A Goodbye To All That Buy To Let

[user not found]

1 hour ago, Switch625 said:

Looks like the vested interests at the BBC are beginning to panic about this. So how can they possibly turn the data into a "positive" HPI and BTL forever story?

The data they have used for this piece agrees with what you have identified, but the headline is ....

Soaring second home ownership hitting young people

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48637484

 

Will they ever say "average houses should be affordable on average wages". I doubt it but live on hope.

[jiltedjen]

3 hours ago, Sausage said:

Will they ever say "average houses should be affordable on average wages". I doubt it but live on hope.

I think average houses will be affordable on average wages.

but the average house will be an absolute tiny shit-hole. just change the average. Misery for most! 

[Neverwhere]

Nice to see the Bank getting on-board with with some long-standing HPC thinking

 

 

[Freki]

Economic Nobel Prize incoming

[zugzwang]

5 hours ago, Neverwhere said:

Nice to see the Bank getting on-board with with some long-standing HPC thinking

 

 

Hallelujah! The idea that property taxes cause higher rents is yet another ideological fiction of the neoliberal Right. Obvs this intervention by the Bank will be dismissed as an Establishment trick by the Farageists.

[Ah-so]

16 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Hallelujah! The idea that property taxes cause higher rents is yet another ideological fiction of the neoliberal Right. Obvs this intervention by the Bank will be dismissed as an Establishment trick by the Farageists.

Good to see this lie put to bed. 

[iamnumerate]

19 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Hallelujah! The idea that property taxes cause higher rents is yet another ideological fiction of the neoliberal Right. Obvs this intervention by the Bank will be dismissed as an Establishment trick by the Farageists.

As far as I know Nigel Farage has never said anything about property taxes. Nor a man I like by the way and personally I like high taxes on owning property (not buying and selling it tough).

Edited September 7, 2019 by iamnumerate

[zugzwang]

10 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

As far as I know Nigel Farage has never said anything about property taxes. Nor a man I like by the way and personally I like high taxes on owning property (not buying and selling it tough).

It's a mystery wrapped up in an enigma, like the rest of the BP's political agenda. But Farage and his cult believe the Bank of England is part an Establishment conspiracy to thwart Brexit, so my first thought is they won't be sympathetic.

[Odin]

On 06/09/2019 at 18:55, Neverwhere said:

Nice to see the Bank getting on-board with with some long-standing HPC thinking

 

 

 

Not completely true.  Re: how rented/OO absolute numbers changes the rented market.

Has it not been proven here on this forum that the average number of people per rented dwelling is somewhat less than per OO dwelling.     More likely to be nearer 1 for rented, and more likely to be nearer 2 for OO.  So as a renter buys and becomes an OO the rental market gets tighter because of this aspect.  As maybe 2 renters now leave the market because it only takes one OO to house them both.

Much like mortgage transaction volumes are low, so as absolute rental demand gets lower, this must mean longer voids as per head of demand there is now more choice.

 

 

 

 

 

[iamnumerate]

5 minutes ago, Odin said:

 

Not completely true.  Re: how rented/OO absolute numbers changes the rented market.

Has it not been proven here on this forum that the average number of people per rented dwelling is somewhat less than per OO dwelling.     More likely to be nearer 1 for rented, and more likely to be nearer 2 for OO.  So as a renter buys and becomes an OO the rental market gets tighter because of this aspect.  As maybe 2 renters now leave the market because it only takes one OO to house them both.

Much like mortgage transaction volumes are low, so as absolute rental demand gets lower, this must mean longer voids as per head of demand there is now more choice.

 

 

 

 

 

I would have thought that it would be hard to say what has more.

 

19 hours ago, zugzwang said:

It's a mystery wrapped up in an enigma, like the rest of the BP's political agenda. But Farage and his cult believe the Bank of England is part an Establishment conspiracy to thwart Brexit, so my first thought is they won't be sympathetic.

