Halifax May +3.9% MOM, +8.7% YOY

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

It seems unlikely that all new builds are being bought by foreign investors to keep empty or by second/third home owners for own use


building more properties is essential


the opportunity to squeeze some more tax out of foreigners and to encourage actual occupation of properties does seem a good idea however.

I didn't say all.

I said newly built properties are being bought by investors. Which they are. If I had meant all, I would have said "all new houses".

I also didn't say building wasn't essential. I simply said it doesn't solve the issue on it's own.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

Gotta be honest mate, I don't get this bit.

If houses are too expensive to live in, either via renting or owning, then they will stay empty and the price will fall.

You are seeing things from the house's point of view, not the legion of desperate ftbs who want to get inside it.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not necessarily. There is an increasing trend in London (and news items have covered this) where investors are buying up homes, and in some cases 3-4 apartments at a time and then leaving them empty.

They see these homes as a place to store wealth. Nothing more.

The amount of empty homes in London is increasing, alongside prices, especially at the higher end, but this is filtering out.

And just yesterday there was an article looking at the effects of this in the outer areas of London. Again, pushing prices up as the effect ripples out.

And as the investors move in and leave homes empty, the people previously occupying those homes move out....Though in some cases, these are second homes.

When Londoners take their money and move out, there are not many that can afford to move in....bar foreign investors.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/02/londoners-flocking-out-capital-exploit-house-price-gap-property

Your guardian quote doesn't state that these 44000 homes are empty though???

Graham_Devon

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Your guardian quote doesn't state that these 44000 homes are empty though???

No, it doesn't.

And neither did I imply or make out it did.

However, not all 44,000 have to stand empty for my point to stand true. If only 500 of them are bought by investors and left empty, that's 500 houses taken out of the supply base. You'd need to build 500 NEW houses just to keep up with previous supply.

Therefore, building homes alone is not the answer, it's part of it. We need to look at where the demand is coming from and address that side too. Two things are happening on the demand side that it would seem prudent to at least look at:

A) the rise in the foriegn investor
the rise in second and third ownership.

We also have easier credit and policies where the sole aim is to provide easier credit.

We've seen stagnation for around 2 years and then a huge increase in prices over the last 12m. That huge increase cannot in any way be blamed on house building alone... afetrall, we are building more, not less. Therefore, there has to be other reasons for the large increases we have seen over the last year - for those reasons, we have to look at the demand side.

The fact that not every single home sold within London is then left empty does not detract from everything I have said.

And I can't quite believe I'm having to explain this.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Not necessarily. There is an increasing trend in London (and news items have covered this) where investors are buying up homes, and in some cases 3-4 apartments at a time and then leaving them empty.

They see these homes as a place to store wealth. Nothing more.

The amount of empty homes in London is increasing, alongside prices, especially at the higher end, but this is filtering out.

And just yesterday there was an article looking at the effects of this in the outer areas of London. Again, pushing prices up as the effect ripples out.

And as the investors move in and leave homes empty, the people previously occupying those homes move out....Though in some cases, these are second homes.

When Londoners take their money and move out, there are not many that can afford to move in....bar foreign investors.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/jun/02/londoners-flocking-out-capital-exploit-house-price-gap-property

44,000 out of 23,000,000 houses really is a drop in the ocean I suspect.

The solution remains simple. Build more houses.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You are seeing things from the house's point of view, not the legion of desperate ftbs who want to get inside it.

There's a very rude joke about [insert attractive actress's name of choice] in there.

BTL isn't the problem, it's too few houses.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Indeed.

But I wasn't responding to that. Was responding to a specific point raised by Generali.

The overarching point is that there are many factors. Building more houses doesn't necessarily solve the problem for UK citizens. Say for instance in a situation where newly built homes are bought by foreign investors. Something which is happening. Many issues need looking at. The problem isn't solved by building more homes alone. The demand side and what that demand is made up of (investors, increase in loans etc etc, second / third homes) is also something which needs looking at.

We could introduce taxes on foreign buyers or jealousy taxes on second homers/ BTL/ investors - these might make you feel better but they aren't the root cause of the problem and any sign of a concerted effort to match supply to demand will make investment less attractive anyway.

The root cause is an insufficient supply of housing to meet demand.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

However, not all 44,000 have to stand empty for my point to stand true. If only 500 of them are bought by investors and left empty, that's 500 houses taken out of the supply base. You'd need to build 500 NEW houses just to keep up with previous supply.

Not quite.

I think you were reporting that investors were buying new houses and leaving them empty. Supply hasn't fallen by 500 houses in that case - it's remained static. Apart from the the number of empty homes being insignificant I suspect they are being built to appeal to foreign investors and without them they wouldn't have been built in the first place.

You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

wotsthat wrote: »

We could introduce taxes on foreign buyers or jealousy taxes on second homers/ BTL/ investors - these might make you feel better but they aren't the root cause of the problem and any sign of a concerted effort to match supply to demand will make investment less attractive anyway.

The root cause is an insufficient supply of housing to meet demand.

Graham seems to think those pesky foreigners are the cause of many problems.... He seems very confused. It's massively obvious that demand is outstripping supply.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Not quite.

I think you were reporting that investors were buying new houses and leaving them empty.

I did say that.

But I also said people were moving out and selling their homes with "foreign investors moving in".

As in "moving in" and buying it up as an investment, not physcially immigrating to the Uk and moving their family in.

If we can look at what I said as a whole post, rather than snippets or a paragraph and then ignoring the rest, it would probably be a little eaiser.

As it is at the moment, I feel you are just finding ways to trip up, rather than discuss. We then end up in this whole "you said" with the reply "no, I said".... rather than a debate.