Max Fowler wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:23 am
Top notch C&Ping, Dunnem.
But can you please explain this point:
"BTL landlords are exiting the market. This is resulting in a severe shortage of residential lets, and likely to get worse before it gets better."
Where are the properties going? Happy for you to put me right on this point in either your own words, or those of someone else.
Don't these houses sold by the much despised BTL Brigade get sold to even bigger dirty, filthy, stinking greedy capitalists who covert them to HMOs and in effect create even more sub standard expensive housing.
That's what used to happen. But going forward those bigger, dirty, filthy, stinking, greedy capitalists will have less risky options to generate a similar return on investment.
And the really big/smart boys will choose to invest in the US investment funds, courted by Jenrick and Gove, that in turn invest in Build To Rent companies (registered off shore) that invest in high-density blocks of flats for rent. That further removes them from the risk of actually having to deal with an actual physical property or a person who rents it.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:37 am
I know you've posted similar here before, Dunnem, but it still blows my mind that the *majority* of homeowners are mortgage free.
Mostly older homeowners who live in constituencies that overwhelming vote Tory. And, they'll have a large savings pot so will be benefiting from the increase in interest rates. Many of those will be thinking this that is all great, so should vote for more of the same when they get the chance.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:41 am
I had "it's the brown guys' fault" at 7/2 - happy days.
heh
To be fair to Adz, I don't think he's blaming the immigrants. But if the population experiences a net increase and the supply of new housing does not keep pace, then that will contribute to the sitaution we find ourselves in.
Which gives me an idea for a rather quick solution. That war in Ukraine....
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:37 am
I know you've posted similar here before, Dunnem, but it still blows my mind that the *majority* of homeowners are mortgage free.
It doesn't mean more than 50% of properties are unmortgaged, there's a difference.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:37 am
I know you've posted similar here before, Dunnem, but it still blows my mind that the *majority* of homeowners are mortgage free.
Mostly older homeowners who live in constituencies that overwhelming vote Tory. And, they'll have a large savings pot so will be benefiting from the increase in interest rates. Many of those will be thinking this that is all great, so should vote for more of the same when they get the chance.
Fair enough I suppose they've worked hard for it and there's no alternative.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:37 am
I know you've posted similar here before, Dunnem, but it still blows my mind that the *majority* of homeowners are mortgage free.
Mostly older homeowners who live in constituencies that overwhelming vote Tory. And, they'll have a large savings pot so will be benefiting from the increase in interest rates. Many of those will be thinking this that is all great, so should vote for more of the same when they get the chance.
Sure, some will, but a lot of us can also see the carnage 13 years of Tory-rule has caused, and the effect it's having/will have on our kids who are undeniably going to have a much much tougher time than we ever did.
Max Fowler wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:23 am
Top notch C&Ping, Dunnem.
But can you please explain this point:
"BTL landlords are exiting the market. This is resulting in a severe shortage of residential lets, and likely to get worse before it gets better."
Where are the properties going? Happy for you to put me right on this point in either your own words, or those of someone else.
The part you are missing is immigration. If the population was staying the same it's a zero sum game, but immigrants tend to rent first so it adds to the pool of renters quicker than it is depleted by renters becoming owners
That's irrelevant to the point I'm making. But good to see Oz has finally got to you.
The decision of a BTL landlord to sell an investment property makes no difference to the number of homes in existence and the number of people needing homes.
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:37 am
I know you've posted similar here before, Dunnem, but it still blows my mind that the *majority* of homeowners are mortgage free.
It doesn't mean more than 50% of properties are unmortgaged, there's a difference.
But yep, still staggering.
Prepared to look dumb here simply because I can't be bothered to look it up but what *is* the difference between not having a mortgage and being unmortgaged?
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:37 am
I know you've posted similar here before, Dunnem, but it still blows my mind that the *majority* of homeowners are mortgage free.
It doesn't mean more than 50% of properties are unmortgaged, there's a difference.
But yep, still staggering.
Prepared to look dumb here simply because I can't be bothered to look it up but what *is* the difference between not having a mortgage and being unmortgaged?
I was thinking as security for kids borrowing or equity release but Fowlup will be along soon to let us know either using his own words or someone else's.
