Are we expecting BOE to remain at 4.75% on 8th February 2025?

RelievedSheff

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MeteredOut said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Another straw man. It should fall below 4% because to not do so will damage the economy, government and personal finance, it should not be set at a level that benefits only savers. 

All that QE on the BOE balance sheet that was pumped into the banking system primarily to underpin mortgage lending by the banks. Has yet to be transferred onto savers balance sheets. The market will determine the correct level of rates for both savers and borrowers. There's at least a decade of unwinding to go yet. 

Worth remembering that 30 year mortgage rates in the US are currently above 7%. Borrowers in the UK have so far got off lightly. 

And there is a LOT of potential volatility for credit markets.

The nature of fixed term debt is that the unwinding is spread out. There's no cliff edge to speak of.  Adjustment will become seamless. Yes there'll be headline grabbing stories. Be some surprises.  In the main it'll be a quiet and slow process. Even now companies are deleveraging. Sell assets or raise capital through equity issuance. Homeowners will be no different. All making individual decisions based on their own personal financial circumatances. 

https://www.property118.com/rising-interest-rates-hammer-btl-returns-by-45/

I think the opposite, I think the signs of stress are showing very quickly, CRE is another very good example.

What percentage of mortgages are BTL? Hardly indicative of the market.

Last figures I recall.  7% of mortgages but 20% of total outstanding borrowing.  Leverage being the underlying issue. Residential mortgages being overwhemingly on a repayment basis while BTL are interest only. BTL mortgages tend to come with higher product fees and are at higher rates than residential. 

So defaults/losses on BTL could affect bank lending on residential?

So could the price of Jarlsberg cheese or the colour of the board members' shirts.

None of these are the same thing.

Very unlikely that the things you mention would have any effect, but losses to the bank on one balance sheet would make them more cautious overall I think , remember they are also reeling from CRE losses. The main losers of course in a BTL meltdown would be recent landlords who thought they were super-investors.

No the main losers would be the tenants.

ReadySteadyPop

RelievedSheff said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MeteredOut said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Another straw man. It should fall below 4% because to not do so will damage the economy, government and personal finance, it should not be set at a level that benefits only savers. 

All that QE on the BOE balance sheet that was pumped into the banking system primarily to underpin mortgage lending by the banks. Has yet to be transferred onto savers balance sheets. The market will determine the correct level of rates for both savers and borrowers. There's at least a decade of unwinding to go yet. 

Worth remembering that 30 year mortgage rates in the US are currently above 7%. Borrowers in the UK have so far got off lightly. 

And there is a LOT of potential volatility for credit markets.

The nature of fixed term debt is that the unwinding is spread out. There's no cliff edge to speak of.  Adjustment will become seamless. Yes there'll be headline grabbing stories. Be some surprises.  In the main it'll be a quiet and slow process. Even now companies are deleveraging. Sell assets or raise capital through equity issuance. Homeowners will be no different. All making individual decisions based on their own personal financial circumatances. 

https://www.property118.com/rising-interest-rates-hammer-btl-returns-by-45/

I think the opposite, I think the signs of stress are showing very quickly, CRE is another very good example.

What percentage of mortgages are BTL? Hardly indicative of the market.

Last figures I recall.  7% of mortgages but 20% of total outstanding borrowing.  Leverage being the underlying issue. Residential mortgages being overwhemingly on a repayment basis while BTL are interest only. BTL mortgages tend to come with higher product fees and are at higher rates than residential. 

So defaults/losses on BTL could affect bank lending on residential?

So could the price of Jarlsberg cheese or the colour of the board members' shirts.

None of these are the same thing.

Very unlikely that the things you mention would have any effect, but losses to the bank on one balance sheet would make them more cautious overall I think , remember they are also reeling from CRE losses. The main losers of course in a BTL meltdown would be recent landlords who thought they were super-investors.

No the main losers would be the tenants.

