Why do people resent buy-to-letters so much?

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

Yes, and people would resent their neighbour who took out an IO mortgage to buy up a chunk of the local bread supply and then sold it back to his neighbours at higher prices.

But that isn't happening and nor is it likely to happen, because food markets function largely like capital free markets are meant to function and things have got better over time for every one. The opposite of the housing market in the areas I care about.

Tesco buy up a large chunk of the local bread supply and sell it back to their neighbours at higher prices.

They actually make the purchase with an interest free loan because they'll buy the bread, sell it within a couple of days and won't pay their supplier for another 90 days (if they're lucky).

Profiting from an essential.

Conrad

mwpt wrote: »

We have a range of product from 95% and on, at the cheapest rates in history. Is it just that people are now not able to borrow at high multiples?

I've been in mortgage business since about 1990.


In 2008 retail mortgage regulation was made tighter. I saw first hand the out of touch middle class regulator types at the FSA bringing this in without any thought for the millions that would not now be able to buy a home.


This is because those posh middle class regulators do not really mix with white van men or agency nurses, wont realise lots of middles aged divorcing people would now not be able to get a mortgage (too old apparently from that moment on - so had to have a short term which failed the new affordability tests)




Those at the top / in charge, rarely understand life at the coal face.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

Tesco buy up a large chunk of the local bread supply and sell it back to their neighbours at higher prices.

They actually make the purchase with an interest free loan because they'll buy the bread, sell it within a couple of days and won't pay their supplier for another 90 days (if they're lucky).

Profiting from an essential.

And if food was rising to historically high levels and unaffordable, people would resent supermarkets.

Is this really so difficult to understand? I think I'll just go back to copy pasting my previous response. It's less time consuming and about as effective with you guys.

cells

by the looks of it London is already below 45% ownership.

If the banks keep insisting on silly low income multiples I can see that falling by as much as 1% a year.

Hamish idea of rental cover for even owners, which seemed bonkers to me when I fist heard of it, is probably the way to go. Or simply self cert 'I am confident I can afford this mortgage' for anyone putting down 20% or more

mwpt

Conrad wrote: »

I've been in mortgage business since about 1990.

In 2008 retail mortgage regulation was made tighter. I saw first hand the out of touch middle class regulator types at the FSA bringing this in without any thought for the millions that would not now be able to buy a home.

This is because those posh middle class regulators do not really mix with white van men or agency nurses, wont realise lots of middles aged divorcing people would now not be able to get a mortgage (too old apparently from that moment on - so had to have a short term which failed the new affordability tests)

Those at the top / in charge, rarely understand life at the coal face.

But Conrad, that isn't an answer to my question. Are lending standards now tighter and more restrictive than historical norms?

ukcarper

mwpt wrote: »

I don't think I mentioned rents. I was talking about asset prices. 77% of renters would prefer to own, apparently. BTL are in competition for the assets these people want to own except BTL can bid higher prices.

Have you got any proof for that and even if they are would like have the means even if house prices were lower.

According to Nationwide in relation to earnings prices are twice the lowest they have been, 50% more than the long term average and lower than they were in 2005.

cells

mwpt wrote: »

And if food was rising to historically high levels and unaffordable, people would resent supermarkets.

Is this really so difficult to understand? I think I'll just go back to copy pasting my previous response. It's less time consuming and about as effective with you guys.

we have cheap houses in half the country, stoke-on-trent average price for a terrace is ~£45k which is less than 1.5 x average full time male income of stoke.

of course a single man with one wage below the median london wage wanting to buy a 3 bed terrace in inner zones for £100k....well thats going to be impossible unless you know of a way to get rid of 2 million Londoners and reduce the income of those that remain by 1/2....

cells

mwpt wrote: »

But Conrad, that isn't an answer to my question. Are lending standards now tighter and more restrictive than historical norms?

do you want ownership levels to return to 'historic norms'?

because historically, a lot more people rented


Also as I keep saying, look at the regions.

Why is it that in the NE and NW, where prices are cheap and lower than 10 years ago but wages higher, has the ownership level shrunk too? if its all price and nowt to do with regulation?

mwpt

cells wrote: »

we have cheap houses in half the country, stoke-on-trent average price for a terrace is ~£45k which is less than 1.5 x average full time male income of stoke.

of course a single man with one wage below the median london wage wanting to buy a 3 bed terrace in inner zones for £100k....well thats going to be impossible unless you know of a way to get rid of 2 million Londoners and reduce the income of those that remain by 1/2....

Oh for gods sake? What the deuce has stoke on trent got to do with anything in my vicinity? What sort of argument is that when I could just point out a different region, tit for tat?

I give up, this place is nuts.

cells

mwpt wrote: »

Oh for gods sake? What the deuce has stoke on trent got to do with anything in my vicinity? What sort of argument is that when I could just point out a different region, tit for tat?

I give up, this place is nuts.

you made me laugh

The point is, not everywhere is crazy

About half the country is between crazy cheap to cheap to affordable.

The NE the NW, the W and E Midlands and Y&H are all very affordable regions. (ownership has been declining there too which suggests its not prices its regulations)


It is simply not possible for everyone who wants to live in London (or insert expensive town or city) to do so. There is probably the demand and want for 10 million people to move live in London over the next 20 years yet at most space for 2 million will be available. The question is then, how do you decide out of that 10 million which 2 million gets to live there and which of the rest will have to go to stoke-on-trnet

The mechanism for that is price signals. The only other alternative is some sort of state quota and allocation. But still only 2 of the 10 million who want to live there can whatever the method of allocation. Just the most efficent and most fair is price rather than quota allocation