Bland Unsight Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Seriously? Probably over 50% of it. Larry Elliot and Dan Atkinson wrote a fun little book in 2012 called Going South: Why Britain Will Have A Third World Economy By 2014. Raising your family of four in your childhood bedroom could be the wave of the future, . You'll save a fortune on the rent... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 So many places, even in London. I have a good friend who is Indian with 3 generations all living together (by choice) in one big house. Grandparents, an uncle, and aunt, a parent, her husband and her 2 kids. They don't find it strange at all and very common in Indian households. Only people in the West find generations living together strange. Who owns the house? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Seriously? Probably over 50% of it. So it shouldn't be too hard to name a country where it's normal for the middle generation to raise their children in the grandparents' house? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairyland Posted June 7, 2015 Author Share Posted June 7, 2015 Do all the generations of the royal family live together? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Do all the generations of the royal family live together? No, the royals get given their own palace/country house when they're old enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snugglybear Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Most of the Middle East do this. They build homes and they build a new level for each new generation so their kids are living above them (in the same house) and so on. They have buildings with multiple levels and the whole extended family live together. Even in America, 1 in 6 Americans lives in multi-generational households; http://www.gu.org/OURWORK/Multigenerational/MultigenerationalHouseholdInformation.aspx Isn't that because of falling incomes, meaning young people are unable to become independent? Low incomes are, of course, particularly prevalent amongst immigrants. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/07/17/in-post-recession-era-young-adults-drive-continuing-rise-in-multi-generational-living/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) Most of the Middle East do this. They build homes and they build a new level for each new generation so their kids are living above them (in the same house) and so on. They have buildings with multiple levels and the whole extended family live together. Right, I've also heard of this happening in rural China, but building a new floor on top of the family home for a young married couple to live in (usually as an entirely self-contained apartment with separate kitchen, bathroom etc) is very different from the 20-40something generation moving back in with the older generation and sharing all facilities. The idea that the two adult generations might want/need a bit of space and independence from each other is not unique to British/Western society. Plus the small detail that UK houses are not big enough for 6 people from 3 generations to live together (grandparent couple, parent couple, 2 kids). Edited June 7, 2015 by Dorkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samtheman Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I've tended to rely on this website (especially when dealing with landlords/lettings agencies who used to try and pull a fast one and pretend that my rent had to go up because the "market was booming"): http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/s/ph?pc=LON&t=1-3b This is purely anecdotal but I've just signed a renewed 12-month tenancy for my flat in Central London with no increase being suggested (then again I think my landlord is one of few who isn't a completely greedy and deluded idiot). I also own a 2-bed flat in Zone 2, that due to circumstances I can't move into yet, and spent 1.5 months looking for tenants (then again the lettings agency did a pretty bad job of marketing the flat) who pay a few percent less than the previous tenants did before I bought the flat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snugglybear Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 The other problem with multigenerational living is that it relies on people staying where they were brought up. I love my kids, but I'm not prepared to up sticks and leave my friends to go and live wherever they end up getting jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samtheman Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) Renters have less disposable income and/or living room, landlords and bankers progressively more. That's not how a market functions. Landlords may have more disposable income in order to purchase their property asset in the first place but there is no promise for the rental market to provide a certain yield. That's where a lot of the speculation is going wrong: in the building where I purchased my flat, all flats were marketed in Singapore and Hong Kong first with guaranteed rental yields and the usual projections of capital appreciation. The idea that you can "guarantee" a rental yield completely skews the overseas investor's view of the market who sees no risk in their purchase. If the money for rent is not there a few years later, then there is no way that you can demand a certain rent simply based on the price at which you bought your property or any previous rent amounts you used to charge. If the people in the area can only reasonably afford £1000 a month for your property and you expect £1200/month to get your return on investment, you can "demand" that rent as much as you like, noone is going to bite. Once in that situation, landlords have to reduce the rent they ask if they don't want to keep their flat empty (which some are happy to do as long as they think the value is still skyrocketing). Landlords still have to compete with eachother regardless of shortage of flats. You can't squeeze blood out of a stone if the people in that area can't afford the rent unless you really are dreaming of a swarm of rich kids moving into your area some time soon. I've seen this first hand in the country where my partner is from: a huge number of British investors purchased property before the financial crisis. Once all their tenants lost their