I think Farage is very simple to understand

1) He wants us out of the EU

2) He wants this by putting pressure on the Tories as opposed to creating a new party like the SNP in Scotland

3) He doesn't do details well

4) He doesn't work with others well

 

Sadly 3 and 4 have helped his cause because remain politicians have been attacking him for 15 years plus rather than trying to meet some legitimate leave concerns like the common fisheries policy, the effect of the Euro on Southern Europe, where to house EU immigrants etc.

Depressingly if he were a perfect politician he might not have got out of the EU - as in that case, rather than attacking Farage the EU might have reformed and we not voted to stay leave.

FWIW I voted leave and support UKIP but could have voted remain under certain conditions.

[spyguy]

2 hours ago, Odin said:

 

Not completely true.  Re: how rented/OO absolute numbers changes the rented market.

Has it not been proven here on this forum that the average number of people per rented dwelling is somewhat less than per OO dwelling.     More likely to be nearer 1 for rented, and more likely to be nearer 2 for OO.  So as a renter buys and becomes an OO the rental market gets tighter because of this aspect.  As maybe 2 renters now leave the market because it only takes one OO to house them both.

Much like mortgage transaction volumes are low, so as absolute rental demand gets lower, this must mean longer voids as per head of demand there is now more choice.

 

 

 

 

 

IMHO its LHA that affects local rentals.

[Neverwhere]

Delete.
 

Edited September 8, 2019 by Neverwhere

[Neverwhere]

7 hours ago, Odin said:

Not completely true.  Re: how rented/OO absolute numbers changes the rented market.

Has it not been proven here on this forum that the average number of people per rented dwelling is somewhat less than per OO dwelling.     More likely to be nearer 1 for rented, and more likely to be nearer 2 for OO.  So as a renter buys and becomes an OO the rental market gets tighter because of this aspect.  As maybe 2 renters now leave the market because it only takes one OO to house them both.

Much like mortgage transaction volumes are low, so as absolute rental demand gets lower, this must mean longer voids as per head of demand there is now more choice.

I'm not sure on the relative occupancy rates but Bentley does address this to a degree under his tweet above (or rather refutes the opposite argument):

Anyone who can afford to buy a house to themselves can afford to rent a house to themselves. In that case it makes absolutely no difference to occupation rates (though it may make a great deal of difference to their quality of life) whether the house is owned by them or by a landlord.

It makes sense that increased household formation added on top of this could mean that housing consumption actually decreases.

Given the relative difference in purchasing power, due to the looser lending available to BTL landlords, I'd also think it was more likely for renters to reduce their level of housing consumption (say from a house to a flat) when making the move into owner occupation, even when they are not also combining households with a partner.

Voids are also interesting in another way, in that the rolling stock of currently void rental properties means that there are effectively less properties in use over all, so moving those properties into owner occupation actually increases the stock of housing in use.

(Say - as an entirely made up example - if 1 in every 20 rental properties is void at any given point in time, that means that only 19 of those properties are ever in use as housing at any given point in time. Move them all over into owner occupation and you suddenly have 20 properties in use for housing where previously you only had 19.)

Edited September 8, 2019 by Neverwhere
It's late and I am all typos.

[iamnumerate]

8 hours ago, Neverwhere said:

e up example - if 1 in every 20 rental properties is void at any given point in time, that means that only 19 of those properties are ever in use as housing at any given point in time. Move them all over into owner occupation and you suddenly have 20 properties in use for housing where previously you only had 19.)

I am not sure that is true, my Uncle recently died.  I think if he had been renting the owner would have rented out the house, a lot quicker than my three cousins are at going through his stuff and selling it. 

(A landlord would have just thrown it all away).

[Pop321]

13 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I am not sure that is true, my Uncle recently died.  I think if he had been renting the owner would have rented out the house, a lot quicker than my three cousins are at going through his stuff and selling it. 

(A landlord would have just thrown it all away).

I was thinking the same thing. It’s probably a complex analysis over whether rental or OO create higher occupancy with many (including myself) having an unscientific view.

[iamnumerate]

24 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

I was thinking the same thing. It’s probably a complex analysis over whether rental or OO create higher occupancy with many (including myself) having an unscientific view.

