"House price crash predictions are premature"

Sisyphus

ReportInvestor wrote: »

A factor that many commentators are ignoring that we are probably at the start of a process which could see our 70%+ homeownership fall to below 60% over the next decade.

Ergo don't assume that property will fall back to "affordable" levels.

We are becoming an increasingly unequal society, but the "left wing" party, New Labour has maintained and even extended the incredible tax benefits available to buy-to-let investors because it has failed to offer alternatives to the housing shortages.

if homeownership falls there are more houses on the market, how does that stop prices falling?

ReportInvestor

Buy to let investors buy them for a retirement investment.

When did you last hear a work colleague wax lyrical about pensions?

tonydee

The Bulls and Bears are out again.

Get back in your cages

Sisyphus

ReportInvestor wrote: »

Buy to let investors buy them for a retirement investment.

When did you last hear a work colleague wax lyrical about pensions?

crappy investment if net yield is negative

Sisyphus

tonydee wrote: »

The Bulls and Bears are out again.

Get back in your cages

and you, get off your fence dude

House Buying, Renting, Selling & Property Prices
geddit?

irnbru_2

Sisyphus wrote:

if homeownership falls there are more houses on the market, how does that stop prices falling?

I believe ReportInvestor is alluding that the 70% -> 60% transition comes from more BTLers owning more property. The number of homes owned does not fall. The number of people who own homes falls. That is, any increased volume is absorbed mainly by BTLers.

Thus as the population increases, the number of people who own their own home drops because of the favourable tax benefits of being a BTLer.

ReportInvestor

Let me give you a personal example of this change.

I wouldn't normally touch buy-to-let with my current savings because my investment knowledge lies elsewhere BUT:

My brother an I are both homeowners. We and our partners will inherit an additional 2 houses unless these are used for nursing care fees. All four partners are agreed that we will let these two houses.

There's no negative yield, just a whole host of potential tax benefits .

Generali

Sisyphus wrote: »

crappy investment if net yield is negative

True but since when that stop someone?

Dot com boom - some terrible investments to be made and a lot of punters made them.

With profits funds - massive charges, often underperformed the market once charges are taken into account. People lapped them up.

Long term borrowing on credit cards? I'll have some of that.

Regularly paying o/d fees rather than arranging a small authorised o/d? Check.

The list is not endless but it is very very long...

Sisyphus

irnbru wrote: »

I believe ReportInvestor is alluding that the 70% -> 60% transition comes from more BTLers owning more property. The number of homes owned does not fall. The number of people who own homes falls. That is, any increased volume is absorbed mainly by BTLers.

Thus as the population increases, the number of people who own their own home drops because of the favourable tax benefits of being a BTLer.

I see, having your cake and eating it. Furry muff.

There comes a point where if rents rise further, the labour force can foxtrot oscar. Today I'm working from my Paris office - I'm using my London computer and telephone lines at distance. As far as my clients can tell I'm in London. I could just as easily be in Frankfurt, Zurich, Madrid or Bratislava.

tonydee

Sisyphus wrote: »

and you, get off your fence dude

House Buying, Renting, Selling & Property Prices
geddit?

I like it here on my fence. Sometimes I look one way and sometimes the other. Whatever happens on either side though, I can't do nothing about it.