The future of B&B and BTL

pickles110564

mewbie wrote: »

NuLabour = BTL
OldLabour = Council Houses.

I know which one I preferred.

At last we agree BTL is the only way forward.

neverdespairgirl

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

And without BTL, where would all the renters be staying?

BTL has just replaced the old council houses. If the government hadn't decided to sell them off to reduce they're overheads, there wouldn't be the same rental market and BTL wouldn't have been so enticing.

I don't think it's as simple as that. Have 1.1 million council houses been sold in the last 10 years? Doubt it.

If renting was made much more secure, and therefore fixed costs for LLs were higher, then the price LLs would be prepared to pay would be lower. That would be a Good Thing all round.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

Whilst I agree that selling off council housing has been part of the problem, the idea that all the renters (a) choose renting for any reasons other than ludicrously high house prices (b) if prices fell, would choose to stay renting and be unable/unwilling to buy - is patently nonsense.

...................

I think the mantra 'renters want to rent' is what BTL landlords tell themselves at night to help them sleep. That doesn't make it true.

I do know and know of people who could afford to buy and haven't. I have vague recollection of the head of a London estate agency...I'm sorry I really can't remember which one, writing an article, probably four sh years ago, saying why he chose to rent in London, for example. I also know a couple of stokbrokers who rent, and a Lloyds name..possibly to keep as liquid as possible? I don't know why they do, jut that they do.

MissMoneypenny

musemad wrote: »

The annoying thing about the goverment taking over these X building societies is that they are now liabilities on the GOVERMENTS books , and have to be paid for from increased taxes.
So we end up paying increased taxes over the next 20 years or so till the goverment hives them off probably at a pittance to some foreign buyer

Whilst, no doubt, leaving the burden of those staff pensions with the tax payer.

fatpig_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

And without BTL, where would all the renters be staying?
Not everyone wants to buy, some don't, some want but can't and some will never be able to buy.
Where do they go to?

Most people want to buy rather than rent. But they've been priced out of the market by the BTL swine.

kennyboy66_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I don't think it's as simple as that. Have 1.1 million council houses been sold in the last 10 years? Doubt it.

If renting was made much more secure, and therefore fixed costs for LLs were higher, then the price LLs would be prepared to pay would be lower. That would be a Good Thing all round.

4 reasons for more demand for rented properties.

1) Huge increase is student population.
2) Huge increase in net immigration.
3) Ageing population with less families living together.
4) More households as a result of divorce / separation.

I would agree that BTL competes with first time buyers & prices them out of the market. I would change the tax system to stop it from favouring landlords over owner buyers.

WTF?_2

kennyboy66 wrote: »

4 reasons for more demand for rented properties.

1) Huge increase is student population.
2) Huge increase in net immigration.
3) Ageing population with less families living together.
4) More households as a result of divorce / separation.

I would agree that BTL competes with first time buyers & prices them out of the market. I would change the tax system to stop it from favouring landlords over owner buyers.

(1) ... Should boost BTL but only in student areas.
(2) There's evidence to suggest that lots of recent economic migrants are now heading home or to greener pastures and even through the boom years there was huge emigration of natives which offset a lot of the immigration. Emigration is likely to increase in a nasty recession and immigration is tailing off fast.
(3) An ageing population means less younger people and kids which indicates a shrinking native population. Which means longer term there will be downward pressure on housing demand.
(4) I can't imagine that divorce rates are going to have that much of an impact on demand for houses. There are plenty of flats to rent for the dislocated ex-husband.

There was a lot of guff spoken about the 'shortfall of supply vs demand' during the boom years. This was pure and simple tosh. Yes, there was loads of artificial demand made possible by cheap and easy loans to speculators that fuelled the property boom. But in terms of underlying demand for people who just wanted a place to live there doesn't seem to have been any such situation. Otherwise rents would have increased massively, in line with house prices, and we'd have seen very large scale homelessness.

:rolleyes:

ad44downey

The only reason that the obscenity of BTL was allowed to flourish was because the government never taxed the BTL spivs properly. And because the banks were throwing money around like confetti. The banks might have learnt their lesson, lets hope the government does too and taxes the spivs to the hilt

chucky

interesting times for BTL's - many will be definately be ok if they maintain their liquidity and don't overstretch

http://www.myfinances.co.uk/news/mortgages/buy-let-mortgages/rental-demand-grows-65-as-mortgage-approvals-fall-$1241818.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/3056278/Rental-demand-soars-65-per-cent.html

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5in37WTIFqq6YPAl8sFWrRG3I4lSA

http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=171298&d=403&h=401&f=402

mewbie_2

And from your links...

"But he added that the strong demand for rented accommodation was not driving up rents, as the demand was being met by supply from sellers who had opted to let their home rather than accept a lower price for it in the current market"

So rents static at best, and capital values falling. Interesting times indeed.