Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Patient London FTB

London Rents Heading Downwards (For Now)

Recommended Posts

I've got some more evidence to test a theory that rents in London are on their way down, which is under-reported in the media (apart from the Daily Express :blink: ).

Obviously this would be twice great for HPCers in that it gives them ammunition to reject rent increases and it suggests that johnny-come-lately BTLers who bought in the rush to beat stamp duty will not achieve the yield they were promised.

So I know it could well be wishful thinking based on a normal seasonal lull in rental growth, which Growlers brought up when I posted my first chart of average rents as measured by letting agent LSL, showing London rents have been falling for seven straight months. H/T Growlers, who inspired me to get more data to back up my excitement yesterday.

Since then, I've gone through more data in the monthly reports from ARLA and RICS. The former is pretty a bit inconclusive for reasons I'll explain below, but the latter is more interesting.

To those who don't know, most RICS data falls into the category of sentiment balances, where they score a measure, such as new instructions from landlords, according to the number of respondents who say they think it's increased minus the number of respondents who say they think it's decreased.

RICS have data for London (and other regions but I'm a typical selfish London pr*ck) going back to June 2014, showing:

- net balance of sentiment on tenant demand

- net balance of sentiment on new landlord instructions

- net balance of sentiment on whether rents will go up/down over the next three months

It seems to correlate fairly well (although I don't have the chart smarts to check exactly) with the change in the actual average rent for London over the same period, as reported by LSL:

KcECnNr.jpg

Here's the RICS data showing tenant demand has been running out of steam (note the readings can go negative):

DRyoEDS.jpg

And here's the RICS data showing new landlord instructions edging up:

G2h7uRH.jpg

And here's the RICS data showing sentiment around rent levels for the next three months:

qVD0lBM.jpg

For good measure I've taken the data on tenant demand and landlord supply and subtracted the second from the first to illustrate the demand-supply gap. So a high number means (very roughly) there seems to be more demand than supply and vice versa:

9jkoxGQ.jpg

So far, so good for the expectation of flat or falling rents I'd say, but it would be nice to have further confirmation from another source. I'm open to suggestions, and I'll wind up by going through the ARLA numbers and why they're inconclusive.

What ARLA has measured monthly since January 2015, through an online survey of members, is the number of landlord properties managed per branch and the number of prospective tenants taken on per branch, again regionally so these figures are just for London. It also reports a bit of other data in a rather lackadaisical way.

Here's the ARLA data on the number of landlord properties managed per branch:

gKck9To.jpg

Here's the number of prospective tenants registered per branch:

Uuh7YAw.jpg

There is a broad trend here - supply down, demand up - but it doesn't tally with the rent numbers from LSL. So I kind of want to discount ARLA which is a bit unfair, but I do wonder how accurate a picture you get of the lettings market from measuring properties and tenants per branch. Maybe there is supply, such as the build-to-rent sector and some of the newer online agents (who may not be ARLA members), that they are not seeing?

One last thing on ARLA, one of the bits of data they report occasionally is what percentage of agents are reporting rent increases, and this looks pretty bearish:

EwhY1ER.jpg

Edited by Patient London FTB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RICS have data for London (and other regions but I'm a typical selfish London pr*ck) going back to June 2014, showing:

lol'd

This is great work, really interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting!

I hope rents do start, and continue, to fall.

I actually think a crash in rents would be preferable to prices in many ways. Although in practice they will probably be linked.

That said, as I understand it, rent is a function of demand (and therefore population renting and their income) and supply I.e. rental property.

I don't see how the case can be made that population is anything but rising and supply inadequate (perhaps more tenuous an assertion?) And therefore rent falls are dependent upon a fall in incomes (recession). Of course other changes in behaviour e.g. marriage / divorce rates could play part over long periods.

We could easily be in or entering a recession but it is sad that this is what we have to rely on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We could easily be in or entering a recession but it is sad that this is what we have to rely on.