Why, do you think a Labour government is going to let them all become homeless? The Landlord carries the debt and the capital loss on the property, there is no comparison for the tenant.

lojo1000

RelievedSheff said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MeteredOut said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Another straw man. It should fall below 4% because to not do so will damage the economy, government and personal finance, it should not be set at a level that benefits only savers. 

All that QE on the BOE balance sheet that was pumped into the banking system primarily to underpin mortgage lending by the banks. Has yet to be transferred onto savers balance sheets. The market will determine the correct level of rates for both savers and borrowers. There's at least a decade of unwinding to go yet. 

Worth remembering that 30 year mortgage rates in the US are currently above 7%. Borrowers in the UK have so far got off lightly. 

And there is a LOT of potential volatility for credit markets.

The nature of fixed term debt is that the unwinding is spread out. There's no cliff edge to speak of.  Adjustment will become seamless. Yes there'll be headline grabbing stories. Be some surprises.  In the main it'll be a quiet and slow process. Even now companies are deleveraging. Sell assets or raise capital through equity issuance. Homeowners will be no different. All making individual decisions based on their own personal financial circumatances. 

https://www.property118.com/rising-interest-rates-hammer-btl-returns-by-45/

I think the opposite, I think the signs of stress are showing very quickly, CRE is another very good example.

What percentage of mortgages are BTL? Hardly indicative of the market.

Last figures I recall.  7% of mortgages but 20% of total outstanding borrowing.  Leverage being the underlying issue. Residential mortgages being overwhemingly on a repayment basis while BTL are interest only. BTL mortgages tend to come with higher product fees and are at higher rates than residential. 

So defaults/losses on BTL could affect bank lending on residential?

So could the price of Jarlsberg cheese or the colour of the board members' shirts.

None of these are the same thing.

Very unlikely that the things you mention would have any effect, but losses to the bank on one balance sheet would make them more cautious overall I think , remember they are also reeling from CRE losses. The main losers of course in a BTL meltdown would be recent landlords who thought they were super-investors.

No the main losers would be the tenants.

Because they would have to move?

MobileSaver

lojo1000 said:

RelievedSheff said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MeteredOut said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Another straw man. It should fall below 4% because to not do so will damage the economy, government and personal finance, it should not be set at a level that benefits only savers. 

All that QE on the BOE balance sheet that was pumped into the banking system primarily to underpin mortgage lending by the banks. Has yet to be transferred onto savers balance sheets. The market will determine the correct level of rates for both savers and borrowers. There's at least a decade of unwinding to go yet. 

Worth remembering that 30 year mortgage rates in the US are currently above 7%. Borrowers in the UK have so far got off lightly. 

And there is a LOT of potential volatility for credit markets.

The nature of fixed term debt is that the unwinding is spread out. There's no cliff edge to speak of.  Adjustment will become seamless. Yes there'll be headline grabbing stories. Be some surprises.  In the main it'll be a quiet and slow process. Even now companies are deleveraging. Sell assets or raise capital through equity issuance. Homeowners will be no different. All making individual decisions based on their own personal financial circumatances. 

https://www.property118.com/rising-interest-rates-hammer-btl-returns-by-45/

I think the opposite, I think the signs of stress are showing very quickly, CRE is another very good example.

What percentage of mortgages are BTL? Hardly indicative of the market.

Last figures I recall.  7% of mortgages but 20% of total outstanding borrowing.  Leverage being the underlying issue. Residential mortgages being overwhemingly on a repayment basis while BTL are interest only. BTL mortgages tend to come with higher product fees and are at higher rates than residential. 

So defaults/losses on BTL could affect bank lending on residential?

So could the price of Jarlsberg cheese or the colour of the board members' shirts.

None of these are the same thing.

Very unlikely that the things you mention would have any effect, but losses to the bank on one balance sheet would make them more cautious overall I think , remember they are also reeling from CRE losses. The main losers of course in a BTL meltdown would be recent landlords who thought they were super-investors.

No the main losers would be the tenants.

Because they would have to move?

