Stamp Duty Ending

Crashy_Time

MobileSaver said:

Crashy_Time said:

Who would buy them, and at what price, by your assessment it wouldn`t be other landlords, and certainly not at a premium? And of course a house is still a house even when it stops being a rental house, houses don`t disappear when the landlord disappears?

Agreed, they'd obviously be bought by people wanting to live in them.

Yes, a house is still a house but it's not a rental house any more, the population is ever increasing but the supply of rental properties will naturally decrease; what effect do you think that will have on your monthly rental and for all those other people who either don't want or can't afford to buy a property?

As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions over the years, be careful what you wish for...

  Obviously you have a very strong VI in property and also high rents it seems? However you have to base arguments on real world thinking to be taken seriously, especially on a forum with so many keen economic minds.......

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/jan/27/private-rents-fall-in-uks-biggest-cities-by-up-to-12-amid-covid-crisis

Getting_greyer

Hmm, Doesn't your link suggest that in the rental market in isolation with a fixed supply, prices drop when demand is low and prices rise where there is high demand.  Which is a different to what mobile saver is saying regarding the substitution effect between rental and ownership.

MobileSaver

Crashy_Time said:

MobileSaver said:

you are the one who keeps banging on about transactions being almost 50% less than they were a decade ago and yet house prices are around 25% higher!

transactions dropped 50% with falling interest rates, are you saying transactions can`t drop any further if rates start rising!

You are completely mis-applying "cause and effect."

Interest rates increased three fold between Aug 2016 and Aug 2018... transactions remained constant at around 100,000 a month throughout the entire time until the obvious drop in transactions when Covid hit.

Crashy_Time

MobileSaver said:

Crashy_Time said:

MobileSaver said:

you are the one who keeps banging on about transactions being almost 50% less than they were a decade ago and yet house prices are around 25% higher!

transactions dropped 50% with falling interest rates, are you saying transactions can`t drop any further if rates start rising!

You are completely mis-applying "cause and effect."

Interest rates increased three fold between Aug 2016 and Aug 2018... transactions remained constant at around 100,000 a month throughout the entire time until the obvious drop in transactions when Covid hit.

Sure, but if you look at the graph and the bigger picture that increase is essentially meaningless.

https://www.propertyinvestmentproject.co.uk/property-statistics/uk-interest-rate-history-graph/

You still seem to be saying that transactions have become set at a particular level and can be affected by something like Covid but not by other threats to affordability like rising rates?

Crashy_Time

Getting_greyer said:

Hmm, Doesn't your link suggest that in the rental market in isolation with a fixed supply, prices drop when demand is low and prices rise where there is high demand.  Which is a different to what mobile saver is saying regarding the substitution effect between rental and ownership.

IMO the link simply shows that his preferred outcome, ever increasing rents, isn`t happening (it wasn`t actually happening before TBH if you look beyond the VI produced stats) He also says that "the supply of rental properties will naturally decrease"? But we have had around 15 years of the biggest BTL boom in history as banks got more and more people with existing mortgage debt on their main home into even more property debt on BTL homes! Both are examples of Real World contradicting a VI based wish list IMO.

MobileSaver

Crashy_Time said:

MobileSaver said:

Crashy_Time said:

And of course a house is still a house even when it stops being a rental house, houses don`t disappear when the landlord disappears?

Yes, a house is still a house but it's not a rental house any more, the population is ever increasing but the supply of rental properties will naturally decrease; what effect do you think that will have on your monthly rental and for all those other people who either don't want or can't afford to buy a property?

  Obviously you have a very strong VI in property and also high rents it seems? However you have to base arguments on real world thinking to be taken seriously, especially on a forum with so many keen economic minds.......

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/jan/27/private-rents-fall-in-uks-biggest-cities-by-up-to-12-amid-covid-crisis

I know it does not suit your narrative but I do not have any VI in property or high rents; I do not rent out any of my properties and there is no intention to sell any (including my own home) until the occupants finally shuffle off this mortal coil.

As has happened before I do wonder if you actually read the articles you link to as so often they actually contradict your peculiar world view!

Despite you repeatedly ridiculing myself and others when we predicted more people would leave the cities for a more rural location the article confirms "tenants swapped an urban life for the suburbs, smaller towns and villages."

