Rent prices rise for ninth month in a row

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So it's entirely possible that there is no discrepancy, if they are reporting two different things.....

The average rent including existing leases, versus the average rent for new leases only.

It's possible. The only way to find out is to ask LSL.

I'm always cynical when someone produces figures and isn't very open about explaining how they were arrived at. That doesn't make the LSL numbers wrong but it does raise a flag for me.

abaxas wrote: »

Ermmm,

So you don't need any qualifications to be a lecturer? Ie a uni can 'give' you a masters and you're ready to go?

That's the case in Aus. I don't know what the situation is in the UK. I've never seen lecturer training courses advertised though.

Generali

Cleaver wrote: »

I believe Generali said 'minimum'. I guess like any job there will be an appointment process to check that you can do the job, and most people aren't 'given' MAs, they work for them.

I think you get given an MA a couple of years after completing a BA at Oxford on the basis that you are bound to be continuing your studies. Don't quote me on that though as I'm far from certain.

The way it worked for me was that in the first term they gave me a little work as a try out and then increased it from there.

toby3000

abaxas wrote: »

Ermmm,

So you don't need any qualifications to be a lecturer? Ie a uni can 'give' you a masters and you're ready to go?

If you mean 'do lecturers need a teaching qualification' then no, they don't. Which is why lots of them are terrible.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So it's entirely possible that there is no discrepancy, if they are reporting two different things.....

The average rent including existing leases and including council and private rented, versus the average rent for new private rented leases only.

If RPI find their average via survey, for example, it will include all existing leases at lower amounts. Just as if you did the same thing for owners, it would find the average is skewed down by those who bought at a lower price in the past.

However that doesn't tell us what it would cost to rent a house today. The LSL index presumably does....

Just as the house price indices do the same.

Including historical data doesn't seem a rational way of measuring the state of the market today.

So I would argue LSL is more relevant than RPI if you're trying to establish current market rents, and debate the trend.

In case gen missed the edit.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

In case gen missed the edit.

I did miss it and they are fair points. Ultimately, the RPI is trying to measure the cost of living not the state of the rental market.

I'd still be interested to see how LSL Property Services have this calculated. It shouldn't be possible for new rental prices to run so far ahead of the average so consistently given that there isn't security of tenure for most renters.

I've yet to see the LSL figure be below the RPI number.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

Ultimately, the RPI is trying to measure the cost of living not the state of the rental market.
.

Very true.

Be interesting to know more about LSL's methodology, but on the surface it does appear likely they're just measuring somethng different to the RPI measure.

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

True. However your costs are likely to be going up with inflation and so if rents don't keep pace your income will fall relative to prices.

I can't dispute the inflation indices with you because obviously they are factual. However what I would say is that I can tell you from first hand experience that the rental market is dramatically different from last year in London (or at least in Battersea).

Last year I dropped the rent on 3 of my properties, this year I raised the rent back to the original level and when I rented a vacant flat out a month ago the prospective tenants were almost fighting over it, even though I had increased the rent by 10% from the previous year.

On the subject of costs, my interest payments have dropped approx from 35k to 6k, so any rise in my other costs is insignificant compared to this. In fact I would go as far to say that if things could stay as they are you can keep any recovery I would rather stay as we are (ignoring of course that it might all fall apart, so I know that is not entirely a logical statement.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

On another note.....

Average rent = £691 per month. Average house price = £165k. So the average yield should in theory be 5%.

However it's probably a reasonable assumption that the average rental property is of a type cheaper than the average house. After all, one and two bed flats form a disproportionately high percentage of rentals.

So the average yield in reality is likely to be closer to 6% or 7%.......

No wonder so many landlords are trying to buy more property.