I have no idea what they are.  Personally I think OO is better for most people.  

I would say that BTL has been favoured by the Government due to tax on interest (thank you George Osborne, if only you had not brought in HTB) and housing benefit.  If this was changed then OO would increase, sadly years of bad policies has caused housing to become very expensive.  This is not a problem that will be fixed painlessly. 

[Neverwhere]

10 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

I am not sure that is true, my Uncle recently died.  I think if he had been renting the owner would have rented out the house, a lot quicker than my three cousins are at going through his stuff and selling it. 

(A landlord would have just thrown it all away).

I'm sorry for your loss.

You make a reasonable point, although I think that once we broaden out the simplified scenario above to include probate we'd also have to take into consideration how long stock is taken out of use when private rental portfolios are inherited and disposed of (e.g. because of multiple inheritors or inability of inheritors to refinance on the same terms).

The other thing which I'd add to the general discussion about occupation rates is that under-occupation in owner occupied housing seems likely to be linked to the perception of housing as an attractive asset or investment.

With lower house prices, and especially without the expectation of continual house price growth, there would be fewer incentives to hold onto houses with unused and otherwise unwanted rooms (that may actually be proving an increasing burden to maintain and clean) so if a decrease in demand from landlords translated into lower prices, and lower expectations for the future path of prices, then that might also lead to a decrease in demand for under-occupation of housing by owner occupiers?

[Si1]

12 hours ago, Neverwhere said:

.

With lower house prices, and especially without the expectation of continual house price growth, there would be fewer incentives to hold onto houses with unused and otherwise unwanted rooms (that may actually be proving an increasing burden to maintain and clean) so if a decrease in demand from landlords translated into lower prices, and lower expectations for the future path of prices, then that might also lead to a decrease in demand for under-occupation of housing by owner occupiers?

Most people don't understand the inflationary money illusion. Outside the se, most house value falls are in real terms but not much on the nominal side. Your average Joe doesn't see that as a loss.

[Si1]

23 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

 

(A landlord would have just thrown it all away).

Surely got no right?

I'd sue his balls off for that.

[iamnumerate]

12 hours ago, Neverwhere said:

I'm sorry for your loss.

You make a reasonable point, although I think that once we broaden out the simplified scenario above to include probate we'd also have to take into consideration how long stock is taken out of use when private rental portfolios are inherited and disposed of (e.g. because of multiple inheritors or inability of inheritors to refinance on the same terms).

The other thing which I'd add to the general discussion about occupation rates is that under-occupation in owner occupied housing seems likely to be linked to the perception of housing as an attractive asset or investment.

With lower house prices, and especially without the expectation of continual house price growth, there would be fewer incentives to hold onto houses with unused and otherwise unwanted rooms (that may actually be proving an increasing burden to maintain and clean) so if a decrease in demand from landlords translated into lower prices, and lower expectations for the future path of prices, then that might also lead to a decrease in demand for under-occupation of housing by owner occupiers?

Thank you, I forgot to mention that his home was empty for a bit before he died as he was in a care home and they were not sure if he was going to stay there or not - wouldn't have happened if he was renting.

[Si1]

Just now, iamnumerate said:

Thank you, I forgot to mention that his home was empty for a bit before he died as he was in a care home and they were not sure if he was going to stay there or not - wouldn't have happened if he was renting.

Omg

[iamnumerate]

Just now, Si1 said:

Surely got no right?

I'd sue his balls off for that.

Or just packed it and sent it to the family.  I am not sure what happens to the property of dead tenants so I could be wrong.

[Pop321]

53 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Or just packed it and sent it to the family.  I am not sure what happens to the property of dead tenants so I could be wrong.

Usually family given time to empty. Rent optional at that point...but legally not chargeable to tenant  

I had a case where a chap died. He was only about 50 and had special needs and struggled to communicate but quite independent albeit with his very wealthy parents watching over him from afar. I just gave the parents plenty of time to deal with everything...then they emptied the flat. 