Similarly the article also stated "Away from city centres it was a different picture, with agents reporting busy markets and rising rents." I think "real world thinking" is there in black and white for you...

Crashy_Time

MobileSaver said:

Crashy_Time said:

MobileSaver said:

Crashy_Time said:

And of course a house is still a house even when it stops being a rental house, houses don`t disappear when the landlord disappears?

Yes, a house is still a house but it's not a rental house any more, the population is ever increasing but the supply of rental properties will naturally decrease; what effect do you think that will have on your monthly rental and for all those other people who either don't want or can't afford to buy a property?

  Obviously you have a very strong VI in property and also high rents it seems? However you have to base arguments on real world thinking to be taken seriously, especially on a forum with so many keen economic minds.......

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/jan/27/private-rents-fall-in-uks-biggest-cities-by-up-to-12-amid-covid-crisis

I know it does not suit your narrative but I do not have any VI in property or high rents; I do not rent out any of my properties and there is no intention to sell any (including my own home) until the occupants finally shuffle off this mortal coil.

As has happened before I do wonder if you actually read the articles you link to as so often they actually contradict your peculiar world view!

Despite you repeatedly ridiculing myself and others when we predicted more people would leave the cities for a more rural location the article confirms "tenants swapped an urban life for the suburbs, smaller towns and villages."

Similarly the article also stated "Away from city centres it was a different picture, with agents reporting busy markets and rising rents." I think "real world thinking" is there in black and white for you...

What I actually said was that people who couldn`t afford a garden before Covid still probably can`t afford one, and I have yet to see any sensible statement from anyone that refutes that. The people moving to the country already had the means or the plans to do so for the most part IMO.

Getting_greyer

Do you not think the rise and increasing efficiency of home working has had an effect though?  People living close to London are no longer tied to location,  they could sell their property and move to a cheaper area. Or if renting get more for their money.  Is wasn't the finances that held them back but the commute.  It's obviously a different story for those that didn't have the finances before but these are two different things.

Mickey666

Getting_greyer said:

Do you not think the rise and increasing efficiency of home working has had an effect though?  People living close to London are no longer tied to location,  they could sell their property and move to a cheaper area. Or if renting get more for their money.  Is wasn't the finances that held them back but the commute.  It's obviously a different story for those that didn't have the finances before but these are two different things.

Absolutely right.
Cut the ties to the big, expensive cities and people are free to move to cheaper areas and get more for the money they already have.  So Crashy may be right to say someone couldn't afford a garden before Covid but free them from their geographical work ties and he's wrong to assume they wouldn't be able to afford a garden on their budget somewhere else, possibly even with a lower budget.

I did exactly that nearly 15 years ago, so nothing to do with Covid but everything to do with no longer being tied to an expensive area.  The result that I was able to move to a house that was over TWICE as large with loads of land (think many acres) yet was HALF the price and in a lower CT band.  And I wasn't even living in a big expensive city, merely the home counties, so imagine the possibilities for home owners in London.

MobileSaver

Crashy_Time said:

MobileSaver said:

Interest rates increased three fold between Aug 2016 and Aug 2018... transactions remained constant at around 100,000 a month throughout the entire time until the obvious drop in transactions when Covid hit.

Sure, but if you look at the graph and the bigger picture that increase is essentially meaningless.

Four years worth of data is meaningless because it doesn't fit your narrative? 

Crashy_Time said:

You still seem to be saying that transactions have become set at a particular level and can be affected by something like Covid but not by other threats to affordability like rising rates?

Um, no, I've not said anything of the sort. I'm simply challenging your and @mrlegend123's claim that a 1% increase in mortgage rates will result in a 20% drop in transactions or house prices; historical figures clearly prove this isn't the case.

Crashy_Time said:

Getting_greyer said:

Which is a different to what mobile saver is saying regarding the substitution effect between rental and ownership.

He also says that "the supply of rental properties will naturally decrease"? But we have had around 15 years of the biggest BTL boom in history as banks got more and more people with existing mortgage debt on their main home into even more property debt on BTL homes!

As @Getting_greyer pointed out, I think you have forgotten the context of my statement...

Poster mrlegend123 claimed BTL was already "not worth it" and then predicted with glee that BTL would be taxed even more. I don't think you have to be Einstein to work out that such a scenario would result in "the supply of rental properties will naturally decrease."