foul of Brussels and Berlin; Mr Kwarteng was kicked out of his job as chancellor of the exchequer because of the market reaction to his package of unfunded tax cuts. Traders in gilts are the arbiters of British government policy at the moment. Jeremy Hunt, the new chancellor, has eviscerated most of the tax cuts and rightly decided to redesign the government’s energy-price guarantee scheme from April 2023. The decisions he must take to fill the remaining hole in the public finances are being designed with markets in mind.

Just as Italians fret about lo spread between benchmark government bonds and Bunds, so Britons have had a crash course in how gilt yields affect everything from the cost of their mortgage to the safety of their pensions. In Italy institutions like the presidency and the central bank have long acted as bulwarks against politicians. So it is now in Britain. By ending its emergency bond-buying on October 14th, the Bank of England forced the government to reverse course faster. There is no room for Mr Hunt to disagree with the Office for Budget Responsibility, a fiscal watchdog. These institutions were constraints on elected MPs before, but now the chains bind tightly and visibly.

Third, Britain’s low-growth problem has become more entrenched. Political stability is a precondition of growth, not a nice-to-have. Italian governments struggle to get anything done; the same is true of brief administrations in Britain. When changes of leader and government are always round the corner, pantomime and personality replace policy. Mr Johnson was nicknamed “Borisconi” by some; by continuing to hover on the political scene, he may make this comparison sharper still.

And although fiscal discipline should calm the bond markets, it will not by itself increase growth. Mr Hunt is racing to balance the books as part of a medium-term fiscal plan to be unveiled on October 31st. Saving money by spending less on infrastructure would be fine for gilt yields but is not going to help the economy grow. There is little room for swingeing cuts to public services. Better to phase out the “triple lock”, a generous formula for raising state pensions, and raise money in more sensible ways: scrapping “non-dom” tax status, for instance, or raising inheritance taxes. A rise in income tax would be better than reinstating the increase in national-insurance contributions, which fall solely on workers.

For now, things are turning ever more Britalian. Tory MPs are in disarray—evident in a chaotic vote on fracking and rumours of more resignations—and again consumed by intrigue about how long their prime minister can last. Ms Truss has become the human equivalent of Larry the cat, living in Downing Street but wielding no power. If (or rather, when) Tory MPs decide to bin her, they need to find a replacement themselves rather than outsourcing it to Conservative Party members. The odds of their feuding factions alighting on a unifying figure are low.

Spaghetti junction

The case for an early general election is becoming stronger as a result. It is unlikely to happen: why would Tory MPs vote for their own demise? The argument that Ms Truss or any successor lacks a mandate is flawed in a parliamentary system. But if Parliament is unable to produce a functioning government then it is time to go to the voters. That moment is drawing closer.

Holding elections has not resolved Italy’s problems. But there is reason to feel more hopeful about Britain, where political instability is now a one-party disease. The Tories have become nigh-on ungovernable, due to the corrosion from Brexit and the sheer exhaustion of 12 years in power. Ms Truss is right to identify growth as Britain’s biggest problem. Yet growth depends not on fantastical plans and big bangs, but on stable government, thoughtful policy and political unity. In their current incarnation the Tories cannot provide it.

通過分享 PressReader

通過新聞連接世界

Infoman

Open account

Natwest Switch Offer (175 pound)

https://www.natwest.com/current-accounts/select_account.html?intcam=PC_BR-HI-MTA-Select-TR#get-ready-to-apply

https://www.natwestinternational.com/international-banking/savings/us-dollar-fixed-term-deposit.html#interest-rates

https://www.onlinebanking.natwestinternational.com/Default.aspx?InnerPage=OLE

Infoman

Norwich Property Markets

Traditionally, if you had not sold your Norwich home by the first week in November, you would normally have to wait for the house sellers to return in the famous Boxing Day rush on the portals (Rightmove, Zoopla, etc) to get potential buyers interested.

Yet matters have been different this year as the various lockdowns have caused a surge in house buying right up until when the Christmas edition of the Radio Times goes on sale.

So, the question is, how will 2022 look regarding the Norwich property market?

The last couple of years in the Norwich property market have been different in many ways. So much so, many Norwich homeowners are presently deliberating whether they should put their Norwich home on the market in January or wait until later in the summer.

Speaking to many Norwich buyers and sellers, (and in fact Norwich buy-to-let landlords) in the last couple of weeks in the run-up to Christmas, many were asking the very same question.

What is going to happen to Norwich house prices in 2022?

Some people asking this question are Norwich buyers troubling themselves that they are about to buy their Norwich home just before a potential property crash, yet others are Norwich homeowners wanting to know where the top of the market is before they sell. Even a handful of Norwich landlords are unable to either start buying or start selling some of their rental portfolio.