jobs, were on lower income, the investors were all flocking to her country to see how they could negotiate some reasonable rent decrease. There might have been plenty of demand for their centrally-located properties but that demand was at a certain value, that value determined by the affordability of renters. Edited June 7, 2015 by samtheman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samtheman Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 This is the crucial point. In my view rental affordability is stretched beyond breaking point. Rents simply have to come down. You can ask £1m for a loaf of bread. That doesn't mean anyone can afford to buy it. That's exactly the point. I have seen the income of my tenants and was particularly concerned that they were spending well over half their income on rent. If these are the kind of people who live and want to live in the area that I have purchased my flat in, then I have to accept that rent. I can't simply sit there saying "no, you guys have got it all wrong. You're supposed to be paying well over £200 more a month". Who am I speaking to? The imaginary yuppies who have just moved into my area? No sign of them yet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 I hope Milkshock doesn't read this as he will be apoplectic and might wet his nappy. Are you sure it's not a ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 Who owns the house? RBS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samtheman Posted June 7, 2015 Share Posted June 7, 2015 So many places, even in London. I have a good friend who is Indian with 3 generations all living together (by choice) in one big house. Grandparents, an uncle, and aunt, a parent, her husband and her 2 kids. They don't find it strange at all and very common in Indian households. Only people in the West find generations living together strange. Not even sure "in the West" is correct either. My partner is from another EU country where she was brought up in her grandma's flat that her parents later extended. She has pointed out to me that it's the norm there. It's seen in a lot of Southern European countries too. There are definitely British attitudes to property that the middle-class deem as the norm, as universal, that are maybe even confirmed in Hollywood films (the only source of non-British information for their limited culture), that are certainly not normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 That is an interesting post. Finchley is in North London. Lots of it is really nice, if you are into that whole leafy suburb thing. Much of it is in Zone 4, and some in Zone 3. Your point is? Also you're totally missing the point. The thread title is falling rents. fru-gal's anecdotal is consistent with falling rents, because the rental achieved recently is lower than the rental achieved earlier. However, we can add to the anecdotal because one way to square the circle is to propose that the BTLer took all that time because they couldn't at first accept that they were going to have to accept a lower rent in order for the market to clear. Basically, the market stayed irrational* longer than they could stay solvent, so eventually they folded and let at a lower price. Now that suggests that some BTLers are simply unable to believe that rents fall, and you are giving the appearance of being additional anecdotal evidence to that end. It also suggests two tricky questions for BTLers. How long do you keep a property void in order to wait for a pinch point in the mismatch between supply and demand to allow you to lock in the rent you want, and how many times does 'bad luck' on this score result in BTLers wiping out all their profits? On thin margins even a single month void is bad news. The take home message is that as Milkshock suggests a wise BTLer with any sense wouldn't hold the property void for too long. If that meant pulling the rent down sharply then plenty of BTLers will do just that, with the earlier entrants able to pull further down without turning cash flows negative. In the teeth of the next recession with all these piss weak late entrant BTLers desperate to avoid voids, rents could fall quite sharply. Sweet. Again, combine that with the end of FLS, BCBS RWA revisions and housing element of UC being trimmed and some late entrant BTLers are going to find that a 5% gross yield was just a ticket to an enormous capital loss on an investment with a negative carry. Double sweet. * Irrational according to the BTLer, natch. Bumping this pre-Budget thread. Yes... the BTL side is so confident that tenants will be up against rising rents, that this logic temporarily escaped me. The wider softening that goes with tax-paying BTLers, and less money for them to spend in economy... could play out in interesting ways. Including desperate to avoid voids and even more of a gap against their tax obligations with their financing positions. Leading to lower rents to ensure got tenants in paying something! Piss weak? With their 25%+ deposits - yeah right. MEW / CGT / Tax trap... it seems some multi-millionaire 'cartel' BTLers are already in. Apologies to those in here for buckling but just had my 400k offer on the ex council on Hackney/Islington borders accepted. Yield is 8% and I keep the current tenants. He wanted 475 to start with and it was on at 450 when I stepped in. Yes the price cuts are out there now as properties in London continue to pile up - months on the market in many cases - but I'm in it for yield and am anticipating further potential falls which I will gratefully accept once sellers get desperate. which they will. 25% deposit only - @8% yield I'm making approx 1500 pcm profit after mortgage and post service charge. Voids (never a problem for me in London tbh) should probably be factored in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venger Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Piss weak? With their 25%+ deposits - yeah right. Eh? It's the banks easy money imo from the BTLers. Not the BTLer's 25%. The lenders. I'm glad you posted this because I wanted a chance to work through how the Keynesian aphorism about the rationality of markets applied to buy-to-let. Let's propose that you are what you say you are. You've set down at least £100k invested in a property somewhere in