January Nationwide MoM -0.1% YoY -1.1%

IveSeenTheLight

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Ignoring the rest of that post though?
You have changed your tune quite quickly, only yesterday you were suggesting there would be investors buying in which would maintain prices. Now you are saying that isnt the case?

I didn't ignore the rest of the post. The whole post was about investment oppertunities so I provided a link to back up what I said.

Please remind me where I suggested investors would maintain prices.
I merely stated that investors would cater for a gap in the market for 1 / 2 bed properties if FTBers were holding out for larger properties.

I also said I envisaged a decline in owner occupancy and an increase in rentals.

all of this you did not believe so I showed you a link that backed it up

Mallotum_X wrote: »

The press release you refered to shows that BTL (with mortgage) is running at very low levels, not seen since before the boom really got going, and that is used to suggest a significant number of investors are out there? Do you expect this sector to return to 2007-2008 levels and if so how?

I've never suggested a return to 2007 / 2008 levels.
I even said I expected transaction levels to remain so.
why are you trying to infer I'm suggesting something I have not said?

Mallotum_X wrote: »

At the end of September, there were 1.29 million buy-to-let mortgages outstanding, an increase of 2% from the previous quarter.

2% in number from previous quarter, not same quarter previous year.

Read the figures 26,900 new BTL mortgages, on 1.29m total now 26,900 is 2% not 12%.

Again I refer you back to Generali's post, these are two seperate statistical figures

Generali wrote:

I think you misread it.

The 12% rise is the increase in the value of BTL loans in Q3 compared to Q2 2010.

The 2% rise is the increase in the number of BTL loans outstanding at the end of Q3 2009 vs Q2 2009.

Mallotum_X wrote: »

[Quick sense check: 12% of 1.264 (1.29m-26k) would be about 150k properties in a quarter where Land reg figures show 183k total transactions. A little high perhaps?]

All of which on a back drop of falling BTL and a small bounce in prices, which has now reverted back to falls...

Doesnt really stack up does it?

There is no analysis or information on the stats with that press release, nothing to explain who the 2% of new BTL properties went to.

Your possibly negating some factors here.
I have two BTL's that I am rapidly repaying the capital, so whilst I have not added to the new loans, I am contributing to the declining outstanding mortgage.
how many other investors are adjusting their debt ratios?

Your still confusing the quarterly value change and the annual quantity change

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think you got the bollox in the wrong place.

I corrected it for you.

That's your personal opinion without any merit to back it up

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So why wasn't BTL so popular prior to 1995?

If its that simple.

(Bear in mind that BTL pre 1995 was also focused on HMO's).

Because BTL wasn't around pre-1995. BTL started in July 1996
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/507390/pdf/684943.pdf

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

That's your personal opinion without any merit to back it up

As was yours

But seriously, come on. Most people buy into property for the yield?! Why on earth would anyone do that when we've all got access to a wide variety of shares paying higher dividend yields.

Shares which don't have nagging tenants.

Shares which don't have maintanance fees.

Shares which you can sell out of at the drop of a hat.

Yet you are going to try and convince us it's all about the rental yield?

Purlease.

IveSeenTheLight

Mallotum_X wrote: »

So why were these clever property investors buying over priced city centre flats with very low yields. Oh yes to flip or hope for price increases.

Ths big boom in BTL was on the back of amature investors buying 1 or two places for their pensions, because "prices only ever go up"

Many haven't sold off as they are waiting for prices to recover, and are being helped by low rates. If a tenant is paying most of the mortgage then they can hang on, even if the price has dropped.

While there may be some who tried (and many succeded) to take advantage of capital appreciation, the majority of private rental is based on retnal yield with capital appreciation being a benefit only when you sell of that part of the business.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As was yours

Graham, it's can be clearly shown who predicted mass exodus of BTL and who didn't.
It has also be shown that rental investment continues to expand, despite what many anti BTL's wanted.

I could also go on to show the decline in owner occupancy as a percentage of total housing stock being replaced by rental properties.

I'm extremely confortable with the facts I can present instead of your anecdotals.

Once you understand the facts, it makes it easier to back up your debate.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But seriously, come on. Most people buy into property for the yield?! Why on earth would anyone do that when we've all got access to a wide variety of shares paying higher dividend yields.

Shares which don't have nagging tenants.

Shares which don't have maintanance fees.

Shares which you can sell out of at the drop of a hat.

Yet you are going to try and convince us it's all about the rental yield?

Purlease.

Sorry, it's hard to keep up with your large edits.

Please take the oppotunity to use the search facility where this has been discussed time and time again.

I don't feel it's worth the effort to repeat time and time again.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Because BTL wasn't around pre-1995. BTL started in July 1996

BTL is a product name created by the Association of Residential Letting Agents.

Commercial lending for residential purchase was available prior to then. Normally the rate of interest charged was around 1% to 2% above that of SVR.

Mallotum_X

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Your still confusing the quarterly value change and the annual quantity change

No i just think you dont really understand what you are quoting.

Its a quarterly quantity change not annual the article states at 2%.

CML wrote:

At the end of September, there were 1.29 million buy-to-let mortgages outstanding, an increase of 2% from the previous quarter

the other stuff is just bigger numbers used in a press release to make it sound 'better' or 'bigger', its what press releases do, try to confuse people with big numbers. Read the article carefully.


But thats only really a side issue.



What is your actual point then, some BTL landlords will buy some of the unsold properties (1 and 2 bed) and this may or may not have any impact on property prices.

Where will the finance come from to allow this sector to grow, what level do you think it will get to, stay at 2002 levels? you have already said not back to 2007/08, so somewhere in the middle.

If overall transaction levels are going to stay simialar to recent months (50-60k a month) then you must think there will be a big % shift in the amount of transactions relating to BTL - what level?

What prices are these investors going to pay, current 2011 prices, will that give a good enough yield with a stagnant price index?

Mallotum_X

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

While there may be some who tried (and many succeded) to take advantage of capital appreciation, the majority of private rental is based on retnal yield with capital appreciation being a benefit only when you sell of that part of the business.

That really isnt what has been happening though is it.

Local example but works for many parts of the UK.

1 bed flats were selling at about 120k during the latter stages of the boom, and still going to investors. Rental on such a flat was about 500-550. Lets say 550. (now more like 400-450)

Assuming no voids ever, then gross yield before all the various costs was 5.5%

What was the yield after voids, maintenance management charges, agency fees

Canny investors! Really wish i had some of that.

To say they were looking at yield it the most stupid thing I have heard in ages, the BTL boys of the last few years wanted capital appreciation, why else would so many buy in to property that couldnt even pay for itself if you had a void period?