The Fall in Rise of Buy To Let

geneer

Some fascinating figures from the CML, particularly if you look back further than conveniently selected by some. :rotfl:

2011- There are 1.34 million buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

2010- There were 1.26 million buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

2008 - There were 1.1 million buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

2007- There were 938,500 buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

2003 - There were 334,800 buy-to-let mortgages outstanding.


Between 2003 and 2007 outstanding mortgages increased by 180%.

Between 2007 and 2011 they increased just 42%.

2008 seems to have been a bit of a game changer for BTL eh.

Graham_Devon

To be fair, it's another way to look at the figures.

The word "increase" is still there though. So I'm not sure percentages will really matter to those you aim this thread at.

chris_m

Just remember your Mark Twain and all becomes clear.

heathcote123

geneer wrote: »

Some fascinating figures from the CML, particularly if you look back further than conveniently selected by some. :rotfl:

2011- There are 1.34 million buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

2010- There were 1.26 million buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

2008 - There were 1.1 million buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

2007- There were 938,500 buy-to-let mortgages outstanding

2003 - There were 334,800 buy-to-let mortgages outstanding.


Between 2003 and 2007 outstanding mortgages increased by 180%.

Between 2007 and 2011 they increased just 42%.

2008 seems to have been a bit of a game changer for BTL eh.

So they're still going up then. Thats suprising after your massive bust - shows just how robust the btl market is.

Is there any figures showing cash purchases? I'd assume a number of BTL are of that variety.

geneer

heathcote123 wrote: »

So they're still going up then. Thats suprising after your massive bust - shows just how robust the btl market is.

Or how massively less robust than it was eh.

geneer

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To be fair, it's another way to look at the figures.

The word "increase" is still there though. So I'm not sure percentages will really matter to those you aim this thread at.

There always were landlords, there always will be.
But it very much looks like the worst excesses of BTL Muppetry is dead and buried. As predicted.

Those you think I'm aiming this thread at aren't much for context and analysis. If global economic collapse and, y'know, and actual house price crash can't get then to admit they were wrong, I can't imagine this will have much impact.

But I'm sure those more considered posters (who I'm actually aiming this thread at) will find the comparison interesting.

robmatic

geneer wrote: »

Or how massively less robust than it was eh.

I personally wouldn't go in for BTL but all you've done is shown that it's increased by a fair chunk despite negative sentiment around the property market.

heathcote123

geneer wrote: »

There always were landlords, there always will be.
But it very much looks like the worst excesses of BTL Muppetry is dead and buried. As predicted.

Those you think I'm aiming this thread at aren't much for context and analysis. If global economic collapse and, y'know, and actual house price crash can't get then to admit they were wrong, I can't imagine this will have much impact.

But I'm sure those more considered posters (who I'm actually aiming this thread at) will find the comparison interesting.

By 'dead and buried' you mean 'still growing' ?

geneer

heathcote123 wrote: »

By 'dead and buried' you mean 'still growing' ?

No. I said what I mean.

Don't believe anyone ever predicted there never be any more landlords.

But hey, leave it to the property bulls to try and reinvent an argument because they didn't like the result of the actual argument.

geneer

CML: "If you consider the buy-to-let recovery alongside the increase in first-time buyer numbers we published yesterday, it appears that first-time buyers are not being displaced by buy-to-let landlords but are holding their own in a restricted market. So, this is encouraging news for those who want to rent, as long as it is realised that much of the current increase is for remortgage rather than house purchase."

Not being displaced. Hmmmmmm. Interesting.

robmatic

geneer wrote: »

CML: "If you consider the buy-to-let recovery alongside the increase in first-time buyer numbers we published yesterday, it appears that first-time buyers are not being displaced by buy-to-let landlords but are holding their own in a restricted market. So, this is encouraging news for those who want to rent, as long as it is realised that much of the current increase is for remortgage rather than house purchase."

Not being displaced. Hmmmmmm. Interesting.

A bit of context and analysis on how this relates to your first post in this thread would be fascinating.

You could maybe throw in a devastating argument as well? For old time's sake?