The word recession and boom have become meaningless to many people's lives. If you pay very very high rent / mortgage, and haven't had a meaningful pay rise for years yet cost of living has shot-up (utilities/rent), you're likely in a personal de facto recession compared to if you were earning the same money, but paying a much lower cost to keep a roof over your head. So obvious, but has to be mentioned. I don't give a rat's ar5e about GDP gainz anymore - they just tell me that the UK is feeding and housing more and more immigrants when I see GDP numbers up, and that Osborne is borrowing £10Bn a month net loss plus paying back £1.2Bn in interest alone on the national debt. Might as well be happy your missus bought new stuff on credit that we can't afford to pay back. Whoopee. If the country goes into a technical recession, again I don't give a rat's ar5e unless it benefits me (this is not selfish, I am always told by Osborne to be delighted when GDP goes up yet it does not impact on my life whatsoever, and if it does, it will be a negative impact given its largely based on importing GDP AKA importing people).

Furthermore, while it is intangible to measure, there is such a quality in life known as stability. This is gone from many people's lives. I'd much rather have a stable life than being part of the precariat. And to be honest, with the way the UK economy has hidden all its horrors thanks to borrowing ten bill a month, we're probably all part of the precariat whether we think we are or not. Again, this is so sh1t - how to make any meaningful plans when you have to take a massive gamble (buying a property at peak of the peak of the peak) while the entire economy constantly teeters on the brink of disaster? Bah....

Edited by canbuywontbuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting!

I hope rents do start, and continue, to fall.

I actually think a crash in rents would be preferable to prices in many ways. Although in practice they will probably be linked.

That said, as I understand it, rent is a function of demand (and therefore population renting and their income) and supply I.e. rental property.

I don't see how the case can be made that population is anything but rising and supply inadequate (perhaps more tenuous an assertion?) And therefore rent falls are dependent upon a fall in incomes (recession). Of course other changes in behaviour e.g. marriage / divorce rates could play part over long periods.

We could easily be in or entering a recession but it is sad that this is what we have to rely on.

The general belief that demand is outpacing supply makes sense, but I think we're in a situation where demand growth is slowing and supply growth is rising and that itself can affect rent prices. There's a lot of factors at play in the London market, will come back later and write more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting!

I hope rents do start, and continue, to fall.

I actually think a crash in rents would be preferable to prices in many ways. Although in practice they will probably be linked.

That said, as I understand it, rent is a function of demand (and therefore population renting and their income) and supply I.e. rental property.

I don't see how the case can be made that population is anything but rising and supply inadequate (perhaps more tenuous an assertion?) And therefore rent falls are dependent upon a fall in incomes (recession). Of course other changes in behaviour e.g. marriage / divorce rates could play part over long periods.

We could easily be in or entering a recession but it is sad that this is what we have to rely on.

Given that they are linked I have another option for you:

If house prices crash then higher income renters are much more likely to move into owner-occupation and thus the average income of the remaining renters is likely to go down regardless of what happens to average incomes generally.

Average incomes across all tenures could go up. The incomes of all remaining renters could go up. And yet the average income of renters as a cohort could still be going down at the exact same time, purely through changes of tenure.

Additionally, if home-ownership becomes a realistic option for people on average wages then we will have an end to the current captive market of priced out renters and the resultant salary capture. Landlords will have to make their rents competitive relative to the cost of buying.

Also, in regards to supply, if the private rental sector contracts then this alone will have the effect of increasing housing supply in practice because the aggregate effect of temporary voids in a large private rental sector is that a significant (though changing) portion of the housing stock is perpetually unoccupied.

Add into that empty properties being brought back into use because they no longer make sense as purely speculative investments and the net effect could be quite significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If house prices crash then higher income renters are much more likely to move into owner-occupation and thus the average income of the remaining renters is likely to go down regardless of what happens to average incomes generally.

Exactly - emphasis added. Private landlords are going to lose their best customers first, driving down rents and consequently house prices in a reversal of the ratchet effect that has been so painful for priced-out renters on the way up.

Higher income renters are also going to be lured away by the new build-to-rent sector, which currently has 30,000 properties in its development and planning pipeline up to 2020.

It's just getting started in London where I think there's only around 2,000 flats built so far, but the danger to BTL is not in the volume but in the value. Companies such as Essential Living are going after the late 20s early 30s Londoner with high income who will pay over £2,000 for a two-bed flat with better facilities, fewer charges and better service. As this takes off it will undermine the BTL business model further.

