South East more confident of house price rises than ever recorded

michaels

cells wrote: »

Project forward 20 years and 55% of the country will be renters and 45% owners.

The stats will still be pretty as regulations will only allow people who can borrow at sane ratios to be owners and everyone else will be a renter

Even though I would benefit from continued HPI and increasing rental sector I dont think its going to be positive if the nation goes below 60% owners.

Not sure what can be or should be done but I have a feeling the gov will try to regulate BTL away (encourage or force sales) and also put in much higher taxes (for example maybe up capital gains tax to 45% from its current 28%) with the idea that less BTL will mean more owners

There is a strong presumption that rental properties have more people per bedroom than oo. Are there any stats on this?

cells

michaels wrote: »

There is a strong presumption that rental properties have more people per bedroom than oo. Are there any stats on this?

I recall someone posting some stats that showed owners actually live marginally more densely which took me by surprise.

When I thought about it I figured the stats were probably wrong.
Its difficult to count renters. Its said over a million people let out rooms in their main home. My next door neighbor does this. How are those homes counted are they owner homes renter homes?

Likewise some tenants and landlords will lie about the number living in their homes due to regulations limiting occupancy levels.

Some properties will be bought with residential mortgages but later let out so will that be seen as a rental or a owner home?

Also what are the young adult still living with mum and dad counted as? Some pay rent some don't. Some are not so young. How is it proportioned

My own rentals are lived in at an average 3.85 people per Property while the London average is supposedly about 2.4 for all tenures. However my ones tend to be 3-4 beds so maybe not the average stock

Also I'm not sure kids should be counted at all or at least a second metric showing just adults in homes. I think five strangers plus visitors sharing a 3 bed flat is overcrowded and indication of a shortage. But two adults and their three young kids in a 3 bed flat is perfectly normal and fine.

Generali

cells wrote: »

I recall someone posting some stats that showed owners actually live marginally more densely which took me by surprise.

When I thought about it I figured the stats were probably wrong.
Its difficult to count renters. Its said over a million people let out rooms in their main home. My next door neighbor does this. How are those homes counted are they owner homes renter homes?

Likewise some tenants and landlords will lie about the number living in their homes due to regulations limiting occupancy levels.

Some properties will be bought with residential mortgages but later let out so will that be seen as a rental or a owner home?

Also what are the young adult still living with mum and dad counted as? Some pay rent some don't. Some are not so young. How is it proportioned

My own rentals are lived in at an average 3.85 people per Property while the London average is supposedly about 2.4 for all tenures. However my ones tend to be 3-4 beds so maybe not the average stock

Also I'm not sure kids should be counted at all or at least a second metric showing just adults in homes. I think five strangers plus visitors sharing a 3 bed flat is overcrowded and indication of a shortage. But two adults and their three young kids in a 3 bed flat is perfectly normal and fine.

Here are the data:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/detailed-characteristics-on-housing-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-detailed-characteristics.html

Put simply, renters tend to live in smaller properties and are disproportionately likely to live alone. Having said that, the difference between the mean household size for renters and OOs is not material:

Across England and Wales the average household size4 was 2.4 people. This figure was the same for owner occupied, but lower for rented households at 2.3 people.

The modal household size is materially different at 1 for renters and 2 for OOs.

The median household size isn't given but given the range of probable answers I would argue that it isn't a significant measure.

cells

Generali wrote: »

Here are the data:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/detailed-characteristics-on-housing-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-detailed-characteristics.html

Put simply, renters tend to live in smaller properties and are disproportionately likely to live alone. Having said that, the difference between the mean household size for renters and OOs is not material:



The modal household size is materially different at 1 for renters and 2 for OOs.

The median household size isn't given but given the range of probable answers I would argue that it isn't a significant measure.

I considered that renters probably rent the smaller and lower level stock. So a bland 2.4 for renters and owners doesn't really capture the diffenerce. For example if the renters were all 2.4 in one bed flat and the owners 2.4 in 4 bed homes clearly the 2.4 does not capture the difference.

Maybe it would be better to look at floor space for renters and owners. My guess is that owners would have on averagr 35 sqm of living slace per occupant while renters would have closer to 25 sqm per ocupant.

Or that renters live 40% more dense than owners.
If renters do live more dense than owners one way to 'solve' the shortage equation is for a shift from owners to renters which is what is happening and has been since about 2004

ukcarper

Crashy_Time wrote: »

https://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2015/11/high-end-agents-demand-chancellor-reverses-stamp-duty-reform

Happy to quote estate agents when you think they back up your claims but otherwise it's all propaganda.

Crashy_Time

ukcarper wrote: »

Happy to quote estate agents when you think they back up your claims but otherwise it's all propaganda.

More or less, there is only so long they can talk rubbish after all before people see through it, but as their livelihood depends on it, yes they will have been saying things up until recently that don`t chime necessarily with the HPC viewpoint. What was your point BTW?

ukcarper

Crashy_Time wrote: »

More or less, there is only so long they can talk rubbish after all before people see through it, but as their livelihood depends on it, yes they will have been saying things up until recently that don`t chime necessarily with the HPC viewpoint. What was your point BTW?

Your blinkered

TheCountofNowhere

More propaganda

Crashy_Time

ukcarper wrote: »

Your blinkered

So someone "talking their book" or just stretching reality a bit ( or even a big bit) to encourage buyers/sellers/landlords to approach their company means that I should believe that UK property is not just a glorified Ponzi scheme, should I buy stocks just because the girl on Bloomberg talking about them looks slightly better than the back of a horse as well? I think it is noteworthy that some estate agents have seen fit to publicly beg for a change in government policy, you may however have a different view? :rotfl:

Jon_B_2

For me the reason why prices have grown strongly in the past year can be attributed to the stamp duty change.

A year ago I was looking to buy just below the £250k mark as under the old scheme stamp duty jumped horrendously above that particular price bracket. However, within a few months of the change the homes I could have bought for £249,995 were now being listed towards £300k.

I'd go as far to argue that all that is happening is that prices are actually approaching their true values as they were being constrained around the tax policies of the time.

For the record - I ended up buying a house at £275k. Stamp duty was only £3,750 which was better than the £8k or so upfront it would have been before.