Max Fowler wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:49 am
The decision of a BTL landlord to sell an investment property makes no difference to the number of homes in existence and the number of people needing homes.
Correct. But the number of people needing a home is increasing beyond the number of available homes.
The latest insight report from PropertyMark has the following commentary on the rental side of the market:
"The number of new prospective tenants registered per member branch showed a sizable jump. July 2023 showed an average of 187 prospective tenants registering on average compared to 127 in July 2022. Figures in July 2023 were up almost 38 per cent year on year, a continued trend that is predicted to show no signs of slowing.
Stock levels remain challenging with the number of properties available to rent per member branch increased slightly in July to an average of 14. This is still below what is needed to keep up with current demand."
Max Fowler wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:49 am
The decision of a BTL landlord to sell an investment property makes no difference to the number of homes in existence and the number of people needing homes.
Correct. But the number of people needing a home is increasing beyond the number of available homes.
The latest insight report from PropertyMark has the following commentary on the rental side of the market:
"The number of new prospective tenants registered per member branch showed a sizable jump. July 2023 showed an average of 187 prospective tenants registering on average compared to 127 in July 2022. Figures in July 2023 were up almost 38 per cent year on year, a continued trend that is predicted to show no signs of slowing.
Stock levels remain challenging with the number of properties available to rent per member branch increased slightly in July to an average of 14. This is still below what is needed to keep up with current demand."
So what your saying is we need more homes for people to live in? That or less people?
The Government could maybe try building some houses then. Then the Governement could own them and rent them to the people that need a home and either can't afford or don't want to buy one.
This isn't really that difficult when you think about it.
Max Fowler wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:49 am
The decision of a BTL landlord to sell an investment property makes no difference to the number of homes in existence and the number of people needing homes.
Correct. But the number of people needing a home is increasing beyond the number of available homes.
The latest insight report from PropertyMark has the following commentary on the rental side of the market:
"The number of new prospective tenants registered per member branch showed a sizable jump. July 2023 showed an average of 187 prospective tenants registering on average compared to 127 in July 2022. Figures in July 2023 were up almost 38 per cent year on year, a continued trend that is predicted to show no signs of slowing.
Stock levels remain challenging with the number of properties available to rent per member branch increased slightly in July to an average of 14. This is still below what is needed to keep up with current demand."
So what your saying is we need more homes for people to live in? That or less people?
The Government could maybe try building some houses then. Then the Governement could own them and rent them to the people that need a home and either can't afford or don't want to buy one.
This isn't really that difficult when you think about it.
Hence my "Ukraine" suggestion as an alternative solution to the supply/demand problem.
Max Fowler wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:49 am
The decision of a BTL landlord to sell an investment property makes no difference to the number of homes in existence and the number of people needing homes.
Correct. But the number of people needing a home is increasing beyond the number of available homes.
The latest insight report from PropertyMark has the following commentary on the rental side of the market:
"The number of new prospective tenants registered per member branch showed a sizable jump. July 2023 showed an average of 187 prospective tenants registering on average compared to 127 in July 2022. Figures in July 2023 were up almost 38 per cent year on year, a continued trend that is predicted to show no signs of slowing.
Stock levels remain challenging with the number of properties available to rent per member branch increased slightly in July to an average of 14. This is still below what is needed to keep up with current demand."
So what your saying is we need more homes for people to live in? That or less people?
The Government could maybe try building some houses then. Then the Governement could own them and rent them to the people that need a home and either can't afford or don't want to buy one.
This isn't really that difficult when you think about it.
I do agree that the missing part of the housing system is government building them, it's plain to see. But It doesn't matter who builds them, but you've got to either accept urban density or destruction of green space, and the nimbys don't want either.
Max Fowler wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:14 am
Blowing up homes isn't going to help. Or do you mean send our olds off to fight out there?
We'd never get away with sending our our olds to fight over there. They vote. Plus, our olds are not the ones trying to rent.
No, no, no. Instead I think we need to send our younger people over there to get massacred. Obviously, we'd need to draw the line below our age, so that would mean sending anyone off below the age of 35.