Here's a map of where build to rent developments are planned (interactive version here):

kdIg2Kq.jpg

Edited by Patient London FTB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that they are linked I have another option for you:

These are interesting points. I wanted to think these points through individually:

If house prices crash then higher income renters are much more likely to move into owner-occupation and thus the average income of the remaining renters is likely to go down regardless of what happens to average incomes generally.

BTLers make the argument that a reduction of the PRS will lead to an increase in rents. They do so, I assume, because they fail to acknowledge (as you have) that a decrease in the PRS will be matched by the OO sector. The income distribution point is interesting but I'm not sure how things would play out in practice.

I don't doubt for a second that higher income renters will be the ones buying initially but I think they will be purchasing the better quality properties in the PRS. I believe that quality thresholds are much higher for buyers than for renters and therefore everyone who buys will essentially trade up. Assuming this follows, we are left with a situation where the PRS is largely comprised of low quality properties inhabited by low income tenants.

I'd argue that landlords with top quality properties might be in a better competitive situation (reduced rental supply due to OO buying and there will always be rental demands for good properties). Those with the absolute worst properties will probably be renting to the same people whatever happens and rental income will be dependent on HB and will therefore probably be unaffected by these distributional effects. I think where the hammer will fall (in terms of loss of rental pricing power) will be the intermediate rental properties i.e. the ones that are just about liveable but you wouldn't dream of buying (pretty much anywhere I've lived for the past 5 years!).

Additionally, if home-ownership becomes a realistic option for people on average wages then we will have an end to the current captive market of priced out renters and the resultant salary capture. Landlords will have to make their rents competitive relative to the cost of buying.

I'm not sure. I think rents are determined largely by supply and demand for rental properties. If a renter leaves the PRS and joins the OO sector there will be one less renter but also presumably one less property in the PRS (net).

Also, in regards to supply, if the private rental sector contracts then this alone will have the effect of increasing housing supply in practice because the aggregate effect of temporary voids in a large private rental sector is that a significant (though changing) portion of the housing stock is perpetually unoccupied.

I'd not heard this argument before. Thinking it through I'm not sure it holds. I agree that voids will no longer be an issue but I was under the impression that property utalisation was much higher in the PRS than OO sector. I think I read somewhere that if the OO sector rented out all its spare bedrooms the housing crisis would disappear. Rental properties generally have every bedroom occupied OO properties generally do not. [this isn't a call for a larger PRS!]

Add into that empty properties being brought back into use because they no longer make sense as purely speculative investments and the net effect could be quite significant.

I think this probably will happen to some extent but I doubt its impact will be material. I find it hard to believe that significant numbers of landlord would forgo London rents for long periods of time for example. Where this does occur it is probably in the super prime area.

To summarised, whilst I acknowledge the above, I seriously doubt these factors will offset the impact of population growth coupled with insufficient housing supply. I understand the official net migration figures are c. 350k pa add to this natural population growth. Also, I understand that there is some controversy surrounding the 350k number as it doesn't align with the HMRC figures which are much higher (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464917/NI-numbers-hint-migrant-total-far-higher-257-000-EU-immigrants-arrived-630-000-want-right-work.html). [sorry to quote the Mail!].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the glass of pebbles analogy fits well here.

A glass full of pebbles is full. But you can add some grit and fill it again. Then you can add sand and then, though it looks full, you can still add water.

Looking at the grotty HMO's about I would guess we are mostly at the grit stage. There are still a lot of 3 bedders that can become 6 bedders, and a lot of gardens that can take sheds or caravans.

In essence we can take millions more without building a thing but the quality will plummet.

It is only when/if the people from this type of accommodation want to buy that supply of more normal properties will become an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying we need smaller immigrants? ;)

chinese then not russians....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTLers make the argument that a reduction of the PRS will lead to an increase in rents. They do so, I assume, because they fail to acknowledge (as you have) that a decrease in the PRS will be matched by the OO sector. The income distribution point is interesting but I'm not sure how things would play out in practice.

