The insanity of house buying

chucky

PasturesNew wrote: »

In these discussions it's often forgotten how the change in law and BTL changed the marketplace.

Before 1996 there were BTL landlords. They would take out a commercial mortgage, with a large deposit and they'd be repaying the loan. As it was a business, they had to prove a business case and acumen to run the business.

you should really get your facts right - there is no increase in BTL numbers since 1996. the only time would have been maybe 2006 onwards.

and in these discussions it is forgetting to use facts and use urban myths or even simply make things up



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456991/html/default.stm

Leviathan2009

carolt wrote: »

I think many of those comenting on the virtues of BTL are not actually old enough to recall the changes to the market in 1996, and imagine that BTL as we have now is how it's always been.

It hasn't.

And before you ask - no, I never had a problem finding a suitable property to rent before 1996, or know anyone who did.

The difference then was that (a) there was far more council/social housing still available, so private renting really was a 'choice'. (b) house prices were far more affordable, so again, only those actively wanted to rent in preference to buying did so and (c) you didn't get all these greedy BTL idiots - you got professional landlords who'd actually put some thought into what they were doing.

Not claiming they were all angels - but you couldn't 'fall into' buying investment property then the way anyone could post 1996.

An insightful post

chucky

Leviathan2009 wrote: »

An insightful post

but factually incorrect unfortunately - there has been no increase in BTL since 1996 - see the above graph.

there is also a higher number of social rented property than privately rented property.

Catblue

chucky wrote: »

but factually incorrect unfortunately - there has been no increase in BTL since 1996 - see the above graph.

there is also a higher number of social rented property than privately rented property.

What am I missing here?

Your graph does not even mention buy-to-let.

Leviathan2009

chucky wrote: »

but factually incorrect unfortunately - there has been no increase in BTL since 1996 - see the above graph.

there is also a higher number of social rented property than privately rented property.

Have you neglected to miss out the fact that this chart only goes up to 2005. We are in 2009 now. It also finishes up 2 years before the property bubble reached is feverish height.

chucky

Catblue wrote: »

What am I missing here?

Your graph does not even mention buy-to-let.

privately rented is Buy to Let - any percentage increase in private rented property and a decrease in owner Occupied property would mean that investors were buying property to rent and there were less owner occupied property.

chucky

Leviathan2009 wrote: »

Have you neglected to miss out the fact that this chart only goes up to 2005. We are in 2009 now. It also finishes up 2 years before the property bubble reached is feverish height.

the graph was in reply to the comments that BTL exploded since 1996 due to the change in the law - this wasn't the case as you can see.

i doubt that the increased volume in BTL in 2006 and the first 6 months of 2007 were a huge impact or spike on the graph, this date onwards BTL investment has been minimal. the owner occupied buyers were the ones that drove HPI.

by the way do you have this data from 2005 onwards?

Catblue

chucky wrote: »

privately rented is Buy to Let - any percentage increase in private rented property and a decrease in owner Occupied property would mean that investors were buying property to rent and there were less owner occupied property.

Erm, no it isn't.

Hope this helps.

chucky

Catblue wrote: »

Erm, no it isn't.

Hope this helps.

privatle rented is either a property with a mortgage or a property without a mortgage. those with a mortgage are BTL. it's quite simple really.

Catblue

chucky wrote: »

privatle rented is either a property with a mortgage or a property without a mortgage. those with a mortgage are BTL. it's quite simple really.

So when you said "Private rented is Buy to Let" you were mistaken?

And do you accept that your graph demonstrates precisely zero about buy-to-let since you have now suddenly realised that non-BTL properties make up a large part of the private rented sector?