Rising rents pushes 100,000 more into flatshares

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

On the flip side is having a free for all with easy credit and those who where born earlier having the advantage fairer?

I wouldn’t advocate that but that was only available for a short time, I think the biggest thing preventing people is the deposit and the way I understand it, the size of deposit is not a test of someone’s ability to save but to reduce risk for the bank.

Road_Hog

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As suspected, the housing optimists completely ignore what I suggested many wouldn't get to.

The effects of this, Hamish, Pimpernel etc are less and less people able to buy in to the housing market, and, with rising rents, more and more finding it taking longer to secure the financial means of doing so.

Is there not a big big problem brewing here?

Because you're not taking into account all the factors. So what if 100K are sharing, what about the 300K net immigration we have every year and that's only net immigration, you may find that some of the emigrants keep hold of their property to rent out and don't release it back on to the market.

No matter how many drop out of the buying market, it is more than covered by enough immigrants to fill a city the size of Birmingham every 3 years and that doesn't even take into account all the unrecorded immigrants.

kabayiri

Are we missing an angle here?

If rental business continues to increase, is it not a matter of time before it becomes an attractive source of income to bigger companies?

'Tesco Rental' / 'Asda Home for you'. These bigger companies might be able to find novel ways of offsetting running costs, and leverage some of their other business, in terms of furnishing these property or offering discounted energy/food.

FTBFun

Percy1983 wrote: »

On the flip side is having a free for all with easy credit and those who where born earlier having the advantage fairer?

It's perfectly possible to purchase a property if you were born in the 1980s. Getting rid of that massive chip on your shoulder would be a start.

Percy1983

FTBFun wrote: »

It's perfectly possible to purchase a property if you were born in the 1980s. Getting rid of that massive chip on your shoulder would be a start.

I know it is, I was born in 1983 and will be buying.

Its not a chip its a valid point, read below:

My point is if HPI kept going at the rate it was it would ger harder and for each generation until you finally got a full generation being priced out.

LydiaJ

JonnyBravo wrote: »

I do agree.
It needs a mind shift in the nation though, not just landlords.
I've often stated I'd be more than happy to tie tenants in with long tenancies with zero increase in rent.
I've yet to have anyone take more than 1 year. In the main they want flexibility as they still want to be able to get out and buy if the situation arises somehow.

There isn't going to be widespread demand for long tenancies as long as the employment situation remains uncertain. Even in a boom, who can guarantee that they won't have a change of circumstances requiring a move in the next several years? Homeowners have the option to sell, or let their own place and rent, or something. Somebody tied into a long tenancy is stuck if they need to relocate.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

I know it is, I was born in 1983 and will be buying.

Its not a chip its a valid point, read below:

My point is if HPI kept going at the rate it was it would ger harder and for each generation until you finally got a full generation being priced out.

When you are born does make a big difference but it is not just being born earlier. I see you are about 28 if you were born in the early 70s you would have been lucky and seen the lowest prices in relation to earnings, but if you had been born in early 60s you would be facing higher prices than you are now. So as you can see some Baby boomers experienced higher prices than you are now.

Percy1983

ukcarper wrote: »

When you are born does make a big difference but it is not just being born earlier. I see you are about 28 if you were born in the early 70s you would have been lucky and seen the lowest prices in relation to earnings, but if you had been born in early 60s you would be facing higher prices than you are now. So as you can see some Baby boomers experienced higher prices than you are now.

I agree historically it hasn't always been great, but on the flip side that doesn't mean we should let prices spiral out of control now.

As I say I will be buying soon enough, but this doesn't mean I want thing to boom once I am on board, prices need to stay inline with inflation really.

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

I agree historically it hasn't always been great, but on the flip side that doesn't mean we should let prices spiral out of control now.

As I say I will be buying soon enough, but this doesn't mean I want thing to boom once I am on board, prices need to stay inline with inflation really.

I suppose if we look at history there always comes a time when prices stop increasing.

I’m not sure lowering the deposit to say 5% without increasing salary multiplies would cause price to spiral out of control. After all a 5% deposit + 4x there salary is less than a 10% deposit + 4x their salary.

Percy1983

I agree and would welcome 5% deposits keeping with the current lending critera.

We just can't go back to the 100% and 100%+ days.