BTL'ers are not evil are they??

TickersPlaysPop

I don't have much time to post, so I'll only put a small comment right now....

Is there still mileage in the idea of making properties available for buy to live for a set period of time? Maybe even as long as 6mths? Before the doors are opened to buy to let?

Until things change w.r.t. Mortgage lending criteria and people's deposit size, buy to letters will continue to have a selective advantage?

Therefore, Building more homes without changing the rules, regs and laws will push the housing market still further in value, probably at a rate higher than wage increase.

So this seems at the moment to be an ever accelerating self reinforcing spiral towards a housing market with a socially destructive amount of rental properties. Those in the future that are lucky to have mortgages will probably have to set very long term mortgages to make the mthly payments affordable.

TickersPlaysPop

I just had another part political pamphlet through my door.... seems local government candidates are choosing to chase votes by supporting campaigns to stop house building!

So maybe an element to slow house building is the public not wanting to see our country grow? Or, our leaders are misleading us for their own gain, so they can become elected on an emotive, popular but very wrong policy?

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I don't have much time to post, so I'll only put a small comment right now....

Is there still mileage in the idea of making properties available for buy to live for a set period of time? Maybe even as long as 6mths? Before the doors are opened to buy to let?

Until things change w.r.t. Mortgage lending criteria and people's deposit size, buy to letters will continue to have a selective advantage?

Therefore, Building more homes without changing the rules, regs and laws will push the housing market still further in value, probably at a rate higher than wage increase.

So this seems at the moment to be an ever accelerating self reinforcing spiral towards a housing market with a socially destructive amount of rental properties. Those in the future that are lucky to have mortgages will probably have to set very long term mortgages to make the mthly payments affordable.

I'm not sure why you think we are heading to a socially destructive amount of rental properties. In 2011 the level of rental properties was 64% compared to 50% in the 70s renting in itself is not bad and BTL has some big disadvantages mainly security of tenure. I don't think you will get much support on relaxing lending criteria and I would include myself in that but unlike some posters I don't see a problem with lower deposits.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I don't have much time to post, so I'll only put a small comment right now....

Is there still mileage in the idea of making properties available for buy to live for a set period of time? Maybe even as long as 6mths? Before the doors are opened to buy to let?

Until things change w.r.t. Mortgage lending criteria and people's deposit size, buy to letters will continue to have a selective advantage?

Therefore, Building more homes without changing the rules, regs and laws will push the housing market still further in value, probably at a rate higher than wage increase.

So this seems at the moment to be an ever accelerating self reinforcing spiral towards a housing market with a socially destructive amount of rental properties. Those in the future that are lucky to have mortgages will probably have to set very long term mortgages to make the mthly payments affordable.

it would seem that you believe that an increase in house building will lead to an increase in price

do you also believe that a decrease in the supply of housing would lead to lower prices?
so would we solve the problem of high housing price by demolishing say 1 million existing homes?

Jason74

AlexMac wrote: »

It's politics, ennit?

I'm coming late to this fascinating thread, so forgive me for harking back to a really good point made by Chucky in post#12:-



I agree Chucky's sentiment, but regrettably, I have no confidence that any Government will "look after the majority" (i.e. the people in rented homes, not the investors).

I have two BTLs, both ex-Council, and while I fundamentally disagreed with the sell-off of public housing (other than it helped redistribute wealth to an arbitrary selection of some Council tenants) as it was a cynical Thatcherite tactic to create a (tory-voting?) 'property-owning democracy', I take a fig-leaf of moral comfort from the fact that I have leased the recent purchase back to a Housing Association who use it to take another person off the Council priority housing list.

But how crazy is it to have a National public housing strategy based on selling off the stock to tenants, who, bless 'em, make a few bob by selling it on to people like me to make a profit by giving it back to the Council via a Social Housing bureaucracy; albeit a charitably-intentioned one, but one which still costs money to run?

I recall the chairman of the Housing Corporation (the even bigger charitably-intentioned Housing bureaucracy which Government set up as an arms-length funder but which also costs money) criticising the system, but being impotent to change it so I doubt the will of any Government to stifle or significantly control capitalism.

I got into it almost accidentally by buying a tidy little ex-council maisonette at a ludicrously low price 17 years ago, because my GF's single-parent daughter and her grand-daughter were in an awful damp, mouldy rental and we wanted better for them. When D & GD moved on to happier circumstances, I continued to let it, often to people in reduced circumstances, and often at a soft (under-market) rent because I could afford it (the place only cost £34k all those years back) and if you treat tenants right they tend to respect the place and stay on, minimising costs and voids.

When I had a few bob spare a couple of years ago, it seemed a no-brainer to buy another BTL rather than write off my mortgage.

So its politix, ennit?

I doubt we'll see a better post on these boards all year

MrRee_2

Market forces at work ..... all the talk will not change anything.

BTL is a market force and in a free country it has to be allowed to happen.

Only by a change in market forces will BTL become less attractive.

In all honesty, EVERYONE here would invest £100,000 in a guaranteed 7% yeild ..... whilst watching that £100,000 grow at 10% a year!

You cannot dismiss the wisdom of those who have going down the BTL route.

The 7% yield applies at all time ..... even in 20 years time it will be returning 7%, not on the £100,000 ...... but on the £500,000 which the £100,000 has now grown to.

It really is a total no-brainer this BTL lark ...... my properties are being bought for me, in addition they are increasing in value faster than I can earn!!

Good times ... REJOICE!

JencParker

MrRee wrote: »

Market forces at work ..... all the talk will not change anything.

BTL is a market force and in a free country it has to be allowed to happen.

Only by a change in market forces will BTL become less attractive.

In all honesty, EVERYONE here would invest £100,000 in a guaranteed 7% yeild ..... whilst watching that £100,000 grow at 10% a year!

You cannot dismiss the wisdom of those who have going down the BTL route.

The 7% yield applies at all time ..... even in 20 years time it will be returning 7%, not on the £100,000 ...... but on the £500,000 which the £100,000 has now grown to.

It really is a total no-brainer this BTL lark ...... my properties are being bought for me, in addition they are increasing in value faster than I can earn!!

Good times ... REJOICE!

Exactly - like I said - BTL landlords are the parasites of society!

Generali

JencParker wrote: »

Exactly - like I said - BTL landlords are the parasites of society!

That seems the be working on the 'BBC Premise' whereby profit is the difference between what you should charge and what you do charge.

MrRee_2

JencParker wrote: »

Exactly - like I said - BTL landlords are the parasites of society!

Odd calling winners parasites?

We are supplying much needed homes for those who don't buy - we are an extremely generous group in fact.

I supply what others want, they pay what they need to pay to have a nice place to live in, I pay all the maintenance and fees - they have an easy life.

In exchange I make my money work for me .....

I'm interested in what part you believe this arrangement which benefits all parties is somehow bad? Please expand?

GeorgeHowell

MrRee wrote: »

Odd calling winners parasites?

We are supplying much needed homes for those who don't buy - we are an extremely generous group in fact.

I supply what others want, they pay what they need to pay to have a nice place to live in, I pay all the maintenance and fees - they have an easy life.

In exchange I make my money work for me .....

I'm interested in what part you believe this arrangement which benefits all parties is somehow bad? Please expand?

It's because to the left-wing mentality all private ownership of property is an evil (except their own of course). They go by the preposterous utterings of that disreptutable old fraud and hypocrite Marx. To them, today's BTL landlords are the new Victorian mill owners.