Is there going to be a scramble for properties????

confused31_2

I never thought of this before and it might be posted somewhere else, all the savers have got rubbish deals, houses are falling in price and first time buyers have mostly stopped buying and people are waiting for the bottom of the market.

Now savers are getting a bad deal with interest rates, and it is supposed to be 7 savers to 1 borrower.

Now what happens when the housing market hits bottom and all the savers decide that its a safer and a better money spinner, to buy a house and rent it out, taking a monthly income from renting, than the interest off savings in the bank.

Will there be a scramble for properties from FTB'S and savers to get the bargains, there are some bargains already about, and if someone who has over 100,000 pounds savings could buy a 3 bed roomed house now, and still get about 9000 pound a year in rent, even if they bought now the savers and the houses dropped 20% , they would still get that back and a bit more in about 3 years.

I know savers would have to pay tax, but no bank would ever pay anywhere near with a savings account, what the savers would get from renting a property out.

Infact its got to be a safe bet for savers, but they say there is still a shortage of houses, so will there be a mad scramble between the savers and the first time buyers, when houses hit rock bottom?

I know if i had savings over 100,000 pound i would be looking now to pick up a bargain to rent out, than have rubbish interest rates from the bank.

Sorry people just added this to make it more clearer, the example im using are savers who own their own property and have a spare 100,000 pound, do they put it in the bank or invest in a additional property and live off the rent??

What do you guys think?? Savers and Buyers?

bristol_pilot

The house I sold is now going down in value at £1000 per week. Even if I get 0% return on my savings that's still a better deal than a house that is likely to lose a further 20% this year. Plus, if I lose my job I will not be up the proverbial creek, which I would be if I spent all my dosh on bricks and mortar leaving nothing to fall back on.

The problem with the concept of FTB's piling in at the bottom of the market is that no-one will know it is the bottom until it is many months in the past, just like no-one realised that we had reached the peak until was well gone.

confused31_2

bristol_pilot wrote: »

The house I sold is now going down in value at £1000 per week. Even if I get 0% return on my savings that's still a better deal than a house that is likely to lose a further 20% this year. Plus, if I lose my job I will not be up the proverbial creek, which I would be if I spent all my dosh on bricks and mortar leaving nothing to fall back on.

The problem with the concept of FTB's piling in at the bottom of the market is that no-one will know it is the bottom until it is many months in the past, just like no-one realised that we had reached the peak until was well gone.

Im not on about if you have got a mortgage, we all know houses are dropping, what im saying is if you had enough to buy a house cash, why not buy a house outright and live off the rent?????

I mean if you owned your own house outright and you had 100,000 pounds in the bank i think you would be better to buy a additional house and live off the rent????

You would get more than what the bank would give you, you imagine if you did lose your job but you was still getting 9000 pound a year rent.

geoffky

Not When The Average Priced House Is Losing £2000.00 A Month......
.and The Biggest Boom In History Is Not Going To Be Followed By The Shortest Bust.

Remember 90% Of People Who Lost Most Of Their Money In The Stock Market Crash Did So By Thinking The Market Could Not Go Down Any More,


It Did Go Down Another 90%



AND BECAUSE HOUSES SHOULD BE FOR LIVING IN AND NOT SOME SPIV TO MAKE MONEY OFF...

SouthCoast

£9,000 p.a. = £750 a month.

Where I live you could only get around £500 a month for a £100k property giving a gross return of 6% before taxes, hassles and voids.

confused31_2

SouthCoast wrote: »

£9,000 p.a. = £750 a month.

Where I live you could only get around £500 a month for a £100k property giving a gross return of 6% before taxes, hassles and voids.

Its still a lot more than you would get from your savings from a 100,000 pound in the bank, and the good thing about it, when house prices go up you can sell it on at a profit.

Theres not many bank acounts that would pay you 500 pound a month

socrates

Average saver with £100k IF they did find a property that was producing 9k rent - would move far too slowly compared to investors who have 'arrangements' with EA's, people inside lenders etc. After all they could only really be repossessions.

I do not believe there are many 9% yields about (on current purchases)

Let alone the fact that there are void periods, maintenance, tax etc.....

confused31_2

socrates wrote: »

Average saver with £100k IF they did find a property that was producing 9k rent - would move far too slowly compared to investors who have 'arrangements' with EA's, people inside lenders etc. After all they could only really be repossessions.

I do not believe there are many 9% yields about (on current purchases)

Let alone the fact that there are void periods, maintenance, tax etc.....

Oh so investors will get the nod before?? so they can buy them??
Im new to this but i was just thinking if you had some spare cash, you wouldnt go far wrong by buying a second home and renting it out.

I know a lot of people got stung when they bought in 2006 and 2007 but if you could get a bargain now it would be great investment especially if you was going to keep it for over 5 years.

I mean surely the landlords who have made the most out of buy to let, bought a lot of properties after the last house price crash?

SouthCoast

Why invest in a depreciating asset?
My rented property is dropping in value by £2500 a month.

PasturesNew

Is this a spot the knob contest?
I think I know the answer...

Rick62

I can see why you're confused. There are very few bargains around (some at auction), very few people have £100k lying around, and those that do are smart enough to consider other options, eg corporate bonds yielding 7 to 8%, lower risk than property and much more liquid.