I don't doubt for a second that higher income renters will be the ones buying initially but I think they will be purchasing the better quality properties in the PRS. I believe that quality thresholds are much higher for buyers than for renters and therefore everyone who buys will essentially trade up. Assuming this follows, we are left with a situation where the PRS is largely comprised of low quality properties inhabited by low income tenants.

I'd argue that landlords with top quality properties might be in a better competitive situation (reduced rental supply due to OO buying and there will always be rental demands for good properties). Those with the absolute worst properties will probably be renting to the same people whatever happens and rental income will be dependent on HB and will therefore probably be unaffected by these distributional effects. I think where the hammer will fall (in terms of loss of rental pricing power) will be the intermediate rental properties i.e. the ones that are just about liveable but you wouldn't dream of buying (pretty much anywhere I've lived for the past 5 years!).

Possibly, although I think people will be prepared to trade down or sideways simply for the security of ownership if the price is right.

I'm not sure. I think rents are determined largely by supply and demand for rental properties. If a renter leaves the PRS and joins the OO sector there will be one less renter but also presumably one less property in the PRS (net).

I don't really see how that would work, given wages must ultimately cap achieveable rents? It seems to me that rents are largely determined by wages, LHA and competition from alternative forms of tenure (e.g. the cost of owning relative to the cost of renting).

I'd not heard this argument before. Thinking it through I'm not sure it holds. I agree that voids will no longer be an issue but I was under the impression that property utalisation was much higher in the PRS than OO sector. I think I read somewhere that if the OO sector rented out all its spare bedrooms the housing crisis would disappear. Rental properties generally have every bedroom occupied OO properties generally do not. [this isn't a call for a larger PRS!]

Though they have fewer than owner occupiers renters don't universally lack spare bedrooms (see Homeownership and renting in England and Wales - detailed characteristics) but in any case that is a different consideration. What I'm talking about is the rolling impact of aggregate short term voids across the sector as a whole:

Say you have a 1,000,000 rental properties that incur, on average, 3 weeks void each year (as per the ARLA PRS Report 2013).

That means that at any given point in time 57,690 of those properties will always be unoccupied.

Thus 1,000,000 physical properties tied up in the PRS effectively results in only 942,310 properties available for housing.

Obviously different average voids / PRS sizes would translate to different figues.

I think this probably will happen to some extent but I doubt its impact will be material. I find it hard to believe that significant numbers of landlord would forgo London rents for long periods of time for example. Where this does occur it is probably in the super prime area.

To summarised, whilst I acknowledge the above, I seriously doubt these factors will offset the impact of population growth coupled with insufficient housing supply. I understand the official net migration figures are c. 350k pa add to this natural population growth. Also, I understand that there is some controversy surrounding the 350k number as it doesn't align with the HMRC figures which are much higher (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464917/NI-numbers-hint-migrant-total-far-higher-257-000-EU-immigrants-arrived-630-000-want-right-work.html). [sorry to quote the Mail!].

Housing supply relative to populaton is currently very high:

2e3cyuw.jpg

CBR, UK Economy Forecast Report, Winter 2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GMB today reporting big rise in London rents.

“These figures show that the housing crisis in London is getting worse as rents soar under a Tory Government. Rents in one borough for basic accommodation soared by over 50% at a time when wages are frozen or being cut."

http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/london-rents-rise

It's worth mentioning that this article is about a 5 year period between March 2011 and March 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good find.

Underlying data from 14/15 - 15/16 for all rents is pretty interesting. There's a lot of softening in nice areas.

0eB1KFE.png

CzzLPHM.png

City of London seems to be getting pummeled in rents and sale prices too, only about 10k residents tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Some people try and overthink the problem.

A Newham poem.

Just fracking put it up, spreadsheet red, go to bed.

Innit.

Beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly, although I think people will be prepared to trade down or sideways simply for the security of ownership if the price is right.

Sorry, I didn't reply to this.

I don't really see how that would work, given wages must ultimately cap achieveable rents? It seems to me that rents are largely determined by wages, LHA and competition from alternative forms of tenure (e.g. the cost of owning relative to the cost of renting).

