BTL'ers are not evil are they??

TickersPlaysPop

ukcarper wrote: »

You ignore the biggest impact on the number of people renting privately the transfer of council housing to private sector. You still haven't said how you are going to fill the void that would be left if BTL ceased to exist.

I do like the way people like to take what you say, and then stretch it to the extreme lol :-)

I have never said BTL should cease! Please read my historical posts before making claims about what I have said. It is common sense buy to let needs to exist. But, it needs to expand its market share no further. Families need the chance to buy their home before buy to letters can purchase.

If we remove the advantage buy to letters have at the purchase stage, we reduce the demand and pressure on pushing house prices higher.

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I do like the way people like to take what you say, and then stretch it to the extreme lol :-)

I have never said BTL should cease! Please read my historical posts before making claims about what I have said. It is common sense buy to let needs to exist. But, it needs to expand its market share no further. Families need the chance to buy their home before buy to letters can purchase.

If we remove the advantage buy to letters have at the purchase stage, we reduce the demand and pressure on pushing house prices higher.

But more rental property is required and no one else is coming forward with it until they do BTL will be necessary.


If you stop BTL buyers demand that much the demand pushing prices higher now is cause by owner occupiers needing smaller deposits.

TickersPlaysPop

ukcarper wrote: »

But more rental property is required and no one else is coming forward with it until they do BTL will be necessary.

If you stop BTL buyers demand that much the demand pushing prices higher now is cause by owner occupiers needing smaller deposits.

I am not sure I understand what you mean, can you expand a little?

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Hi Clapton
I see your point and apologise for not making my point clear.

I think when we talk about increasing building rates we need to talk about the magnitude of the rate of increase.

A source of funding needs to be found to fuel the building, the banks are hesitant for some reason, so pension funds is one idea supported by experts.

We also need to manage demand, and the demand is from buy to let and buy to live... and Generali I think you are missing the point.... The current high demand for rented property is a poor symptom of the free market housing system that is broken.... the current rental demand is because people cannot buy houses because they have been allowed to inflate to the current high level, and because of the restrictions on lending.

We need to move the market back to a healthy level where families can afford their home and not be forced to rent. This means restricting further property falling into the hands of buy to letters.

we need to build more housing whether for people to rent or for people to buy.

If small rental businesses are funding new building that that is fantastic as that will increase in the supply of properties: there is no evidence that FTB are being unfairly disadvantaged competing for new builds (they do after all require only a 5% deposit against a small rental business needing at least 25%).

The total red herring of pension funds building (or funding) housing was a nonsense introduced by venal politicians (e.g. Vince Cable) to avoid discussing planning restrictions, 'affordable' housing levies and CIL.

Pension companies are, by and large multinational PLCs who are profit making companies accountable in law to their shareholders and not an extension of UK social services. If they fund house building it will be for profit and nothing else.

Government needs to address the supply side (why we as a nation build so few houses compared to other countries) and not endlessly interfere with the demand side.

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

I am not sure I understand what you mean, can you expand a little?

I'm not sure what you want me to expand on we need more rental property I would have thought was obvious unless you think that providing just for owner occupiers would be enough which it obviously wouldn't be.


Demand is determined by the number of properties for sale which is low people weren't buying mainly because they didn't have deposits now they need a lower deposit they are adding to demand not an increased number of BTL.

TickersPlaysPop

CLAPTON wrote: »

we need to build more housing whether for people to rent or for people to buy.

If small rental businesses are funding new building that that is fantastic as that will increase in the supply of properties: there is no evidence that FTB are being unfairly disadvantaged competing for new builds (they do after all require only a 5% deposit against a small rental business needing at least 25%).

The total red herring of pension funds building (or funding) housing was a nonsense introduced by venal politicians (e.g. Vince Cable) to avoid discussing planning restrictions, 'affordable' housing levies and CIL.

Pension companies are, by and large multinational PLCs who are profit making companies accountable in law to their shareholders and not an extension of UK social services. If they fund house building it will be for profit.