Certainly being forced to move home because of someone else's actions or inactions is not something any of us would relish but that would only affect the small number of tenants with "recent landlords" as per Crashy's supposition.

If Crashy was right for the first time in his life and there was a "BTL meltdown" then you don't have to be a financial whizz to realise that rental prices would increase resulting in all tenants becoming losers...

lojo1000

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

RelievedSheff said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MeteredOut said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Another straw man. It should fall below 4% because to not do so will damage the economy, government and personal finance, it should not be set at a level that benefits only savers. 

All that QE on the BOE balance sheet that was pumped into the banking system primarily to underpin mortgage lending by the banks. Has yet to be transferred onto savers balance sheets. The market will determine the correct level of rates for both savers and borrowers. There's at least a decade of unwinding to go yet. 

Worth remembering that 30 year mortgage rates in the US are currently above 7%. Borrowers in the UK have so far got off lightly. 

And there is a LOT of potential volatility for credit markets.

The nature of fixed term debt is that the unwinding is spread out. There's no cliff edge to speak of.  Adjustment will become seamless. Yes there'll be headline grabbing stories. Be some surprises.  In the main it'll be a quiet and slow process. Even now companies are deleveraging. Sell assets or raise capital through equity issuance. Homeowners will be no different. All making individual decisions based on their own personal financial circumatances. 

https://www.property118.com/rising-interest-rates-hammer-btl-returns-by-45/

I think the opposite, I think the signs of stress are showing very quickly, CRE is another very good example.

What percentage of mortgages are BTL? Hardly indicative of the market.

Last figures I recall.  7% of mortgages but 20% of total outstanding borrowing.  Leverage being the underlying issue. Residential mortgages being overwhemingly on a repayment basis while BTL are interest only. BTL mortgages tend to come with higher product fees and are at higher rates than residential. 

So defaults/losses on BTL could affect bank lending on residential?

So could the price of Jarlsberg cheese or the colour of the board members' shirts.

None of these are the same thing.

Very unlikely that the things you mention would have any effect, but losses to the bank on one balance sheet would make them more cautious overall I think , remember they are also reeling from CRE losses. The main losers of course in a BTL meltdown would be recent landlords who thought they were super-investors.

No the main losers would be the tenants.

Because they would have to move?

 you don't have to be a financial whizz to realise that rental prices would increase resulting in all tenants becoming losers...

I presume the logic here is the BTL houses are taken out of the rental housing stock and there are therefore less houses to rent which raises rents?

But I wonder what then happens to those houses........if not in the rental market they become available to buy and (somewhere in the chain) increase the stock of houses to buy for those who were previously renting and have a downward impact on the cost of house prices.

So the net effect is less rental housing stock and less renters so no net impact.

I'm no "financial whizz" so let me know where i've gone wrong.

MobileSaver

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

RelievedSheff said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MeteredOut said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Another straw man. It should fall below 4% because to not do so will damage the economy, government and personal finance, it should not be set at a level that benefits only savers. 

All that QE on the BOE balance sheet that was pumped into the banking system primarily to underpin mortgage lending by the banks. Has yet to be transferred onto savers balance sheets. The market will determine the correct level of rates for both savers and borrowers. There's at least a decade of unwinding to go yet. 

Worth remembering that 30 year mortgage rates in the US are currently above 7%. Borrowers in the UK have so far got off lightly. 

And there is a LOT of potential volatility for credit markets.

The nature of fixed term debt is that the unwinding is spread out. There's no cliff edge to speak of.  Adjustment will become seamless. Yes there'll be headline grabbing stories. Be some surprises.  In the main it'll be a quiet and slow process. Even now companies are deleveraging. Sell assets or raise capital through equity issuance. Homeowners will be no different. All making individual decisions based on their own personal financial circumatances. 

https://www.property118.com/rising-interest-rates-hammer-btl-returns-by-45/

I think the opposite, I think the signs of stress are showing very quickly, CRE is another very good example.

What percentage of mortgages are BTL? Hardly indicative of the market.