Apologies, it was sloppy of me to say rents are determined by supply and demand for rental property. I think rents are a function of the following factors:

R = f ( P, HS, Y, Q, HB...)

where

P = Renting population

HS = Renting housing stock

Y = Tenant income.

HB = Housing Benefits (i.e. LHA and other government support).

Q = Quality of housing stock.(?)

...= others

Whilst I agree that rents are a function of income and wages (among other things), I think we need to be careful here. Whilst logically rents can't exceed wages and / or income (for anything other than the very short term), rents can increase absent wage or income increase. This could occur in two ways (although perhaps others): 1) Rent taking a larger proportion of incomes; 2) Reduced size and quality of rental accommodation.

With respect to point 2) I think this is a very important point which needs to be considered. Based on my own anecdotal experience as a London renter of 10 years, I am convince that the quality, and size of rental accommodation is decreasing (think smaller flats, worse build quality, more flat sharing...). I don't have any confidence whatsoever in the rental statics produced in the UK and I have my doubts that they accurately reflect these changes in quality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_regression). If they did, I believe rent inflation reported would be far, far higher (and closer to people's expectations and experiences).

Separately, I don't think competition from alternative forms of tenure (e.g. the cost of owning relative to the cost of renting) will lead to reduced rents either. If a tenant leaves the PRS, a property presumably will too. Whilst there will be some distribution effects in terms of income I just don't think these will be material, will be sector specific and probably won't feature in the headline rent inflation number. I might be wrong tho!

Though they have fewer than owner occupiers renters don't universally lack spare bedrooms (see Homeownership and renting in England and Wales - detailed characteristics) but in any case that is a different consideration. What I'm talking about is the rolling impact of aggregate short term voids across the sector as a whole:

Say you have a 1,000,000 rental properties that incur, on average, 3 weeks void each year (as per the ARLA PRS Report 2013).

That means that at any given point in time 57,690 of those properties will always be unoccupied.

Thus 1,000,000 physical properties tied up in the PRS effectively results in only 942,310 properties available for housing.

Obviously different average voids / PRS sizes would translate to different figues.

Interesting. I can't fault you void calculation. I am surprised it is as high as it is. So on average c. 6% of the rental stock is empty. That is far higher than I intuitively expected (although thinking about it 3 weeks does seem reasonable). [Another thought - would void reporting be inflated for tax avoidance?].

However, I think I would disagree that the impact of the above rental voids across the PRS (in housing unit equivalents - say bedrooms) is greater than or equal to the impact of reduced property utlisation (in housing unity equivalents - bedrooms) by the OO sector. i.e. I'd argue that the PRS utalises property allot more than 6% more efficiently (note - no value judgement applied) than the OO sector.

A landlord realises no utility from an empty unutalised room, annex, loft etc. but a OO does whether that be for space or storage or privacy. Consequently, landlords will maximise profits and therefore utalisation. OOers will maximise property utlisation within the constraints of their own preferences and consequently probably at a lower level (unless they are really lonely!).

Housing supply relative to populaton is currently very high:

2e3cyuw.jpg

CBR, UK Economy Forecast Report, Winter 2015

I'm just not sure I trust those population growth figures at all!

Per the report for 2016:

Migration (000's) 265

Natural increase (000's) 226

I thought official net migration was c. 350k. I also understand that there is large discrepancy between the official statistics and HMRC's data which has not been adequately explained. There is huge government incentive to hide the true size of migration in the official figures (as there is no doubt to minimise the statistics for rent inflation!).

I reckon population growth could be double the above. Easily. [Although new dwellings are probably understated too - think studio conversions etc].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/rentersrights.html

After section 30B insert— “30C Letting fees for tenants A letting agent may not charge a tenant or prospective tenant any of the following types of fee— (a) a registration fee, (B) an administration fee, © an inventory check fee, (d) a reference check fee, (e) a tenancy extension or renewal fee, or (f) an exit fee.”

Interesting! When did this happen!?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36502439/rent-fees-are-a-step-closer-to-being-scrapped

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies, it was sloppy of me to say rents are determined by supply and demand for rental property. I think rents are a function of the following factors:

R = f ( P, HS, Y, Q, HB...)

where

P = Renting population

HS = Renting housing stock

Y = Tenant income.

