Not a time to be a buy-to-let landlord

westernpromise

wotsthat wrote: »

Probably so but there will be more ltd companies competing against OO's instead. Will one balance out the other? I don't know.

It's deckchair shuffling - same number of people and same number of houses.

The market will decide how they're to be allocated but I doubt OO's will be holding street parties anytime soon to celebrate just how cheap houses have become.

Rents will go up but not because leveraged landlords will be able to pass the tax increase on. They'll go up because owner-occupation reduces occupancy. So the rental sector, while shrinking owing to a number of marginal transfers to OO, will also have to accommodate more people than at present.

mwpt

westernpromise wrote: »

Rents will go up but not because leveraged landlords will be able to pass the tax increase on. They'll go up because owner-occupation reduces occupancy. So the rental sector, while shrinking owing to a number of marginal transfers to OO, will also have to accommodate more people than at present.

Isn't it amazing how rents always go up. Rents go up while BTL sector expands. Rents go up while BTL sector shrinks. One thing is certain, property bulls will use renters as blackmail to protect their interests.

You guys are as ridiculous as the HPC nuts.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

mwpt wrote: »

Isn't it amazing how rents always go up. Rents go up while BTL sector expands. Rents go up while BTL sector shrinks. One thing is certain, property bulls will use renters as blackmail to protect their interests.

Rents will go up as long as there remains a shortage of housing and the imbalance between supply and demand remains.

If the sector expands less quickly than demand does, then rents rise, as we have seen.

If the sector shrinks while demand continues to increase, rents will rise even more, as we're about to see.

They're rising by 4% a year above inflation outside of London....

And by 8% in London.

Transferring some houses from rented to O/O and deterring new investment in the rented supply won't in any way help reduce rents.

It is likely to do the opposite in fact and drive up rents rather more quickly than they have been rising.

As I've said before, this Osborne tax is fiendishly clever, it ultimately targets tenants who are least likely to vote Tory whilst superficially being seen as an attack on core Tory supporting landlords.

buglawton

wotsthat wrote: »

Probably so but there will be more ltd companies competing against OO's instead. Will one balance out the other? I don't know.

It's deckchair shuffling - same number of people and same number of houses.

The market will decide how they're to be allocated but I doubt OO's will be holding street parties anytime soon to celebrate just how cheap houses have become.

Deckchair shuffling with one new twist - the government is draining more cash out of the rental market than before. It's been very quiet on the topic of ring fencing this extra cash stream for genuine new housing initiatives.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Rents over last 5 years...



Landlords have nothing to fear until we start building millions more houses.

mwpt

My point isn't that rents don't go up, it is that people on here love to use this as emotional blackmail to support their HPI protectionist views. It's pretty transparent.

westernpromise

mwpt wrote: »

My point isn't that rents don't go up, it is that people on here love to use this as emotional blackmail to support their HPI protectionist views. It's pretty transparent.

*boggle*

That's the first time I've heard "data" described as "emotional blackmail".

I appreciate that you're emotionally invested in being short property, but to add "emotional blackmail" to the list of the wrongs houses have done you is desperate stuff.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

mwpt wrote: »

My point isn't that rents don't go up, it is that people on here love to use this as emotional blackmail to support their HPI protectionist views. It's pretty transparent.

I really have no idea what you're on about.

If the rented sector expands less quickly than demand does, then rents rise rather a lot, as we have seen.

If the rented sector now stagnates or even shrinks while demand continues to increase, rents will rise by a fair whack more than 'rather a lot', as we're about to see.

I mean, this isn't even remotely contentious, it's just basic economics.

Unless we build millions of additional houses, Mr Market will continue to ration the limited supply by driving up rents and prices, until enough people are priced-out/forced to share so as to allocate stock.

Until then I fully expect the HPC brigade to continue being brutally punished for being on the wrong side of this position.

And given the enormous delight, even glee, they express at the faintest sign of economic troubles I can't say I'm not enjoying the current round of Schadenfreude.

mwpt

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I really have no idea what you're on about.

If the rented sector expands less quickly than demand does, then rents rise rather a lot, as we have seen.

If the rented sector now stagnates or even shrinks while demand continues to increase, rents will rise by a fair whack more than 'rather a lot', as we're about to see.

I mean, this isn't even remotely contentious, it's just basic economics.

Can you just re-read my posts because you've missed my point. Nowhere am I debating that rents will go up, or that they're driven by supply/demand.

I'm saying that for some reason, this westernpromise guy, and others, use this as emotional leverage to protect their HPI and/or BTL portfolios.

This forum really gets tiresome. It's as narrow minded as HPC.

westernpromise

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Until then I fully expect the HPC brigade to continue being brutally punished for being on the wrong side of this position.

And given the enormous delight, even glee, they express at the faintest sign of economic troubles I can't say I'm not enjoying the current round of Schadenfreude.

The HPC argument that when they lose money because they were wrong, those they lost it to are somehow morally at fault for having been right is an, er, interesting one.

They must be livid with successful fund managers, whose profits clearly come at the expense of unsuccessful fund managers, and who are therefore immoral.