RETIRED2017
Registered User
- Messages
- 756
Laws to be strengthened to protect against non-payment of rent etc.[/QUOTE]
Why wait
Why wait
Why wait[/QUOTE]Laws to be strengthened to protect against non-payment of rent etc.
Why wait
In other words the high cost of rent is a reflection of the high cost of property. In a market with a shortage of supply.
Yes I agree, the problem with interest only mortgages, as I see it, the principal still has to be paid within the investors earning lifetime?
So taking the idea that a €250,00 property is designated by a local authority as a letting property, and that its lifespan is of the order of 100-150yrs, then any prospective 'landlord/property manager' will not require a mortgage for the full amount, but rather a leasehold (say for 25yrs or 0.25 of €250,000 100yrs = €62,500 or, 0.16 of €250k 150yrs = €41k ).
After the leasehold is up, the investor exits the market with whatever profit (if any) they made, that depending on the quality of accommodation provided and rent charged.
Laws to be strengthened to protect against non-payment of rent etc.
As it is the two sectors are too entangled with each other with too many small LL's banking on their tenants to pay the cost of their mortgage over 25/30yrs in the hope that it supplement their pensions.
When there is over supply and the rental is significantly cheaper than mortgage repayments.
I remember those debates on the forums...
BS, you have made numerous references in this thread about the influence on the rental market of small landlords dependent on rents to pay their mortgages. Have you any idea what proportion of small landlords have mortgages on their investment properties versus those who own them mortgage free? I would suspect it is a lot less than you think, judging from your posts.
To be honest, I do not know what the ratio is. I have made a generalised assumption based on the Celtic Tiger property boom that had favourable mortgage interest tax deductions for buy to let investors.
I think it is generally accepted that this was, in part, fuel to the fire for house price rises, that is, thousands of people who wouldnt ordinarily be landlords took the opportunity to become one.
Where there is oversupply also tends to drive prices down leaving lots of mortgage holders in negative equity.
Oversupply, undersupply, at particular points leads to market dysfunction.
To be honest, I do not know what the ratio is. I have made a generalised assumption based on the Celtic Tiger property boom that had favourable mortgage interest tax deductions for buy to let investors.
I think it is generally accepted that this was, in part, fuel to the fire for house price rises, that is, thousands of people who wouldnt ordinarily be landlords took the opportunity to become one.
I don't know the ratio either but I think your assumption would have been more accurate 10 years ago than it is now. As far as I know the vast majority of buy to let properties purchased in the interim have been by cash buyers. I'll admit that I don't have any figures to back this up though.
I do expect a return in a reasonable time, not 100/150 years, but thats my gamble.