More houses needed, says Government adviser

chucky

mewbie wrote: »

Chucky, you are running out of straws to clutch at.

i'm waiting for you tell me otherwise but i know for a fact that you can't - you're starting to show your ignorance and lack of intelligence. it's best that you go back to trying to be funny to make yourself popular...

sleepyj

chucky wrote: »

if i was Hamish i would be quoting you buying in Feb 2009 it's an appreciating asset.
you could then say buying in August 2007 to today - then yes it;s depreciating.

so i'm not sure about the depreciating asset comment - it all depends on how what period of time that you use.

Perhaps so, but I'm taking the view, like many analysts have, that it will be a deprecating asset in the medium term. Unless, there's some form of miracle, I don't expect otherwise.

As far as apprectiating goes, that's also subject to low transaction volume skew.

Very true but not sure about rush to the exit they will sell over time and if people like Aviva start entering the market and buying that means increased demand so that slightly contradicts your demand theory.

Wow, that's a pretty skewed view. When Aviva enter the market, it will get a whole lot more competitive because there will be MORE rentals available, leading to decreased rents. This is coupled with new regulations on landlords, "forced landlords" competing, and the fact that people are losing their jobs and not able to meet their rent commitments.

Like I say - rush for the exit when people realise their 5% yield doesn't cover their costs anymore :T

Edit : Oh I see why you've said more demand, suggest you read the Aviva article again, they're not BUYING they're BUILDING

The Financial Times reports the fund will pre-order purpose-built residential blocks of 100 units or more in the south-east to rent out, mainly around major transport hubs and on significant regeneration sites that have stalled owing to the economic downturn.

mewbie_2

chucky wrote: »

i'm waiting for you tell me otherwise but i know for a fact that you can't - you're starting to show your ignorance and lack of intelligence. it's best that you go back to trying to be funny to make yourself popular...

I have nothing to prove. I am not trying to swim against the HPC tide like one of last years salmon.

ManAtHome

chucky wrote: »

just as a a comparison - i would bet that the interest on the mortgage wouldn't be that different at both points in time.

But the capital repayments would be hell of a lot more.

chucky

sleepyj wrote: »

Perhaps so, but I'm taking the view, like many analysts have, that it will be a deprecating asset in the medium term. Unless, there's some form of miracle, I don't expect otherwise.

As far as apprectiating goes, that's also subject to low transaction volume skew.

agreed - i would say short-term but i don't have a problem with medium term. we just don't know.

sleepyj wrote: »

Wow, that's a pretty skewed view. When Aviva enter the market, it will get a whole lot more competitive because there will be MORE rentals available, leading to decreased rents. This is coupled with new regulations on landlords, "forced landlords" competing, and the fact that people are losing their jobs and not able to meet their rent commitments.

Like I say - rush for the exit when people realise their 5% yield doesn't cover their costs anymore :T

when i said demand in the last post i meant demand for rentals. demand for purchases will be similar to now for a while i would imagine.

it will be definitely more competitive with these companies entering the rental market and will probably be very like the rental model in Germany where blocks of apartments are run and owned by pension funds. many "amateurs" will be hit but will probably be those new build landlords who truly are amateur business people.

chucky

ManAtHome wrote: »

But the capital repayments would be hell of a lot more.

that's why i said mortgage interest.

capital repayments will obviously be more as people are now able to borrow more.

shame that Mewbie isn't bright enough to understand these things - he says he has nothing to prove but simply shows how thick he is.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

92.5% employment rate of people that can work. apparently you need 10% plus unemployment to start to have a serious impact on house prices.

Absolutely no where near.

I'd like to know the people able to work actually working.

mewbie_2

chucky wrote: »

that's why i said mortgage interest.

capital repayments will obviously be more as people are now able to borrow more.

shame that Mewbie isn't bright enough to understand these things - he says he has nothing to prove but simply shows how thick he is.

capital - shmapital. mortgage - shmortage.

Chucky. You must be nice to all Money Savers. Even me.

sleepyj

chucky wrote: »

when i said demand in the last post i meant demand for rentals. demand for purchases will be similar to now for a while i would imagine.

.

Demand for rentals may stay the same or even increase, but surely chucky, a £1billion fund buying up cheap land (land has fallen of a cliff much more than house prices) and using that land to build purpose built rental accommodation increases supply significantly? This is just for starters - if that model works then many others will follow suit like in the US.

The knock on effect being that BTL's that can't compete start getting freed up and back into the market.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Absolutely no where near.

I'd like to know the people able to work actually working.

Mr D -we're having a decent discussion here... don't just jump in

the reason i used is 92.5% is used is because those that are able to work and able to buy a house.

we can't include part-timers that can't, stay at home mums etc... otherwise it's somewhere near 75% i think it is.
it includes all the other people not able to work for whatever reason. it skews the figures of people that 'could' buy a house;