salou4 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 All homes get bought by someone wanting to buy...how much difference to price do you reckon it makes if some of those are BTL landlords? Genuine question.. LOL, yes, you are right, bad wording on my part. I meant houses that had been rental could get bought by someone wanting to live in it as an owner / occupier, thus reducing the stock available to renters. As with all supply and demand issues, as the supply decreases, the rents would go up. And as already been suggested, that's on top of rent increases being front loaded to account for them not being allowed to rise for the following 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 LOL, yes, you are right, bad wording on my part. I meant houses that had been rental could get bought by someone wanting to live in it as an owner / occupier, thus reducing the stock available to renters. As with all supply and demand issues, as the supply decreases, the rents would go up. And as already been suggested, that's on top of rent increases being front loaded to account for them not being allowed to rise for the following 3 years. But would the fact someone bought it to live in also reduce the number of people wanting to rent, meaning it would affect supply and demand, there would be less supply but less demand. If there are 1000 houses for 1000 people, 500 rented and 500 owner occupied, if a renter buys the house they rent or any other rental house and lives in it, there is one less rental house, but also one less renter. So now there are 499 in rental and 501 in owner occupied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salou4 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 But would the fact someone bought it to live in also reduce the number of people wanting to rent, meaning it would affect supply and demand, there would be less supply but less demand. If there are 1000 houses for 1000 people, 500 rented and 500 owner occupied, if a renter buys the house they rent or any other rental house and lives in it, there is one less rental house, but also one less renter. So now there are 499 in rental and 501 in owner occupied. Unless the buyer wasn't a renter previously. Maybe they lived with parents, or shared with friends, maybe one of those pesky immigrants coming from abroad. Maybe its a divorce, husband and wife previously living in 1 house, split up so now need two houses to live in. There are a million and one reasons why people buy, if they were all already with-in the housed community, we wouldn't have a housing crisis but we have because there is a constant increase of both buyers and renters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Unless the buyer wasn't a renter previously. Maybe they lived with parents, or shared with friends, maybe one of those pesky immigrants coming from abroad. Maybe its a divorce, husband and wife previously living in 1 house, split up so now need two houses to live in. There are a million and one reasons why people buy, if they were all already with-in the housed community, we wouldn't have a housing crisis but we have because there is a constant increase of both buyers and renters. For arguments sake lets say they didn't live anywhere prior to buying. They could have become a renter and increased demand for the limited supply, so buying a rental home and living in it would make no difference to supply and demand. If they buy an house from an home owner who in turn becomes a renter, demand for rentals would still increase without an increase in supply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salou4 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 For arguments sake lets say they didn't live anywhere prior to buying. They could have become a renter and increased demand for the limited supply, so buying a rental home and living in it would make no difference to supply and demand. If they buy an house from an home owner who in turn becomes a renter, demand for rentals would still increase without an increase in supply. Well they must have lived somewhere before buying, unless you are suggesting they buy straight from birth, or they were dead. Other than that, the rest of your post is all if this and if that, all hypotheticals, so I'm not sure what your point is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Well they must have lived somewhere before buying, unless you are suggesting they buy straight from birth, or they were dead. Other than that, the rest of your post is all if this and if that, all hypotheticals, so I'm not sure what your point is. I should have said they wasn't renters and they wasn't owner occupiers. That fewer properties for rent doesn't mean rents will go up if there is corresponding decrease in the number of people renting. If 50% of the rental properties was sold tomorrow to the tenants that live in them, supply and demand would stay the same, less rental properties but fewer people wanting to rent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salou4 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I should have said they wasn't renters and they wasn't owner occupiers. That fewer properties for rent doesn't mean rents will go up if there is corresponding decrease in the number of people renting. If 50% of the rental properties was sold tomorrow to the tenants that live in them, supply and demand would stay the same, less rental properties but fewer people wanting to rent. Ah, I see your point. Yes you are right. If the number of renters fall, then of course, with less demand, there is less supply side pressure. However, the reality is that the market doesn't work based on isolated segments. It works on the whole of the market and as we know there is more demand for housing than what is available. (I was being slightly sarcastic in my last post.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Did it have negative consequences for the majority, personally I didn't notice any difference between the before and after everything stayed the same. So what did this mean then? I haven't said the crash and subsequent double dip recession hasn't caused hardship for millions of people. Did you just mean that since <50% of people suffered immediate financial harm, that it was okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 So what did this mean then? Did you just mean that since <50% of people suffered immediate financial harm, that it was okay? Do you have any evidence to support this claim that 50% of people suffered immediate financial harm after the crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Boomer- Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 All homes get bought by someone wanting to buy...how much difference to price do you reckon it makes if some of those are BTL landlords? Genuine question.. Difficult to say but if they really want it they'll be offering top dollar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now