It's harder for FTB's

Graham_Devon

I bet you couldnt even begin to explain that and how it correlates to the above chucky.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I bet you couldnt even begin to explain that and how it correlates to the above chucky.

Thanks Graham for that bit of wisdom. Again, nothing to do with the OP, or indeed even anything I said, but something to revert to when in need I guess

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucky wrote: »

not everyone can and will be able to buy, afford or qualify to buy a house.

it's the way it is unfortunately - either you go with it or wait to the next HPC and hopefully buy or moan that it's not fair. quite simple choices really.

Not everyone can afford to buy a flat or house and unless 70% of future buyers can afford to then owner occupancy stats will fall

the_ash_and_the_oak

chucky wrote: »

apparently the FTB's entering the market are at the same percentage that they've always been.
However, they are FTB's with larger deposits.

Yes - this is an interesting stat - one that could mean a myriad of things. Buyers of all kinds have fallen in number but ftbs have maintained their percentage of that number (given that other sales usually rely on an FTB at the beginning of the chain I wouldn't really expect any drastic change in this percentage of market)

FTBs have maintained their percentage of market = FTBs not unduly affected by market situation

or

FTBs have fallen in number = FTBs have been affected by market situation

nearlynew

chucky wrote: »

why should it be right?

you obviously think that families should be repossessed and lose their home.

Because you said this in post #16...........

not everyone can and will be able to buy, afford or qualify to buy a house.

What you mean is..., it's ok for anyone who used financial trickery to obtain a mortgage and now can't afford it to be rewarded by maintaining high prices.

But anyone who has been saving for years and remains unable to afford high prices should be excluded from your "home ownership club"

Thrugelmir

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Not everyone can afford to buy a flat or house and unless 70% of future buyers can afford to then owner occupancy stats will fall

Then market forces will drive prices lower. Until people can afford to buy in sufficent numbers to support the pyramid.

Unless there are some wealthy Asians sitting on the sidelines waiting to pounce when rental returns improve.

mewbie_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Unless there are some wealthy Asians sitting on the sidelines waiting to pounce when rental returns improve.

My limited understanding of a professional investor would be rent times 100 = purchase price. Very simple and chimes with what I think about letting and risk (plus effort) v. reward. So they might be waiting for a while yet.

IveSeenTheLight

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

As a BTLer with just one property to let, I do not care how many FTBers return to the marketthere are.

I just need one family to want my property and, at the moment, I could let it ten times over. With a rising population and a trend towards more single occupancy homes I'm confident that my property will be required for many years to come.

GG

I'm in a similar position but with two properties.
In the last 3 years I have had only 2.6 void days per year. That was only because of a change from mid month rental on one property to a start of month rental.

Since then both properties have remained rented throughout.

mewbie_2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

2.6 void days per year.

You have been lucky. You are supposed to allow two months a year for voids when adding up the figures. So very well done to you.

IveSeenTheLight

mewbie wrote: »

You have been lucky. You are supposed to allow two months a year for voids when adding up the figures. So very well done to you.

I've not been lucky, I bought in an area that has a very strong rental market.
I also market the properties very competatively and look after my tenants.

Luck has nothing to do with it, being a good landlord that understands the market has it all to do with it.