Last figures I recall.  7% of mortgages but 20% of total outstanding borrowing.  Leverage being the underlying issue. Residential mortgages being overwhemingly on a repayment basis while BTL are interest only. BTL mortgages tend to come with higher product fees and are at higher rates than residential. 

So defaults/losses on BTL could affect bank lending on residential?

So could the price of Jarlsberg cheese or the colour of the board members' shirts.

None of these are the same thing.

Very unlikely that the things you mention would have any effect, but losses to the bank on one balance sheet would make them more cautious overall I think , remember they are also reeling from CRE losses. The main losers of course in a BTL meltdown would be recent landlords who thought they were super-investors.

No the main losers would be the tenants.

Because they would have to move?

 you don't have to be a financial whizz to realise that rental prices would increase resulting in all tenants becoming losers...

if not in the rental market they become available to buy and (somewhere in the chain) increase the stock of houses to buy for those who were previously renting

So the net effect is less rental housing stock and less renters so no net impact.

I'm no "financial whizz" so let me know where i've gone wrong.

Clearly. All other things being equal, your "no net impact" on renters is only valid if every single one of those BTL properties is subsequently utilised by someone who was previously renting which is extremely unlikely to be the case.

lojo1000

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

RelievedSheff said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MeteredOut said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Another straw man. It should fall below 4% because to not do so will damage the economy, government and personal finance, it should not be set at a level that benefits only savers. 

All that QE on the BOE balance sheet that was pumped into the banking system primarily to underpin mortgage lending by the banks. Has yet to be transferred onto savers balance sheets. The market will determine the correct level of rates for both savers and borrowers. There's at least a decade of unwinding to go yet. 

Worth remembering that 30 year mortgage rates in the US are currently above 7%. Borrowers in the UK have so far got off lightly. 

And there is a LOT of potential volatility for credit markets.

The nature of fixed term debt is that the unwinding is spread out. There's no cliff edge to speak of.  Adjustment will become seamless. Yes there'll be headline grabbing stories. Be some surprises.  In the main it'll be a quiet and slow process. Even now companies are deleveraging. Sell assets or raise capital through equity issuance. Homeowners will be no different. All making individual decisions based on their own personal financial circumatances. 

https://www.property118.com/rising-interest-rates-hammer-btl-returns-by-45/

I think the opposite, I think the signs of stress are showing very quickly, CRE is another very good example.

What percentage of mortgages are BTL? Hardly indicative of the market.

Last figures I recall.  7% of mortgages but 20% of total outstanding borrowing.  Leverage being the underlying issue. Residential mortgages being overwhemingly on a repayment basis while BTL are interest only. BTL mortgages tend to come with higher product fees and are at higher rates than residential. 

So defaults/losses on BTL could affect bank lending on residential?

So could the price of Jarlsberg cheese or the colour of the board members' shirts.

None of these are the same thing.

Very unlikely that the things you mention would have any effect, but losses to the bank on one balance sheet would make them more cautious overall I think , remember they are also reeling from CRE losses. The main losers of course in a BTL meltdown would be recent landlords who thought they were super-investors.

No the main losers would be the tenants.

Because they would have to move?

 you don't have to be a financial whizz to realise that rental prices would increase resulting in all tenants becoming losers...

if not in the rental market they become available to buy and (somewhere in the chain) increase the stock of houses to buy for those who were previously renting

So the net effect is less rental housing stock and less renters so no net impact.

I'm no "financial whizz" so let me know where i've gone wrong.

Clearly. All other things being equal, your "no net impact" on renters is only valid if every single one of those BTL properties is subsequently utilised by someone who was previously renting which is extremely unlikely to be the case.

Okay, let's imagine a BTL property is not then utilised by a previous renter........who will utilise the property........? if not a renter, then an existing owner-occupier......whose house then becomes vacant........which is then occupied by a renter or another owner-occupier........if an owner-occupier, then their house becomes vacant..........

So you need to think about housing stock and demand in aggregate and both owner-occupier and BTL/rental markets together.

