Buy to let back in favour of mortgage lenders

silvercar

Article in today's Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/property_and_mortgages/article6993169.ece

"..There is definitely more buy-to-let availability now than there was. Lenders are telling us that rather than increasing loan availability to first-time buyers, they are preferring to lend to buy-to-let investors.”'

"....it was targeting high-earning landlords rather than first-time buyers because they were less likely to default."

1984ReturnsForReal_2

silvercar wrote: »

Article in today's Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/property_and_mortgages/article6993169.ece

"..There is definitely more buy-to-let availability now than there was. Lenders are telling us that rather than increasing loan availability to first-time buyers, they are preferring to lend to buy-to-let investors.”'

"....it was targeting high-earning landlords rather than first-time buyers because they were less likely to default."

Translation - "it was targeting high-earning landlords rather than first-time buyers because they are more likely to have more assets"

Bootski

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Translation - "it was targeting high-earning landlords rather than first-time buyers because they are more likely to have more assets"

Banks have to make their money somehow. They could care less about the social consequences of lending to cash buyers rather than 1st time buyers.

Its the bottom line that counts and it seems to be a good investment at the moment for those cash BTL landlords to buy up all the cheap properties at the moments.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Translation: BTL is back with a vengeance..... Market will continue to consolidate into the hands of the "property haves" and their families.

Buy-to-let investors are back in favour with mortgage lenders for the first time in two years, raising renewed concerns that first-time buyers could once more be squeezed out of the market for one and two-bedroom properties by landlords.

Brokers said that a number of lenders have started to focus on attracting landlords with more favourable interest rates, after a long period of freezing them out.

Despite the credit-fuelled boom and subsequent collapse of the buy-to-let market, which left many city centre flats empty and landlords unable to complete purchases, the lenders that are now re-entering the market perceive their customers as less risky than first-time buyers.

Whiteaway Laidlaw, a subsidiary of Manchester Building Society, which entered the buy-to-let market for the first time six months ago, and whose typical borrower is a GP with two or three buy-to-let properties, said that it was targeting high-earning landlords rather than first-time buyers because they were less likely to default.



It has also introduced a mimimum age limit of 30 to reduce exposure to younger, inexperienced buy-to-let investors.

David Cowie, chief executive of Manchester Building Society, said: “First-time buyers do not have a proven track record of meeting mortgage repayments. They might have a good credit history from paying off credit cards but a mortgage debt might be ten times what they are used to. We think that grade A buy-to-let is a much lower lending risk.”

Mark Clare, chief executive of Barratt, one of the UK’s biggest housebuilders, said: “There is definitely more buy-to-let availability now than there was. Lenders are telling us that rather than increasing loan availability to first-time buyers, they are preferring to lend to buy-to-let investors.”

Ray Boulger, director at John Charcol, the mortgage broker, said: “There has been a steady trend of lenders offering better deals to buy-to-let landlords over the last three months that has recently accelerated.
“The market is benefiting from an increase in competition, with an increased range of products and/or lower rates announced over the last week from BM Solutions, Godiva, Whiteaway Laidlaw, Aldermore and The Mortgage Works.”

No FTB's = no problem for prices..... Not with as big a housing shortage as we have now and for the forseeable future.

kennyboy66_2

silvercar wrote: »

Article in today's Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/property_and_mortgages/article6993169.ece

"..There is definitely more buy-to-let availability now than there was. Lenders are telling us that rather than increasing loan availability to first-time buyers, they are preferring to lend to buy-to-let investors.”'

"....it was targeting high-earning landlords rather than first-time buyers because they were less likely to default."

Perhaps now would be a good time to make the tax environment worse for BTL landlords - particularly for new purchases.

I'd go the hole hog and make it less attractive for all BTL but this does risk a panic sell off.

Surely, decreasing competition for FTB would be a 'social good' ?

Bootski

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Translation: BTL is back with a vengeance..... Market will continue to consolidate into the hands of the "property haves" and their families.



No FTB's = no problem for prices..... Not with as big a housing shortage as we have now and for the forseeable future.

hmm! nobody ever relied on the younger generation to sort out the problems their elders coundn't. I see no reason it should be any different in the housing market. ie NO First Time Buyers = NO PROBLEM!!!:rotfl:

Bootski

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Perhaps now would be a good time to make the tax environment worse for BTL landlords - particularly for new purchases.

I'd go the hole hog and make it less attractive for all BTL but this does risk a panic sell off.

Surely, decreasing competition for FTB would be a 'social good' ?

Your idea is sound - in an IDEAL world!:T

chucky

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Perhaps now would be a good time to make the tax environment worse for BTL landlords - particularly for new purchases.

I'd go the hole hog and make it less attractive for all BTL but this does risk a panic sell off.

Surely, decreasing competition for FTB would be a 'social good' ?

i thought that would be the sensible approach... but they don't want to be spending money on social housing (because they have don't have enough to go around) and they don't want to upset the voting population by affecting the house prices.

Bootski

Bootski wrote: »

Your idea is sound - in an IDEAL world!:T

Originally Posted by kennyboy66

Surely, decreasing competition for FTB would be a 'social good' ?

Socially good woud not allow you're elderly neighbour of dying of the cold:cool:

brit1234

Nice to see no figures yet again to back this up. More sloppy journalism or as I think ramping spin.

Now if buy to let business is being so good why isn't the biggest BTL provider by freak circs LLOYDS TSB chasing the business. Isn't it funny they quote Manchester building society and not the bank with the monoply on buy to let which is increasing restrictions due to their unhealthy state.

Bootski

Bootski wrote: »

Originally Posted by kennyboy66

Surely, decreasing competition for FTB would be a 'social good' ?

Socially good woud not allow you're elderly neighbour of dying of the cold:cool:

How's that then? We'd all suddenly become more socially aware and friendlier?? More compassionate maybe, more considerate and understanding.

You thing that we'd become a better race of people if we rid ourselves of FTB'er? You honestly think you'd have a whole generation of younger people buying bread and milk for those less fortunate than themselves? giving out hot water bottles and clearing the snow off thier drives?


Are you off your rocker:rotfl: