Action must be taken on house prices in London

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Context dear boy, context.

BTL lending itself has only been around for about 15 years (CML). Before that, you bought the house via other means.

This means that since around 1997/8 BTL has expanded rapidly.

So yes, while BTL was around, it wasn't around in anything like the fashion it is today, and that's where the context comes in.

It's pretty clear that the poster in question was talking about BTL in recent years. The years where it's been supported by buy to let investment financial products.

https://www.cml.org.uk/cml/publications/newsandviews/141/545

I assume by 'other means' you mean by way of a bank mortgage that wasn't called a BTL mortgage.

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Context dear boy, context.

BTL lending itself has only been around for about 15 years (CML). Before that, you bought the house via other means.

This means that since around 1997/8 BTL has expanded rapidly.

So yes, while BTL was around, it wasn't around in anything like the fashion it is today, and that's where the context comes in.

It's pretty clear that the poster in question was talking about BTL in recent years. The years where it's been supported by buy to let investment financial products.

Hmnn, let's see where the OP mentioned BTL lending.

Bantex wrote: »

I do find it a little depressing that many now consider houses to be an investment rather than a home.

Nope, not here. He just mentioned how depressing it was that many now consider houses to be an investment rather than a home. Seems quite clear cut.

Jason74

CLAPTON wrote: »

I assume by 'other means' you mean by way of a bank mortgage that wasn't called a BTL mortgage.

Much as GD perhaps digs himself into holes at times, this post is unfair imho. The facts are that BTL mortgages in their current form came into being only in the last 15 years or so, largely as a result of the changes to tenancy regulartions brought about by the 1996 Housing act.

That doesn't mean that private landlords didn't exist before then, or that there wasn't finance for that type of business. But the advent of the BTL mortgage as we now know it brought about a revolution in the number of private landlords out there, and the legislation that made those mortgages commonplace explicitly reduced the security of tenure offered to most private tenants.

The above are satements of fact that few would dispute. I also think any reasonable person reading GD's post would know that these changes are what he was referring to. So I don't see the need for the sarcastic reply.

MFW_ASAP

Jason74 wrote: »

Much as GD perhaps digs himself into holes at times, this post is unfair imho. The facts are that BTL mortgages in their current form came into being only in the last 15 years or so, largely as a result of the changes to tenancy regulartions brought about by the 1996 Housing act.

That doesn't mean that private landlords didn't exist before then, or that there wasn't finance for that type of business. But the advent of the BTL mortgage as we now know it brought about a revolution in the number of private landlords out there, and the legislation that made those mortgages commonplace explicitly reduced the security of tenure offered to most private tenants.

The above are satements of fact that few would dispute. I also think any reasonable person reading GD's post would know that these changes are what he was referring to. So I don't see the need for the sarcastic reply.

Devon was building a strawman argument, the discussion he jumped into was nothing to do with Buy to Let lending. It was about buying a house as an investment vehicle rather than as a home. Which isn't a new thing and has been going on since before Roman times.

GD started the sarcasm with the whole 'dear boy' comment, making a fool of himself in the process by talking about context when he was the one out of context.

Graham_Devon

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Devon was building a strawman argument, the discussion he jumped into was nothing to do with Buy to Let lending. It was about buying a house as an investment vehicle rather than as a home. Which isn't a new thing and has been going on since before Roman times.

Which has mostly been made possible by the BTL investment vechicles I talked about.

Before 1996, it was mostly cash purchases. Difficult investment for most to manage. The change to the regulations made it possible for many many more people to invest in houses, without the need for huge sums of capital. Therefore, people started using it as pension vehicles etc, all with the aid of the new financial tools allowing them to do so.

A "home" became an investment vehicle precisely because the tools to make it so were now out there. Often before this, the houses were a home, just kept and rented out (instead of selling). Or gained via inheritance etc.

You are literally stripping every post of all context to create an something to argue about here. Afterall, we all know people rented out homes going back decades, so your point was created solely by stripping out the context and to have a go.

Cornucopia

I suspect that "Consent to Let" probably goes back a fair bit further.

I don't know how accurate the Inside Out piece was, but they barely mentioned BTL as an issue. The two things they did concentrate on were (effectively) shortage of properties, particularly in overheated East and North London, and overseas investors.