An aside, and one of the most touching things I ever saw was when this tenant needed a new aerial. I use a friend from school (he has done aerials for 30 years, good work but a tad tough looking and talking man) but due to special needs of tenant I wanted to be there....but my car broke down. 

I was completely panicked, I left the car and walked 3/4 miles to the flat...too late the aerial man was there and the two were having a heated debate...despite the fact I had warned my friend that the tenant needed patience and to explain things slowly. 

As I walked in the two of them were actually bickering over which Star Trek series were best and were watching Deep Space Nine which had started the controversy...they were drinking tea and the aerial fixed  

I have recommended this aerial guy ever since. He still moaned that the tenant ‘borrowed’ £3 from him....yep, he used to ask for your change for food.

I told my friend I was overwhelmed with how he dealt with that tenant...he literally shrugged his shoulders and said the tenant was a nice fella, so why wouldn’t he...hmm, lesson for me on assuming and judging others. 

Off topic I know...but was a life affirming moment for me and this thread reminded me of that. ?

[iamnumerate]

11 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

Usually family given time to empty. Rent optional at that point...but legally not chargeable to tenant  

I had a case where a chap died. He was only about 50 and had special needs and struggled to communicate but quite independent albeit with his very wealthy parents watching over him from afar. I just gave the parents plenty of time to deal with everything...then they emptied the flat. 

An aside, and one of the most touching things I ever saw was when this tenant needed a new aerial. I use a friend from school (he has done aerials for 30 years, good work but a tad tough looking and talking man) but due to special needs of tenant I wanted to be there....but my car broke down. 

I was completely panicked, I left the car and walked 3/4 miles to the flat...too late the aerial man was there and the two were having a heated debate...despite the fact I had warned my friend that the tenant needed patience and to explain things slowly. 

As I walked in the two of them were actually bickering over which Star Trek series were best and were watching Deep Space Nine which had started the controversy...they were drinking tea and the aerial fixed  

I have recommended this aerial guy ever since. He still moaned that the tenant ‘borrowed’ £3 from him....yep, he used to ask for your change for food.

I told my friend I was overwhelmed with how he dealt with that tenant...he literally shrugged his shoulders and said the tenant was a nice fella, so why wouldn’t he...hmm, lesson for me on assuming and judging others. 

Off topic I know...but was a life affirming moment for me and this thread reminded me of that. ?

Thanks for that, I wonder if Fergus has the same attitude as you in such cases.

BTW surely Voyager was best?

[Si1]

49 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

Usually family given time to empty. Rent optional at that point...but legally not chargeable to tenant  

I had a case where a chap died. He was only about 50 and had special needs and struggled to communicate but quite independent albeit with his very wealthy parents watching over him from afar. I just gave the parents plenty of time to deal with everything...then they emptied the flat. 

An aside, and one of the most touching things I ever saw was when this tenant needed a new aerial. I use a friend from school (he has done aerials for 30 years, good work but a tad tough looking and talking man) but due to special needs of tenant I wanted to be there....but my car broke down. 

I was completely panicked, I left the car and walked 3/4 miles to the flat...too late the aerial man was there and the two were having a heated debate...despite the fact I had warned my friend that the tenant needed patience and to explain things slowly. 

As I walked in the two of them were actually bickering over which Star Trek series were best and were watching Deep Space Nine which had started the controversy...they were drinking tea and the aerial fixed  

I have recommended this aerial guy ever since. He still moaned that the tenant ‘borrowed’ £3 from him....yep, he used to ask for your change for food.

I told my friend I was overwhelmed with how he dealt with that tenant...he literally shrugged his shoulders and said the tenant was a nice fella, so why wouldn’t he...hmm, lesson for me on assuming and judging others. 

Off topic I know...but was a life affirming moment for me and this thread reminded me of that. ?

Often the most in your face people are simply the ones with least filters, and care not what people think. The devil wears Prada and all that jazz.

The majority of scary looking metalheads and bikers I've known are just wary of societal/corporate bull and unafraid to show it, and are lovely to people who need a hand. Helping little old ladies, lost children etc.

Off topic I realise.