The Superboomers!

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Both of you have repeatedly said it is a simple 'supply/demand' situation....

.... If we reduce the demand on residential property by preventing wannabe owner occupiers competing with buy to letters.... there will be less increase in asking prices over the yrs.

Therefore, as you say.... building more houses..... is not the only way to fix the problem we are in.

In fact, it is my opinion that solely building more residential properties without changes to the current system in the way of regulation, law and rule changes, it will make the situation worse.

as you believe that building more properties will make the 'situation' worse, do you also believe that knocking down a few million properties will 'improve' the situation?

TickersPlaysPop

Claperton .... I dangled the carrot of a chance to avoid responding to the meat of my post and you took it... a little predicable...

Do you agree with the idea of restricting sellers choice of who to sell to? You can't disagree that it would help keep house price increases lower... and make sure those that want to buy to occupy have first choice. Maybe for 1 yr on the market and if it doesn't sell at a price the seller is happy to sell for, or if there is no interest from potential owner occupiers it can go for buy to let.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Claperton .... I dangled the carrot of a chance to avoid responding to the meat of my post and you took it... a little predicable...

Do you agree with the idea of restricting sellers choice of who to sell to? You can't disagree that it would help keep house price increases lower... and make sure those that want to buy to occupy have first choice. Maybe for 1 yr on the market and if it doesn't sell at a price the seller is happy to sell for, or if there is no interest from potential owner occupiers it can go for buy to let.

there is a real need for rentals from people who can't afford to buy and from people where purchase is unsuitable


in general first time buyers move from 'shared' property to properties where they occupy more space


so e.g. a young couple flat sharing with other people will be using one bedroom but sharing kitchen, bathroom, kitchen, lounge will move to having sole occupancy of a self contained property with one or more bedrooms and sole use of kitchen, bathroom, lounge


so if a landlord wanting to sell, moved out say 2 or 3 couples and sold to one couple as owner occupier, there would then to 1 or 2 couples looking for other property




the net effect is an increase in OO yes, but a decrease in rental property but a greater number of people per available rental




do you agree?

TickersPlaysPop

Hi thx for responding.

In general I'm not sure the majority of people turn from multiple occupancy rentals to sole owner occupiers. I wasn't one of those... I went from multiple occupancy rental, to parents, to renting a 1 bed place with girl friend for a number of yrs, to then buying a small house with girlfriend at the age of 26....

I'm not sure where we could get the data on this, but there is a lot of stories about the number of 20 something's and 30 something's living with parents. There is probably such a wide variation across the country?

If the rule I'm proposing for discussion was in place over the last 10-20 yrs the housing market would not have reached the state it is now? State it is now in terms of high prices, and less owner occupiers. I also agree more properties would help private sector and public sector, but at least this rule would calm the private market.

Thrugelmir

ash28 wrote: »

It's government policy that has made BTL a very attractive option for people.....it can give a better return than saving (not hard) and a better return and is safer than stocks and shares.

What Government policy?

Why is BTL safer than stocks and shares?

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Hi thx for responding.

In general I'm not sure the majority of people turn from multiple occupancy rentals to sole owner occupiers. I wasn't one of those... I went from multiple occupancy rental, to parents, to renting a 1 bed place with girl friend for a number of yrs, to then buying a small house with girlfriend at the age of 26....

I'm not sure where we could get the data on this, but there is a lot of stories about the number of 20 something's and 30 something's living with parents. There is probably such a wide variation across the country?

If the rule I'm proposing for discussion was in place over the last 10-20 yrs the housing market would not have reached the state it is now? State it is now in terms of high prices, and less owner occupiers. I also agree more properties would help private sector and public sector, but at least this rule would calm the private market.

Over the last 10-20 we have experienced a massive increase in population with only a modest increase in housing.

So a larger number of people were OO living only with their partner, then there would be massive additional overcrowding in rented houses.

with the increased number of people seeking to rent from fewer landlords, rents would rise.

there would be a massive transfer of wealth from renters would would become poorer to OOs who would have become richer.

depending upon how much the rents increased by, many sellers would be prepared to market their houses at higher prices to LLs as they would be prepared to wait a year to sell, as they would get a significantly higher price.

TickersPlaysPop

CLAPTON wrote: »

Over the last 10-20 we have experienced a massive increase in population with only a modest increase in housing.

So a larger number of people were OO living only with their partner, then there would be massive additional overcrowding in rented houses.

with the increased number of people seeking to rent from fewer landlords, rents would rise.

there would be a massive transfer of wealth from renters would would become poorer to OOs who would have become richer.

depending upon how much the rents increased by, many sellers would be prepared to market their houses at higher prices to LLs as they would be prepared to wait a year to sell, as they would get a significantly higher price.

This is where I see the market working to find a price.... you say rents will increase... how far do you think rents would increase and is that such a bad thing?

Rents can only increase to the point where people can afford it, unlike mortgages where you can borrow a wide range of cash and adjust the loan term to help make it affordable. Also many do not need a mortgage to buy.

There might be a long queue of people ready to rent a place but they can all only afford a certain amount a mth. So I think rents will not inflate out of control and crash like house prices can.

ukcarper

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

This is where I see the market working to find a price.... you say rents will increase... how far do you think rents would increase and is that such a bad thing?

Rents can only increase to the point where people can afford it, unlike mortgages where you can borrow a wide range of cash and adjust the loan term to help make it affordable. Also many do not need a mortgage to buy.

There might be a long queue of people ready to rent a place but they can all only afford a certain amount a mth. So I think rents will not inflate out of control and crash like house prices can.

I'm not sure you can borrow what you want over what term you want I believe the amount you can borrow is governed by the mortgage rules.

The point I think you art missing is that if there are not enough rental properties it's the higher earners that dictate the level rents can rise to.

CLAPTON

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

This is where I see the market working to find a price.... you say rents will increase... how far do you think rents would increase and is that such a bad thing?

Rents can only increase to the point where people can afford it, unlike mortgages where you can borrow a wide range of cash and adjust the loan term to help make it affordable. Also many do not need a mortgage to buy.

There might be a long queue of people ready to rent a place but they can all only afford a certain amount a mth. So I think rents will not inflate out of control and crash like house prices can.

my interest is to provide decent housing for people whether renting or buying, rather than target any specific level of rent or mortgage payments or prices


in relation to peoples wishes we have insufficient housing


the solution is to build more to meet the people's wishes.

prices and rents will then fall anyway.

TickersPlaysPop

ukcarper wrote: »

I'm not sure you can borrow what you want over what term you want I believe the amount you can borrow is governed by the mortgage rules.

The point I think you art missing is that if there are not enough rental properties it's the higher earners that dictate the level rents can rise to.

I also mentioned many properties are purchased without mortgages, so that part of the housing market is completely free from the controls in place over mortgages. So prices will rise... but if buy to occupy are allowed first choice to buy properties it will by definition slow the market value increase. You can only buy 1 property and live in it! You can buy more and rent them out... but not until a property pops up that owner occupiers do not want.

I see what you mean about earners... so when you say higher earners... how many of these earners and what % of the population of renters are high earners? If you look at many parts of the UK wages are low and not many people are high earners. By definition high earners are a very small percentage? So that is not really a big impact on the average rent ceiling?

If landlords put the rent price up people will simply move to a cheaper area...