Second Home Ownership reaches Record Level

Dan:_4

DervProf wrote: »

I`m loathed to say this, but I`m gonna (if nothing else, I`m honest), it has crossed my mind to invest my savings in a second property.

You could do worse mate, Ive recently taken the plunge and purchased my first BTL.

chucky

DervProf wrote: »

OK Hamish, but during the days of "easy" credit, didn`t second home ownership rapidly increase ? And in times of very low interest rates for normal savings accounts, does it not tempt wealthier savers into putting their cash into property ?

Restricted mortgage finance should, in theory, limit the number of owner-occupier and BTL mortgages. I`m thinking that it isn`t strictly down to mortgage "rationing" that causes an increase in the BTL/Owner-Occupier ratio, low returns for savers plays a large part.

I`m loathed to say this, but I`m gonna (if nothing else, I`m honest), it has crossed my mind to invest my savings in a second property.

that's the way i thought.

i was already maxing out my ISA and g/friends S&S ISA, i was contributing decent amounts to my SIPP and then I had cash sitting in an account earning me 3%-4% interest...

what do i do? i bought more property when nobody was buying

unless there are better investment opportunities out there i'm happy with my choices of investments...

DervProf

chucky, I believe you have challenged me to sell my house for 3 x local income, to take action on my belief that property prices should be lower. (And that`s a fair challenge, BTW, I`m not having a "pop" !). I replied by saying that I thought it was an extreme way for me to encourage lower house prices, or to prove my point. (Yes, I probably didn`t use those exact words, Backtracking ? :rotfl:).

Although my "principles" aren`t strong enough for me to take such drastic action, they are strong enough for me to not "invest" in property. I agree that it might turn out to be a good financial investment (although that is not guaranteed), but I choose not to on principle.

chucky

DervProf wrote: »

chucky, I believe you have challenged me to sell my house for 3 x local income, to take action on my belief that property prices should be lower. (And that`s a fair challenge, BTW, I`m not having a "pop" !). I replied by saying that I thought it was an extreme way for me to encourage lower house prices, or to prove my point. (Yes, I probably didn`t use those exact words, Backtracking ? :rotfl:).

Although my "principles" aren`t strong enough for me to take such drastic action, they are strong enough for me to not "invest" in property. I agree that it might turn out to be a good financial investment (although that is not guaranteed), but I choose not to on principle.

i'm just saying how i see it and have done it - lower house prices are probably a good thing but it doesn't really work well unless you have nominal rises that are lower than wage inflation.

DervProf

chucky wrote: »

i'm just saying how i see it and have done it - lower house prices are probably a good thing but it doesn't really work well unless you have nominal rises that are lower than wage inflation.

Obviously, I`m coming from a more principled direction. I have no problem with some of the bulls, even though their actions (such as yours in buying more than one property) don`t agree with my opinions on the subject. What I do have problems with is those who benefit from HPI, then either boast about it, or try and encourage others to do the same. It sounds like you are not in this category. You are more sensibull.

I would obviously like to see some sort of regulation or control over second home ownership. This view is often met with arguments from "the other side", probably from those who benefit from home ownership. Those are the kind of arguments I like to see and get involved with, if makes for a good debate.

JonnyBravo

DervProf wrote: »

Although my "principles" aren`t strong enough for me to take such drastic action, they are strong enough for me to not "invest" in property. I agree that it might turn out to be a good financial investment (although that is not guaranteed), but I choose not to on principle.

Fair enough. No one can argue with that. Thing is, plenty won't hold that opinion.
It's all to do with the balance of what's best for oneself and what's best for society.

eg clearly it is better to advise an individual to pay down their debt and not borrow for needless purchases. On the other hand if the whole of society started to follow that advice this week we'd be back in recession in a jiffy.

I fully agree it may be better for house prices to drop a bit for some of society, unfortunately, I'm not prepared to do anything to help that come to fruition. Instead I'm doing all I can to protect against it mattering if they drop or not. Which may incidentally make it minutely less probable to happen. That matters not one jot to me.

chucky

DervProf wrote: »

Obviously, I`m coming from a more principled direction. I have no problem with some of the bulls, even though their actions (such as yours in buying more than one property) don`t agree with my opinions on the subject. What I do have problems with is those who benefit from HPI, then either boast about it, or try and encourage others to do the same. It sounds like you are not in this category. You are more sensibull.

I would obviously like to see some sort of regulation or control over second home ownership. This view is often met with arguments from "the other side", probably from those who benefit from home ownership. Those are the kind of arguments I like to see and get involved with, if makes for a good debate.

i don't see regulation of 2nd home-ownership working (as in 2nd home tax etc...) or even a good idea but i do see some sort of regulation of credit that goes towards buying a 2nd home being a more sensible outcome.

ILW

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Fair enough. No one can argue with that. Thing is, plenty won't hold that opinion.
It's all to do with the balance of what's best for oneself and what's best for society.

eg clearly it is better to advise an individual to pay down their debt and not borrow for needless purchases. On the other hand if the whole of society started to follow that advice this week we'd be back in recession in a jiffy.

I fully agree it may be better for house prices to drop a bit for some of society, unfortunately, I'm not prepared to do anything to help that come to fruition. Instead I'm doing all I can to protect against it mattering if they drop or not. Which may incidentally make it minutely less probable to happen. That matters not one jot to me.

Surely what is best for society should be influenced by government. There are all sorts of measures that can be used using tax etc to make things fairer and to reward those that are doing something that is good for society and remove the incentive from those that are causing harm.

chucky

ILW wrote: »

Surely what is best for society should be influenced by government. There are all sorts of measures that can be used using tax etc to make things fairer and to reward those that are doing something that is good for society and remove the incentive from those that are causing harm.

we don't live in an ideal world unfortunately

ILW

chucky wrote: »

we don't live in an ideal world unfortunately

Probably worth at least trying to get a little closer though.