BTL'ers are not evil are they??

chucknorris

Jason74 wrote: »

I am also amazed by the London market, although for the majoirty of Londoners, the current situation imho is anything but pleasant.

I realize that and I do feel sorry for those priced out, but obviously I won't boo my own investments. I don't control the market, I merely benefit from it, I bought back in the 90's during the recession so I haven't contributed to the current high prices, even if I had it would be a drop in the ocean. It has got to the stage where I can't really see them getting much higher (in real terms), but I've said that before and been proved wrong, so who knows where it will all end.

MrRee_2

I take your point Jason, I can only comment on what I see happening where I am.

Where I work we have recruited many youngsters out of Uni. and I mean 100's. We cannot recruit fast enough.

These youngsters are buying properties for themselves, some are renting spare rooms to assist with the mortgage. They are in there fighting with BTL buyers like me and are outbidding us!

We must get 7% yield - they have the advantage that they don't have that restriction ..... they win the buying race, most times.

So, where I am, the youngsters are doing very well indeed. At the cost to BTL buyers.

Jason74

chucknorris wrote: »

I realize that and I do feel sorry for those priced out, but obviously I won't boo my own investments. I don't control the market, I merely benefit from it, I bought back in the 90's during the recession so I haven't contributed to the current high prices, even if I had it would be a drop in the ocean. It has got to the stage where I can't really see them getting much higher (in real terms), but I've said that before and been proved wrong, so who knows where it will all end.

Fair enough, it's hard to argue with any of that. Personally, I would like to see less BTL, but I can't blame anyone for making the choices that work best for them. The disincentives to BTL that are imho needed are a matter for people far higher up the "food chain" than most of us on here.

As for the London market generally, the truth is I just don't know. It seems to me that the market is now totally out of kilter with what most people who actually live in this city earn, and is being driven by forces outside of the simple need for Londoners to buy a home (IE foreign investment, BTL, speculative buying etc.). Because of that, it's imho much harder to fathom what will happen next than it would be if we were just talking about a market driven by local fundementals.
.

Jason74

MrRee wrote: »

I take your point Jason, I can only comment on what I see happening where I am.

Where I work we have recruited many youngsters out of Uni. and I mean 100's. We cannot recruit fast enough.

These youngsters are buying properties for themselves, some are renting spare rooms to assist with the mortgage. They are in there fighting with BTL buyers like me and are outbidding us!

We must get 7% yield - they have the advantage that they don't have that restriction ..... they win the buying race, most times.

So, where I am, the youngsters are doing very well indeed. At the cost to BTL buyers.

Thanks for this, it's useful to know. I'd also have to say that personally, if FTBs are outbidding BTL to win most "buying races", I'd consider that a good thing, as it means more homes are owner occupied. Out of interest, what sort of areas are you talking about ?.

chucknorris

Jason74 wrote: »

Fair enough, it's hard to argue with any of that. Personally, I would like to see less BTL, but I can't blame anyone for making the choices that work best for them. The disincentives to BTL that are imho needed are a matter for people far higher up the "food chain" than most of us on here.

As for the London market generally, the truth is I just don't know. It seems to me that the market is now totally out of kilter with what most people who actually live in this city earn, and is being driven by forces outside of the simple need for Londoners to buy a home (IE foreign investment, BTL, speculative buying etc.). Because of that, it's imho much harder to fathom what will happen next than it would be if we were just talking about a market driven by local fundementals.
.

I too am very wary of trying to predict the London market, recent events (the market going up) has taught me that my opinion has been far too bearish.

MrRee_2

Jason74 wrote: »

Thanks for this, it's useful to know. I'd also have to say that personally, if FTBs are outbidding BTL to win most "buying races", I'd consider that a good thing, as it means more homes are owner occupied. Out of interest, what sort of areas are you talking about ?.

Hi, I'm talking about North Hampshire.

CLAPTON

with so few actual facts and figures about the London market it is really difficult to come to any conclusion.

many of the comparisons are being made with 5/6 years ago... the bottom of the recession.

London's population is growing by 100,000 every year which is a real effect

whilst a few billionaire buying off plan and obviously affecting the averages, it's very unclear whether small landlords and absentee foreign landlords are affecting that vast majority of Londoners.

real facts are what is needed

lukeh23

I don't believe there is anything wrong with BTL in moderation. Its quite viable that someone needs to move for a job etc and so rents out their former home until settling and getting a new place. Its also viable that couples meet, both own properties and so one gets rented out until they consolidate into a new home.

The problem with BTL is when individuals build small empires focused into the same area.

I live in a two bed shoebox in a close that consists of six houses. Four of these six are owned by the same landlord. These houses are typical family starting homes, but instead they are a nest egg for an absent landlord who is living it up at his condo in Florida while his darling agents look after his interests and side with him every-time (as they don't want to lose his business, where as tenants who are priced out of the market are ten a penny).

My belief is that no one needs more then two homes. If they do then they should be taxed more heavily.

There also needs to be much more protection for tenants, as the law heavily favors the landlord. My daughter goes to school near are little 10 grand a year shoebox. Any day we could get a letter giving us one months notice to pack up and find somewhere else, with no recourse, but to comply.

CLAPTON

lukeh23 wrote: »

I don't believe there is anything wrong with BTL in moderation. Its quite viable that someone needs to move for a job etc and so rents out their former home until settling and getting a new place. Its also viable that couples meet, both own properties and so one gets rented out until they consolidate into a new home.

The problem with BTL is when individuals build small empires focused into the same area.

I live in a two bed shoebox in a close that consists of six houses. Four of these six are owned by the same landlord. These houses are typical family starting homes, but instead they are a nest egg for an absent landlord who is living it up at his condo in Florida while his darling agents look after his interests and side with him every-time (as they don't want to lose his business, where as tenants who are priced out of the market are ten a penny).

My belief is that no one needs more then two homes. If they do then they should be taxed more heavily.

There also needs to be much more protection for tenants, as the law heavily favors the landlord. My daughter goes to school near are little 10 grand a year shoebox. Any day we could get a letter giving us one months notice to pack up and find somewhere else, with no recourse, but to comply.

when you say no-one should own more than two properties, presumably you mean that no SMALL landlord?
You are perfectly content for LARGE landlords to have a local monopoly of rented property?

Bantex_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

when you say no-one should own more than two properties, presumably you mean that no SMALL landlord?
You are perfectly content for LARGE landlords to have a local monopoly of rented property?

No problem as long as they build the places. Just shifting existing stock from owner occupiers to renters (with a chunk for the landlord) is bad for an area.