HB = Housing Benefits (i.e. LHA and other government support).

Q = Quality of housing stock.(?)

...= others

Whilst I agree that rents are a function of income and wages (among other things), I think we need to be careful here. Whilst logically rents can't exceed wages and / or income (for anything other than the very short term), rents can increase absent wage or income increase. This could occur in two ways (although perhaps others): 1) Rent taking a larger proportion of incomes; 2) Reduced size and quality of rental accommodation.

With respect to point 2) I think this is a very important point which needs to be considered. Based on my own anecdotal experience as a London renter of 10 years, I am convince that the quality, and size of rental accommodation is decreasing (think smaller flats, worse build quality, more flat sharing...). I don't have any confidence whatsoever in the rental statics produced in the UK and I have my doubts that they accurately reflect these changes in quality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_regression). If they did, I believe rent inflation reported would be far, far higher (and closer to people's expectations and experiences).

Separately, I don't think competition from alternative forms of tenure (e.g. the cost of owning relative to the cost of renting) will lead to reduced rents either. If a tenant leaves the PRS, a property presumably will too. Whilst there will be some distribution effects in terms of income I just don't think these will be material, will be sector specific and probably won't feature in the headline rent inflation number. I might be wrong tho!

I think that if the cost of buying fell close to (how much premium do people put on not having to worry about eviction or about being discriminated against by landlords because they want to have children?) or below the cost of renting for broadly equivalent properties then homeownership would outcompete renting as a tenure choice. Rents would either fall or the PRS would contract.

Interesting. I can't fault you void calculation. I am surprised it is as high as it is. So on average c. 6% of the rental stock is empty. That is far higher than I intuitively expected (although thinking about it 3 weeks does seem reasonable). [Another thought - would void reporting be inflated for tax avoidance?].

However, I think I would disagree that the impact of the above rental voids across the PRS (in housing unit equivalents - say bedrooms) is greater than or equal to the impact of reduced property utlisation (in housing unity equivalents - bedrooms) by the OO sector. i.e. I'd argue that the PRS utalises property allot more than 6% more efficiently (note - no value judgement applied) than the OO sector.

A landlord realises no utility from an empty unutalised room, annex, loft etc. but a OO does whether that be for space or storage or privacy. Consequently, landlords will maximise profits and therefore utalisation. OOers will maximise property utlisation within the constraints of their own preferences and consequently probably at a lower level (unless they are really lonely!).

There are plenty of empty and unutilised rooms in the PRS, see the see Homeownership and renting in England and Wales - detailed characteristics I linked to earlier.

Also, I think it would be a mistake to extrapolate utilisation trends during an asset price boom to utilisation trends absent an asset price boom. There is ample room for OOs currently to be treating their main residences as speculative investments over and above their direct utility value. (Obviously not suggesting that all OOs are doing this but it would surprising if none were.)

I'm just not sure I trust those population growth figures at all!

Per the report for 2016:

Migration (000's) 265

Natural increase (000's) 226

I thought official net migration was c. 350k. I also understand that there is large discrepancy between the official statistics and HMRC's data which has not been adequately explained. There is huge government incentive to hide the true size of migration in the official figures (as there is no doubt to minimise the statistics for rent inflation!).

I reckon population growth could be double the above. Easily. [Although new dwellings are probably understated too - think studio conversions etc].

I would ignore the forecast segment personally. The important information IMO is the historic data, and as it relates to dwellings per thousand people for the entire population the net migration figures could be significantly off (though they aren't necessarily) without throwing the chart off to any noticeable degree, because of the relative size of each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a pretty loose theory but I think there's another mark against the PRS (or at least a mark against a system where we have both OO and PRS in the same market). Rent volatility is a big driver of OO demand imo (anecdotally maybe even one of the bigger ones in London) and I think there's a dangerous cycle in play. Landlords can and do put rents up essentially whenever they choose -> people worry about the affordability of their future housing needs because they're struggling to afford it now -> the must buy now mania kicks in -> prices go up. Tenants having no way to accurately forecast what their rent will be beyond the next 6 or 12 months is a big risk in renting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   90 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.