Again, let me know where i've gone wrong as i'm still learning.

MobileSaver

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

RelievedSheff said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MeteredOut said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Another straw man. It should fall below 4% because to not do so will damage the economy, government and personal finance, it should not be set at a level that benefits only savers. 

All that QE on the BOE balance sheet that was pumped into the banking system primarily to underpin mortgage lending by the banks. Has yet to be transferred onto savers balance sheets. The market will determine the correct level of rates for both savers and borrowers. There's at least a decade of unwinding to go yet. 

Worth remembering that 30 year mortgage rates in the US are currently above 7%. Borrowers in the UK have so far got off lightly. 

And there is a LOT of potential volatility for credit markets.

The nature of fixed term debt is that the unwinding is spread out. There's no cliff edge to speak of.  Adjustment will become seamless. Yes there'll be headline grabbing stories. Be some surprises.  In the main it'll be a quiet and slow process. Even now companies are deleveraging. Sell assets or raise capital through equity issuance. Homeowners will be no different. All making individual decisions based on their own personal financial circumatances. 

https://www.property118.com/rising-interest-rates-hammer-btl-returns-by-45/

I think the opposite, I think the signs of stress are showing very quickly, CRE is another very good example.

What percentage of mortgages are BTL? Hardly indicative of the market.

Last figures I recall.  7% of mortgages but 20% of total outstanding borrowing.  Leverage being the underlying issue. Residential mortgages being overwhemingly on a repayment basis while BTL are interest only. BTL mortgages tend to come with higher product fees and are at higher rates than residential. 

So defaults/losses on BTL could affect bank lending on residential?

So could the price of Jarlsberg cheese or the colour of the board members' shirts.

None of these are the same thing.

Very unlikely that the things you mention would have any effect, but losses to the bank on one balance sheet would make them more cautious overall I think , remember they are also reeling from CRE losses. The main losers of course in a BTL meltdown would be recent landlords who thought they were super-investors.

No the main losers would be the tenants.

Because they would have to move?

 you don't have to be a financial whizz to realise that rental prices would increase resulting in all tenants becoming losers...

if not in the rental market they become available to buy and (somewhere in the chain) increase the stock of houses to buy for those who were previously renting

So the net effect is less rental housing stock and less renters so no net impact.

I'm no "financial whizz" so let me know where i've gone wrong.

Clearly. All other things being equal, your "no net impact" on renters is only valid if every single one of those BTL properties is subsequently utilised by someone who was previously renting which is extremely unlikely to be the case.

house then becomes vacant........which is then occupied by a renter or another owner-occupier

Again, let me know where i've gone wrong as i'm still learning.

The fundamental flaw is your supposition that every new occupant of the ex-BTL was previously either a renter or was an owner-occupier who has now released their previous home back on to the market. There are numerous situations where this is not the case.

For example, according to Crashy, loads of struggling younger people have moved back in with their parents - they are neither owner-occupiers or renters but either they or their parents are ready to snap up any ex-BTL bargains if prices drop.

Similarly, more people than ever are living on their own, often due to divorce/separation. A case in point is a relative of my girlfriend's; she married less than a year ago, it didn't go well so last month she moved out and into a rental while soon-to-be ex-hubby is still living in the marital home.

Another example, I own several properties, only my own home is occupied by an owner-occupier; the others are occupied by neither owner-occupiers or (past or present) renters...

Of course the even bigger fly in the ointment is that the UK isn't building enough homes to keep up with the growing population so if relatively fewer homes are available to renters due to a "BLT meltdown" then that can only result in even higher costs for renters.

lojo1000

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

MobileSaver said:

lojo1000 said:

RelievedSheff said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

BarelySentientAI said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MeteredOut said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

ReadySteadyPop said:

Hoenir said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Another straw man. It should fall below 4% because to not do so will damage the economy, government and personal finance, it should not be set at a level that benefits only savers. 