Therefore, let’s see what has happened in 2021 to make a better judgment of what should happen in 2022.

Nobody has a crystal ball that can tell what 2022 holds, however most property experts are not forecasting doom and gloom for the British property market.

Whilst the final numbers won’t be known until Easter 2022, it is estimated that in 2021 one in fifteen privately owned homes in the UK are expected to have changed hands, being the busiest year in the last 14 years. Locally,

3,979 properties have changed hands in the last year in Norwich

Although that is only up to October 2021, so numbers will be much higher once all the final counts are in by March/April.

The pandemic made many Norwich families re-evaluate what they wanted from their Norwich home, with many wanting bigger rooms (and more of them). Many in the press dubbed this ‘the race for space’, meaning the property market was flooded with home buyers, most bringing forward the home move they had planned between now and 2025.

The issue was, there weren’t enough Norwich properties on the market to satisfy every Norwich buyer, meaning Norwich house prices have unsurprisingly been driven up.

The average price of a home today in Norwich is £304,800

Although it is still premature to say what will happen in 2022, most property commentators seem assured that we are not heading towards a house price crash, mainly due to one reason.

There aren’t enough properties on the market in Norwich. Simply supply and demand economics!

The property crash in 2008 was caused by everyone dumping their property on the market.

In January 2007, there were 1,642 properties for sale in Norwich, one year later in January 2008, that had risen to 3,932 properties, whilst today, that stands at 863

And I can’t see that changing for 2022.

In 2007, mortgage interest rates were 6.5% to 7.5%, so when the economy started to falter, everyone looked to sell their homes to reduce their outgoings as unemployment rose by over 60% in just a couple of years. This time around most people have mortgage rates of around 2% to 2.5% and unemployment is dropping, meaning they don’t need to sell their Norwich home.

Now of course the stamp duty tax holiday came to an end months ago, and Bank of England base interest rates are expected to rise moderately in the coming year, yet not to the level they were in 2007 (5.75%).

Nonetheless, demand for Norwich homes will still be there. I have even read some reports suggesting that more than 20% of British households are seriously thinking of moving between now and the summer of 2023, and this will support Norwich house prices whilst demand continues to exceed supply.

Norwich house prices will be 3.8% higher by the end of 2022

Another reason why I believe that will be the case is the return to home working. If, as a country, we will need to work from home each winter for the foreseeable future because of new variants, then this will cement the need for people wanting to move home for remote working.

It might be that Norwich buyers are looking for a dedicated office at home or that they feel they now no longer need to be in large built-up areas that are near to their work.

This increase in Norwich house prices is expected to entice even more Norwich house sellers onto the market, which will steady Norwich house prices slightly (as supply increases), yet I still believe there won’t be enough properties coming onto the market to satisfy the colossal demand.

What about the Norwich rental market?

Rents tend to grow in line with tenants’ wages. So, with many people getting decent pay rises and not enough properties being built, many economists are suggesting rents will be 14% to 19% higher by 2027. Even with the house price growth, the numbers for rental investments still look rosy.

Is it the right time to buy your first property in Norwich?

This rise in Norwich house prices has had many people asking whether 2022 is the right time to buy their first home? Should they buy now before Norwich prices rocket even further or delay in the hope that house prices come back down?

As with any important decision in life, this will mainly depend on your own personal life and your motives for wanting to move.

If the Norwich home that you want to buy is on the market, available and you can afford the mortgage, then delaying could be detrimental. It’s like holding off for the ‘next generation TV’, it then coming out; then just as you are about to buy the TV, the next ‘next-generation TV’ gets announced for six months’ time … and the cycle is constantly in motion – so you end up never buying a TV … just like you will never buy your own home!

Buying property is a long-term game

Sometimes you just have to make your decision, get something bought and start the journey of the next 25 to 35 years of living in your family home whilst paying off your mortgage.

The present low-interest rates for first-time buyers mean that there are some very low mortgage deals available for those with a decent deposit, making it a good time to buy a Norwich property, especially if you fix the interest rate.

If your deposit is humbler, the Government’s 5% deposit mortgage guarantee scheme will still enable you to buy a property, albeit at a slightly higher interest rate.

Looking at the bigger picture, these are only my opinions. If inflation doesn’t get too out of hand and interest rates don’t go above 2% to 3%, it looks like Norwich house prices will, for 2022 and a few years beyond, continue upwards albeit with a slower trajectory than 2020/21 and probably with a few short, sharp up and down spikes on the way.

The bottom line is, ensure that any Norwich house move that you intend to make is something that you can afford, allow for future rises in interest rates and make plans for as many eventualities as possible. Do that, and you should be just fine.