Long slender neck wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 8:21 pm
But if they don’t have interest only mortgage then their asset is being paid for.
Yes, obviously.
Assuming their other costs do not exceed their income from time to time.
Its totally crazy that a BTL Scumbag would wet the bed over having to chip in a few quid of their own money into a house being paid for for them by a poor person.
I’m a BTL scumbag but a nice one. Not all BTLs are scumbags. Renting a property is a perfectly good option for some.
Your anger would probably be better placed with local authorities who decided private renting is a better option than councils having to own and upkeep property
Correct. But the number of people needing a home is increasing beyond the number of available homes.
The latest insight report from PropertyMark has the following commentary on the rental side of the market:
"The number of new prospective tenants registered per member branch showed a sizable jump. July 2023 showed an average of 187 prospective tenants registering on average compared to 127 in July 2022. Figures in July 2023 were up almost 38 per cent year on year, a continued trend that is predicted to show no signs of slowing.
Stock levels remain challenging with the number of properties available to rent per member branch increased slightly in July to an average of 14. This is still below what is needed to keep up with current demand."
So what your saying is we need more homes for people to live in? That or less people?
The Government could maybe try building some houses then. Then the Governement could own them and rent them to the people that need a home and either can't afford or don't want to buy one.
This isn't really that difficult when you think about it.
I do agree that the missing part of the housing system is government building them, it's plain to see. But It doesn't matter who builds them, but you've got to either accept urban density or destruction of green space, and the nimbys don't want either.
Problem with the density argument in our cities is that there aren't many big sites where you can do this in the way they do in the continent (ie building avenues of 5-8 storey blocks consisting of flats). So what density actually means is building hulking messes crammed into tiny footprints which everyone hates. They're building two 30 odd storey block of flats in Walthamstow that are going to be a complete eyesore but have been justified on grounds of needing to increase density.
Plus the size and quality of new builds in this country are abysmal.
What you'd ideally do is fund infrastructure improvements that allows for sustainable, dense expansion of big cities through taxation on uplift in value of land caused by said infrastructure improvements, as they do in the Netherlands, Germany etc. But that'd require us to work against the interest of land speculators and green belt lobbyists, as well as having the ability to think beyond the next election cycle.
Assuming their other costs do not exceed their income from time to time.
Its totally crazy that a BTL Scumbag would wet the bed over having to chip in a few quid of their own money into a house being paid for for them by a poor person.
I’m a BTL scumbag but a nice one. Not all BTLs are scumbags. Renting a property is a perfectly good option for some.
Your anger would probably be better placed with local authorities who decided private renting is a better option than councils having to own and upkeep property
Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:28 am
Problem with the density argument in our cities is that there aren't many big sites where you can do this in the way they do in the continent (ie building avenues of 5-8 storey blocks consisting of flats). So what density actually means is building hulking messes crammed into tiny footprints which everyone hates. They're building two 30 odd storey block of flats in Walthamstow that are going to be a complete eyesore but have been justified on grounds of needing to increase density.
Plus the size and quality of new builds in this country are abysmal.
What you'd ideally do is fund infrastructure improvements that allows for sustainable, dense expansion of big cities through taxation on uplift in value of land caused by said infrastructure improvements, as they do in the Netherlands, Germany etc. But that'd require us to work against the interest of land speculators and green belt lobbyists, as well as having the ability to think beyond the next election cycle.
It's such a bleak mess.
Good point. The volume of new high-density tower blocks in London is frightening when you know about the the quality of construction in the UK. Most of the ones I know about will breach financial viability in terms of reinvestment/refurbishment when they reach 40 years old.
Long slender neck wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 9:06 pm
Its totally crazy that a BTL Scumbag would wet the bed over having to chip in a few quid of their own money into a house being paid for for them by a poor person.
I’m a BTL scumbag but a nice one. Not all BTLs are scumbags. Renting a property is a perfectly good option for some.
Your anger would probably be better placed with local authorities who decided private renting is a better option than councils having to own and upkeep property
Wasnt it Thatcher who decided that?
1997 - 2010 plenty of time for New Labour to have rolled back the tide of Thatcherism in the housing market. Didn't happen. Why? They're all the same.
