BTL Investors hit Bonanza

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Absolutely NOT what the bears had in mind, although exactly what many of us have been warning about for several years now.

Ah well, law of unintended consequences and all that....:)

"consequence" of what? risible of you to imply that 'mortgage rationing' caused an increase in BTL. fewer BTL mortgages are being dished out now than in your halcyon debt bubble days, and the fall in owner occupation really quite a long time ago, at a time when aggregate lending was very much on the rise.

MrRee_2

Rents UP

House Prices UP

Confidence UP

I haven't felt so confident in gathering even more riches than I do in 2012 .....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

the_flying_pig wrote: »

risible of you to imply that 'mortgage rationing' caused an increase in BTL. .

I think you should take that up with the Financial Times, as it's their article which confirms it.

To quote....

"The collapse of mortgage lending in the UK has created a bonanza for buy-to-let investors"

and....

"Private sector landlords have increased their share of the country’s residential stock by 42 per cent since 2007 and now account for 19 per cent of the total value"

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I think you should take that up with the Financial Times, as it's their article which confirms it.
...
"Private sector landlords have increased their share of the country’s residential stock by 42 per cent since 2007 and now account for 19 per cent of the total value"

to be fair H it's the property department, hardly the cutting edge. they have to churn out new articles every single day, no matter how little news there is, or get the sack so can be forgiven for coming out with some mindless drivel every now and then. what's your excuse?

i don't even know what that means, "ncreased their share of the country’s residential stock by 42 per cent since 2007" - like, BTL's share's gone from [say] 10% to 14.2%? very odd way of putting it.

but more importantly what about plausibility [apologies, I'm about to exercise some basic numeracy & common sense] - for this to happen, even if no new houses were being built, the number of BTL buys between 2007 and 2011 would have to have equal in total to 42% of all the BTL buys from antiquity to 2007. i don't feel terribly inclined to believe this. what's their source. what i can believe that BTL's share of all transactions has increased by 42%. but that, of course, is not the same thing at all. all it'd take is the OO-buys falling by more than BTL-buys. plausible I suppose.

right, here's some actual data, from CML. spot the moment at which BTL started to BOOM, post mortgage rationing. it rather looks as if BTL's share of all new mortgages may have increased by 40% from its 2009 low point, although still nowhere near what it was pre-Lehman. which is kind of what the FT pwoperdee journo was saying. well, it's kind of very tangentially related to almost being in the ballpark of being vaguely similar.

macaque_2

VfM4meplse wrote: »

Really? I've been looking to get rid of my BTL for years now, and estimate it will be at least 4 years until it reaches the price I bought it for plus expenses. I would rather not have it tbh.

Leaving aside the Kindoki economics of Brother Hamish and friends, this post reflects the reality of the mess that property is in.

• Unsold houses stuck at 'Alice in Worderland' prices
• BTL's chained to illiquid assets that are falling in value
• Tenants sinking into debt
• Married couples living with parents
• Pensioners on fixed incomes subsidising the overborrowed

wotsthat

the_flying_pig wrote: »

right, here's some actual data, from CML. spot the moment at which BTL started to BOOM, post mortgage rationing. it rather looks as if BTL's share of all new mortgages may have increased by 40% from its 2009 low point, although still nowhere near what it was pre-Lehman. which is kind of what the FT pwoperdee journo was saying. well, it's kind of very tangentially related to almost being in the ballpark of being vaguely similar.

Stating the obvious. The CML data shows mortgage data. Who's more likely to show up in this data - a FTB or 'cash rich' BTL?

It seems entirely plausible that as mortgages have become more difficult to access the proportion of transactions attributable to BTL has increased. According to Merv it's more of the same this year as well.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A BTL'er going against the grain!?

There are always exceptions Graham.
Just interesting to know more so that we can better understand.

There's a distinct lack of detail to know for sure.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

There are always exceptions Graham.
Just interesting to know more so that we can better understand.

There's a distinct lack of detail to know for sure.

Can you not just accept it for what they have said?

Like you do other arguments which support your view?

julieq

macaque wrote: »

Pensioners on fixed incomes subsidising the overborrowed

so where does the interest for pensions on fixed incomes come from Macaque?

Wouldn't be from lending to the overborrowed by any chance?

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Can you not just accept it for what they have said?

Like you do other arguments which support your view?

Is that how you debate on a forum?
Would seem pretty boring, lots of one post threads with no further discussion.

Context and analysis Graham, context and analysis.

We should all be happy to understand the detail a little more, that way we hopefully could potentially meet in the middle somewhere.

P.S. there are occasions where I have pulled up posters that generally I agree with for having spurious facts.

P.P.S. incase there are doubters

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Hamish, lets be fair.
We've hugely critisized the 28 flash data as being hugely erroneous when it showed falls and when the monthly data came out it was not the same.

Most likely there is still a huge element of error when they show rises