"Neil Arlidge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >What was "suitable" property to get involved with in 2002 (or for that >matter as late as Feb2006!!!) has proved to not be the case.
This seems to be a persistent litany these days, especially among people who oddly want to keep BW under the government's impecunious thumb, but I doubt it stands up. Most of BW's property that is held for income is let on long-term (typically 25 year) commercial leases. Such leases do normally have periodic rent reviews, but these are usually specified as being "upward-only" so the rent can never fall. This means that BW's property income has probably reduced very little in the last year or two, and isn't likely to. BW also holds property for development. Major developments (such as Dockland's Wood Wharf) take years to get approved and built. If prices for disposing of the result fall into a downturn, it is relatively easy to slow the progress of the development so that it will be on the market at the time prices are picking up, as they do because the property market is cyclical . This is a normal part of the property development business, rather than a surprise for the unwary. Overall, property is a long-term investment, and it can't be judged by comparison with short-term property market fluctuations. IMHO, the current condition of the property market is not a valid argument against BW having, and depending on, a major property portfolio. In fact, BW should surely be adding to its portfolio now. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