The programme is still available on iPlayer, if anyone is interested.

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Which has mostly been made possible by the BTL investment vechicles I talked about.

Before 1996, it was mostly cash purchases. Difficult investment for most to manage. The change to the regulations made it possible for many many more people to invest in houses, without the need for huge sums of capital. Therefore, people started using it as pension vehicles etc, all with the aid of the new financial tools allowing them to do so.

A "home" became an investment vehicle precisely because the tools to make it so were now out there. Often before this, the houses were a home, just kept and rented out (instead of selling). Or gained via inheritance etc.

You are literally stripping every post of all context to create an something to argue about here. Afterall, we all know people rented out homes going back decades, so your point was created solely by stripping out the context and to have a go.

You're now grasping at straws instead of building arguments out of them.

I haven't stripped anything out of any post. I quoted the post in its entirety and it didn't mention anything about BTL lending, it mentioned viewing property as investments instead of homes.

Incidently, not only have landlords viewed property as an investment for millennia, but so have home owners who buy in a particular area because it's 'up and coming' or buying a run-down house and redecorating/renovating or adding value by building extensions. These are all ways in which home owners have invested in property to get a financial return.

Only the bears on here seem to have lived in a utopian world where you buy your first house, live in it until you die and don't care about it's value.

Jason74

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

You're now grasping at straws instead of building arguments out of them.

I haven't stripped anything out of any post. I quoted the post in its entirety and it didn't mention anything about BTL lending, it mentioned viewing property as investments instead of homes.

Incidently, not only have landlords viewed property as an investment for millennia, but so have home owners who buy in a particular area because it's 'up and coming' or buying a run-down house and redecorating/renovating or adding value by building extensions. These are all ways in which home owners have invested in property to get a financial return.

Only the bears on here seem to have lived in a utopian world where you buy your first house, live in it until you die and don't care about it's value.

All true as far as it goes, and in itself, I can't argue with any of this. That said, I think that there are two areas where what you say isn't the whole story. Firstly, there is a world of difference between buying a property to live in hoping it will appreciate, and buying a property purely for investment purposes. Secondly, the buying of properties for purely investment reasons has increased dramatically in the last 15 years or so as a direct result of the greater availability of finance for this purpose.

You are right that there has always been the fundemental tension / balance between seeing a property as a home and for it's financial / investment value. However, I think that GD is on a point of fact fundementally right that the last 15 years have seen the balance tip quite dramatically towads investment rather than as a home. While it is a matter of opinion, I also think that this is a very bad thing.

MFW_ASAP

Jason74 wrote: »

All true as far as it goes, and in itself, I can't argue with any of this. That said, I think that there are two areas where what you say isn't the whole story. Firstly, there is a world of difference between buying a property to live in hoping it will appreciate, and buying a property purely for investment purposes. Secondly, the buying of properties for purely investment reasons has increased dramatically in the last 15 years or so as a direct result of the greater availability of finance for this purpose.

You are right that there has always been the fundemental tension / balance between seeing a property as a home and for it's financial / investment value. However, I think that GD is on a point of fact fundementally right that the last 15 years have seen the balance tip quite dramatically towads investment rather than as a home. While it is a matter of opinion, I also think that this is a very bad thing.

The trouble is that you've fallen for GD's strawman argument. Let's go right back to the start:

Bantex wrote: »

I do find it a little depressing that many now consider houses to be an investment rather than a home.

My reply was that people have always seen property as an investment, both for renting out and for upsizing and downsizing.

If you feel that my argument is incorrect, then feel free to comment on my argument alone - not on GD's strawman.

Graham_Devon

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I haven't stripped anything out of any post. I quoted the post in its entirety and it didn't mention anything about BTL lending, it mentioned viewing property as investments instead of homes.

No, you didn't. But BTL lending was an absolutely imperative part of "people now seeing homes as an investment"....which was the post you quoted.

If you are arguing that you didn't say anything about BTL lending, then I will agree, you didnt. However, discussions progress as a result of what you have, or haven't said.

That is, the whole point of discussion. Your point was that there has always been private renting, and attempted to make something out of what the poster stated. "people now see homes as investments" is clearly linked to the financial products which allow vastly more people to use homes as investments.

Sorry if I have somehow offended you.