London, which you paid £400k for, and which you think will let at £2,700 pcm. Firstly, I just don't believe your numbers. As there are obviously plenty of BTLers willing to pay prices which correspond to 5% 'gross yields', somebody would have outbid you, unless of course you missed something, e.g. the people who signed up for £2700 pcm propose to pay for a month and then string you along as the arrears mount up for as long as they are able, or possibly you are just exaggerating. What makes your hand weak is that if buy-to-let mortgage rates move up sharply and a recession hits and you find that you can't secure the rents that you'd anticipated, the net cash flows on your property can turn negative. Now your work as a contractor generates income, but sometimes bad things happen. For example you might fall ill, or you might accidentally call a woman in the lift a "Stupid cow" because she pushed into you and crumpled your recently purchased Margaret Thatcher 2015 swimsuit calendar. If she is the HR director, you might find your contracting services are no longer required. The recession makes it difficult for you to get work and your buy-to-let investments, as well as sundry expenses like tissues and hand lotion, are bleeding your savings. A point would come where you might want to sell the BTLs so you could get out ahead. However, you'd find that a house price crash meant that if you sold the BTL you'd make a capital loss, (that is of course what the deposit is really for, to ensure that you and not the bank absorb the capital loss). Hence you'd be looking at a situation where you thought the market was irrational (your BTL, in your estimation, was worth £400k, although nobody would pay you £400k for it) but the rate at which the negative cash flows and your own living expenses were bleeding out your liquid assets meant that you couldn't hold out forever because eventually you'd run out of savings to pay the mortgages on the BTLs; you would no longer be able to meet your obligations as they fell due, i.e. you would be insolvent, but sometimes the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. That is the heart of the aphorism; it's about holding on to a leveraged investment position when the market turns against you. Late entrants are piss weak because in reality the gross yields people are signing up for are too thin to absorb much movement on rents or BTL mortgage rates, much less disadvantageous movements of both at the same time. You've got it all back to front. The bank demands the big deposit because they know that you are weak. Arguing that you are not weak because you've handed over a big deposit is an interesting way to look at things, but in my opinion, completely wrong headed. Aye! Great Budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmt Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 "Voids never a problem in London" My parents have a flat in a nice part of west London. In 2008 they had to reduce the rent considerably on the previous year to attract a tenant. It is just foolish to think that London would be immune to such things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Bunny Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Are there any web stats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bland Unsight Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 On 05/06/2015 at 09:31, Milkshock said: Piss weak? With their 25%+ deposits - yeah right. Bump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 stockmarket up, what 30% incl dividends since 2015. Milkshock's house price in that time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 On 15/09/2015 at 07:08, mmt said: "Voids never a problem in London" My parents have a flat in a nice part of west London. In 2008 they had to reduce the rent considerably on the previous year to attract a tenant. It is just foolish to think that London would be immune to such things. I know someone in London who had worse than a void, the tenants decided not to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewig Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 Had a walk through “Lewisham” earlier today, there’s a load of modern funky looking slave boxes abound one of them was called “get fizzy” or some such and claimed to be the “new way to rent” or similar it looked despicably like the old way to rent dressed up in marketing fanfare (and likely DEBT) to me, also took the RATTLER through Vauxhall this morning and fck me there’s a lot of something going up, I assume blocks of flats but there was a SHTload of them going up. Just checked the map that must be the much vaunted SW8 London HPC ground zero. Bring it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castlevania Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 15 hours ago, thewig said: Had a walk through “Lewisham” earlier today, there’s a load of modern funky looking slave boxes abound one of them was called “get fizzy” or some such and claimed to be the “new way to rent” or similar it looked despicably like the old way to rent dressed up in marketing fanfare (and likely DEBT) to me, also took the RATTLER through Vauxhall this morning and fck me there’s a lot of something going up, I assume blocks of flats but there was a SHTload of them going up. Just checked the map that must be the much vaunted SW8 London HPC ground zero. Bring it. Yeah, around Lewisham station they’ve been busy building future slums. The Get Fizzy thing is Fizzy Living. They build blocks of flats to rent out. They’re aiming at millennials so they usually have some communal facilities (a roof terrace or cinema room) and they occasionally organise some social events. The only good thing about them is that they allow pets. https://www.fizzyliving.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Castlevania said: Yeah, around Lewisham station they’ve been busy building future slums. The Get Fizzy thing is Fizzy Living. They build blocks of flats to rent out. They’re aiming at millennials so they usually have some communal facilities (a roof terrace or cinema room) and they occasionally organise some social events. The only good thing about them is that they allow pets. https://www.fizzyliving.com/ Possibly better than other BTL landlords Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.