All that QE on the BOE balance sheet that was pumped into the banking system primarily to underpin mortgage lending by the banks. Has yet to be transferred onto savers balance sheets. The market will determine the correct level of rates for both savers and borrowers. There's at least a decade of unwinding to go yet. 

Worth remembering that 30 year mortgage rates in the US are currently above 7%. Borrowers in the UK have so far got off lightly. 

And there is a LOT of potential volatility for credit markets.

The nature of fixed term debt is that the unwinding is spread out. There's no cliff edge to speak of.  Adjustment will become seamless. Yes there'll be headline grabbing stories. Be some surprises.  In the main it'll be a quiet and slow process. Even now companies are deleveraging. Sell assets or raise capital through equity issuance. Homeowners will be no different. All making individual decisions based on their own personal financial circumatances. 

https://www.property118.com/rising-interest-rates-hammer-btl-returns-by-45/

I think the opposite, I think the signs of stress are showing very quickly, CRE is another very good example.

What percentage of mortgages are BTL? Hardly indicative of the market.

Last figures I recall.  7% of mortgages but 20% of total outstanding borrowing.  Leverage being the underlying issue. Residential mortgages being overwhemingly on a repayment basis while BTL are interest only. BTL mortgages tend to come with higher product fees and are at higher rates than residential. 

So defaults/losses on BTL could affect bank lending on residential?

So could the price of Jarlsberg cheese or the colour of the board members' shirts.

None of these are the same thing.

Very unlikely that the things you mention would have any effect, but losses to the bank on one balance sheet would make them more cautious overall I think , remember they are also reeling from CRE losses. The main losers of course in a BTL meltdown would be recent landlords who thought they were super-investors.

No the main losers would be the tenants.

Because they would have to move?

 you don't have to be a financial whizz to realise that rental prices would increase resulting in all tenants becoming losers...

if not in the rental market they become available to buy and (somewhere in the chain) increase the stock of houses to buy for those who were previously renting

So the net effect is less rental housing stock and less renters so no net impact.

I'm no "financial whizz" so let me know where i've gone wrong.

Clearly. All other things being equal, your "no net impact" on renters is only valid if every single one of those BTL properties is subsequently utilised by someone who was previously renting which is extremely unlikely to be the case.

house then becomes vacant........which is then occupied by a renter or another owner-occupier

Again, let me know where i've gone wrong as i'm still learning.

The fundamental flaw is your supposition that every new occupant of the ex-BTL was previously either a renter or was an owner-occupier who has now released their previous home back on to the market. There are numerous situations where this is not the case.

For example, according to Crashy, loads of struggling younger people have moved back in with their parents - they are neither owner-occupiers or renters but either they or their parents are ready to snap up any ex-BTL bargains if prices drop.

Similarly, more people than ever are living on their own, often due to divorce/separation. A case in point is a relative of my girlfriend's; she married less than a year ago, it didn't go well so last month she moved out and into a rental while soon-to-be ex-hubby is still living in the marital home.

Another example, I own several properties, only my own home is occupied by an owner-occupier; the others are occupied by neither owner-occupiers or (past or present) renters...

Of course the even bigger fly in the ointment is that the UK isn't building enough homes to keep up with the growing population so if relatively fewer homes are available to renters due to a "BLT meltdown" then that can only result in even higher costs for renters.

You're just listing existing latent demand, none of the demand for housing you list is caused by the release of BTL properties on to the market. Similarly, the 'lack of housing' is an already existing factor, not an event caused by a "BTL meltdown".

The "BTL meltdown" has no impact on housing stock nor housing demand and just as houses are free to move from the rental to owner-occupier sector, so is the demand for housing.
 

ian1246

I think the biggest issue for renters is scraping a deposit together. Anything which encourages landlords to sell shrinks the rental market. If the demand for rentals then doesn't also shrink at the same/ faster rate... it will result in rental prices climbing. Unfortunately I suspect a very large share of those renting lack the means to purchase the resulting increased supply of homes for sale... which means they may actually become even more lilely to be trapped if rental prices spike...