This report ......http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBATrust/FutureHomesCommissionLowRes.pdf

Distinguishes local government pension funds from institutional investment funds....

"A kick-start from an independent £10 billion Local Housing Development Fund, financed and owned by local authority pension funds with their combined assets of over £180 billion. This fund would be the cornerstone investor in local developments of sustainable, mixed- tenure communities across the country, particularly in our larger cities. Once these developments are mature they will be ideal investments for UK and international institutional investors, many of whom want to invest in UK residential property for rent, but are not about to take any development risks"

Is this right?

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

This report ......http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBATrust/FutureHomesCommissionLowRes.pdf

Distinguishes local government pension funds from institutional investment funds....

"A kick-start from an independent £10 billion Local Housing Development Fund, financed and owned by local authority pension funds with their combined assets of over £180 billion. This fund would be the cornerstone investor in local developments of sustainable, mixed- tenure communities across the country, particularly in our larger cities. Once these developments are mature they will be ideal investments for UK and international institutional investors, many of whom want to invest in UK residential property for rent, but are not about to take any development risks"

Is this right?

this is taxpayer guaranteed money not private sector pension funds


the pension funds have duty to pay extremely expensive index linked pensions for the next 100 year and more

what rate of return would the housing trusts offer ?
what rents would they have to guarantee (indexed linked ) for the next 100 years?

TickersPlaysPop

No investment gives a guaranteed return? they would need to balance their portfolio? You have been mentioning a 7% return on BTL plus the HPI growth, so they should be jumping in on this?

I would like to know clear legitimate reasons why they are witholding this money from investment in house building ..... Is it an indication that the housing market is not considered stable enough? If the gov continues to suppress house building rates by not investing in it to a very significant amount, surely it should at least partly invest in it and benefit from the HPI caused by the continued low house building rate?

Maybe transforming the housing market away from the free market that it is now to make it more stable will create an environment that the managers of the local authority pension funds will be comfortable to invest in? With the money that has been made by BTL I'm sure they are kicking themselves?!

I have heard here that house building rate is all about the planning permission system and corruption? Is this really what it is all about? My feeling is there is money being held back from somewhere.... banks are holding back... and now it seems local gov pension funds are being withheld.... who else is holding back? And what are the reasons and motivations?

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

No investment gives a guaranteed return? they would need to balance their portfolio? You have been mentioning a 7% return on BTL plus the HPI growth, so they should be jumping in on this?

I would like to know clear legitimate reasons why they are witholding this money from investment in house building ..... Is it an indication that the housing market is not considered stable enough? If the gov continues to suppress house building rates by not investing in it to a very significant amount, surely it should at least partly invest in it and benefit from the HPI caused by the continued low house building rate?

Maybe transforming the housing market away from the free market that it is now to make it more stable will create an environment that the managers of the local authority pension funds will be comfortable to invest in? With the money that has been made by BTL I'm sure they are kicking themselves?!

I have heard here that house building rate is all about the planning permission system and corruption? Is this really what it is all about? My feeling is there is money being held back from somewhere.... banks are holding back... and now it seems local gov pension funds are being withheld.... who else is holding back? And what are the reasons and motivations?

as I recall you have a relative who is a small builder.

could you ask him how easy it is to buy land with planning permission and at what cost?
also maybe ask him what the building costs (labour & materials etc) of say, a 4 bed house would be and what the selling price might be in his area.

TickersPlaysPop

He wasn't a tiny player in his day, with multi million commercial property projects and MOD contracts with not much residential house building. But he moved into that after the 90's.

I'll ask him again, but he did say he had yrs of working with Lloyds with very good contacts in the bank, and then the money stopped coming even though he had the jobs ready and men ready to do the work. So the banks basically would not put money into falling/stalled market. Now the credit crunch is falling into history and the housing market is moving they are happier and slightly more relaxed to release credit.