Buy-to-let investors 'to sell 500,000 properties' as confidence plummets

westernpromise

Landlords will sell 500,000 properties in the next 12 months, according to new research from buy-to-let investor trade body the National Landlords Association (NLA).

It says landlord confidence is at its lowest ebb since the dark days of the banking crisis.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/12138173/Buy-to-let-investors-to-sell-500000-properties-as-confidence-plummets.html

The bad news for crash trolls: the article is from the beginning of last year.

So how many landlords have actually sold properties since that article was written? According to
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/653066/UK_Tables_Oct_2017__cir_.pdf
there have been 1,155,500 in the last year. So were landlord sales 40% of those or was this, as I suspect, just a lot of made up b0110cks about the demise of BTL?

kinger101

One just needs to see the quotation marks in the headline to see they're just making s41t up. Or more precisely, paraphrasing a press release without engaging their brain.

I have noticed some area have quite a high proportion of BTL sales (Canterbury), but it's fairly easy to gauge from Rightmove the relative proportion of the currently marketed properties that are BTL, as more often than not, they're sold with a tenant in-situ, or just look like ex-rental.

The number of landords buying with a mortgage has apparently plummeted.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jun/22/buy-to-let-uk-property-sales-fall-by-almost-50-in-a-year

But CML figures aren't that helpful since many purchases would be cash.

Rich2808

Isn't it rather early to gauge the impact of the tax changes - as they are being phased in.

I expect the original article promoted by the NLA was of the woe is me, please don't do this Government variety - they were hardly going to say the tax changes are great we want even more were they backed up by supposed stats saying it wouldn't affect BTL purchases or sales?

There are of course a lot more priced out first time buyers/renters and their concerned parents - than buy to let landlords. And as the Government found out in June ignoring the former isn't good for their long term electoral prospects. Renters tend not to vote Conservative.

POPPYOSCAR

I keep hearing about a property crash.

Not around here it would seem.

We went to view a property for sale by sealed bids.

The estate agent told us today that they received over 30 bids.

kinger101

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I keep hearing about a property crash.

Not around here it would seem.

We went to view a property for sale by sealed bids.

The estate agent told us today that they received over 30 bids.

I'm in outer SE, and Victorian and Edwardian properties will sell within a week still. Often sealed bids too. I did lose out on one, but the EA called me back a couple of weeks later to see if I was still interested (wasn't as another offer accepted). Suspect someone went too high, and bank said no. I didn't need re-advertising though.

BobQ

I am not surprised people are selling. Interest rates are starting to rise, regulation is becoming tighter and many BTL landlords have been making money using other people's money.

kinger101

BobQ wrote: »

I am not surprised people are selling. Interest rates are starting to rise, regulation is becoming tighter and many BTL landlords have been making money using other people's money.

The problem is, very few people are selling. The amount of properties on estate agents' books is very low. That is what's underpinning property prices at the moment. I think those that needed to exit due to being over-leveraged probably did so before the stamp duty hike.

michaels

Lets hope the btl landlords don't sell en masse as the level of homelessness as 2/3 beds start housing couples rather than 6 sharers will be horrendous.

marathonic

michaels wrote: »

Lets hope the btl landlords don't sell en masse as the level of homelessness as 2/3 beds start housing couples rather than 6 sharers will be horrendous.

This is the point lots of people seem to be unable to understand. They think that, somehow, by all landlords selling their properties, homelessness will no longer be a problem. The problem is shortage of housing/building, not BTL landlords.

michaels

marathonic wrote: »

This is the point lots of people seem to be unable to understand. They think that, somehow, by all landlords selling their properties, homelessness will no longer be a problem. The problem is shortage of housing/building, not BTL landlords.

I would go further and suggest that BTL is the consequence of a lack of housebuilding - as the housing stock has to fit the population more than 2 adult earners must live in each property, it is unsual for groups of adults to purchase together and mortgage lending does not support a owners+lodger model so instead a landlord purchases and rents to 3+ income earners.

westernpromise

I can't readily find any stats on how many renters there actually are but this link
https://homelet.co.uk/letting-agents/news/article/how-many-landlords-and-tenants-are-there-in-the-uk

says that 5 years ago there were just under 4 million in England.

if a particularly wicked fairy were to wave her wand over England and turn the homes occupied by 4 million renters instantly into owner-occupied homes, they'd only house 3 million people because rented houses are more densely occupied. If such a thing happened, then we'd have a million homeless.

In reality this couldn't happen overnight, so what would happen instead if the PRS were to disappear is that the lowest bidders for rented property would gradually get squeezed out as some was sold and what was left was competed for harder.