Buy to let replacing first time buyers

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

On a moral level, some of the stuff is just downright wrong....The whole system needs changing and looking at.

whatever system you impose, some people will still act like morons. my personal experience suggests that it is very much the minority of landlords who act improperly, the main problems i have experienced during about 10 years of private renting are with the terrible agencies not the landlords. maybe my experience is atypical.

personally i think that regulation of letting agents would have far more impact on quality of life of tenants that regulation of landlords, but again, that is just based on my limited personal experience.

FTBFun

chewmylegoff wrote: »

whatever system you impose, some people will still act like morons. my personal experience suggests that it is very much the minority of landlords who act improperly, the main problems i have experienced during about 10 years of private renting are with the terrible agencies not the landlords. maybe my experience is atypical.

personally i think that regulation of letting agents would have far more impact on quality of life of tenants that regulation of landlords, but again, that is just based on my limited personal experience.

I agree with this - actually I reckon a great deal of problems posted on the sensible board are because the LAs (an unregulated industry btw) are a bunch of crooks/charlatans/astonishingly incompetent.

If anything needs to be reformed it is that sector first.

System

Perhaps I'm mistaken but isn't this exactly why people were saying FTBers aren't required for the market to pick up?

I ask as this was fiercely denied but no one has a problem with his particular article.

twadge_face

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Perhaps I'm mistaken but isn't this exactly why people were saying FTBers aren't required for the market to pick up?

I ask as this was fiercely denied but no one has a problem with his particular article.

LOTS of people have a problem with this spamtastic infomercial article.

It basically says:

Article wrote:

"BTL is great. And you know what? House prices will go up for ever and there are no more FTBs any more. You are very clever reading this article and therefore for considering BTL as investment. You are a genius. P.S. WANT ONE A BTL MORTGAGE FROM OUR AFFILIATES? YOU'RE SO VERY, VERY CLEVER

julieq

twadge face, inflation is a complete non-issue when you have yield.

Buy a 5 year bond at 4%. At the end of the term you get your cash back and the interest. You don't get more of your capital back to compensate for inflation.

A house is better, because over a medium term you are likely to get capital growth, unless there is a massive building programme. You're unlikely to get falls over a 5-7 year period, and you can time your exit better.

At the time I suggested BTL was a good investment for someone taking about a 7 year view where prices fell for a couple of years and restored themselves to Jan 2009 nominal values over the following 5 years, people like you (probably you in fact under a different name) said the same sorts of things as you're saying now. And from that point there was capital growth very quickly back to current levels which we're sitting at.

Anyway, you'll find out. You may not like it, but I was right then and I'm confident I'm right now because of the way the fundamentals are set up in supply/demand terms. As Joe pointed out, I said FTBs aren't necessary to sustain prices, and they're not. This article is an indication that is a correct view, when the metrics come in we'll know for certain.

ultrawomble

julieq wrote: »

I said FTBs aren't necessary to sustain prices, and they're not.

So I guess in practice that means that the phrase 'mortgage rationing' so beloved by some is bogus to a degree since BTL investors are clearly able to borrow funds.

FTBFun

ultrawomble wrote: »

So I guess in practice that means that the phrase 'mortgage rationing' so beloved by some is bogus to a degree since BTL investors are clearly able to borrow funds.

Not necessarily, as I suspect investors have better access to funds for a healthy deposit.

ultrawomble

FTBFun wrote: »

Not necessarily, as I suspect investors have better access to funds for a healthy deposit.

So, if you can afford to buy the product, you can have it. A bit like buying a Rolls Royce.

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Perhaps I'm mistaken but isn't this exactly why people were saying FTBers aren't required for the market to pick up?

I ask as this was fiercely denied but no one has a problem with his particular article.

I have not yet seen anyone from the industry suggest FTB's can be dispensed.

Reason being, at some point, FTB's are needed. Even if it's at a second level. You need FTB's to turn into Second time buyers.

Unless you believe that BTL landlords will eventually take the place of FTB's, 2TB's, 3TB's and also buy up the last level of retirement type bungalows etc.

BTL is currently a minor sticking plaster for the lack of FTB's....but that is all it will ever be. Unless like I say, BTL takes over every rung of the ladder and we all end up renting.

Graham_Devon

FTBFun wrote: »

Not necessarily, as I suspect investors have better access to funds for a healthy deposit.

Therefore, not mortgage "rationing". Merely lending to those who fit requirements.

Not everyone can go into VW and get a loan for their cars, as they do not meet the eligibility requirements. Doesn't mean VW are rationing cars.