• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

New build is worst buy-to-let investment, experts warn

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    New build is worst buy-to-let investment, experts warn

    New build is worst buy-to-let investment, experts warn

    By Emma Thelwell
    Last Updated: 5:39pm BST 08/05/2007

    # Why are the banks so laissez-faire with buy-to-letters?
    # Is buy-to-let primed for a fall?

    New build property is the worst buy-to-let investment in the current financial climate, industry experts have warned.

    The glut of new-build apartments erected in UK cities, in particular Leeds and Cardiff, against a backdrop of rising interest rates, could see rental yields falling behind some landlords' expectations.
    advertisement

    A survey by online property group Lettingagent.com revealed that London's landlords reap an average of £730 a month for a studio, and as much as £2,410 a month for a luxury apartment.

    However, landlords in Leeds get the least bang for their rental buck, with studio apartments yielding 81pc less than they do in London, at £404 a month.

    Luxury flats in Leeds command a fraction of their London counterparts, charging an average of £694 rent a month.

    Code:
    Studio (£pcm)	One Bedroom Flat (£pcm)	Luxury Apartment (£pcm)
    London	730	1,470	2,410
    Birmingham 	470	624.6	1,235
    Manchester	489	536	1,125
    Liverpool	511	591	945
    Edinburgh	451	568	890
    Cardiff 	419	504	708
    Leeds	404	507	694
    AtW's comment: don't know about other cities but they got it wrong for Brum - I pay 600 per month for 4 bedroom house in a nice leafy place near city center - to say 1 bedroom flat rents out for more is bullcrap. As for London rents - you gotto to be sadguru to accept them

    In recent years, new builds in inner city areas have been driven by demand from young tenants. While this has revived many inner city property markets, it has also widened consumer choice, which in turn has driven down rental yields.

    Lee Grandin, managing director of Lettingagent.com, said: "For young tenants, the cost of living is set to rise further - those looking to rent a one bedroom flat three or four years ago would be lucky to get a studio flat now."

    He said that in general demand would stay "relatively high" in the lettings market, due to the current shortage of property across the UK.

    However, Mr Grandin criticised "irresponsible lenders" for granting young landlords large buy-to-let mortgages that could become unmanageable if interest rates go up.

    He said: "With interest rates due to rise, novice investors would be foolish to enter the new build market with a buy-to-let mortgage now. Some buy-to-let landlords will be forced to sell after the rate rise because they can't make the figures stack up."

    A second home is often the first asset to be sold in the event of financial strife, and Thursday's widely expected interest rate change promises to squeeze Britain's indebted population even further.

    Still, the buy-to-let market continued to grow in March, according to data from Hamptons Mortgages, with a rise of 6pc year-on-year.

    Hamptons said there are now more than 70 lenders competing for a share of the buy-to-let mortgage market. Jonathan Cornell, of Hamptons Mortgages, said: “Buy-to-let has increased in popularity during recent years, with just over 1,000 outstanding mortgages in 2001 reaching in excess of 800,000 in 2006.”

    Despite the growing market, Hamptons said it is only recently that lenders have tailored their mortgage offerings to target these buyers. Buy-to-let investors are now seen as less of a risk than today’s troubled first-time buyers.

    Evidence of the pressure on first-time buyers came today in a separate report from the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Already an endangered species, first-time buyers are choking under interest rate rises, the CML warned.

    A report by the CML revealed that first-time homeowners spend an average of 18.3pc on their mortgage interest payments, the highest figure since 1991. The number of potential first-time buyers getting their foot on the housing ladder has also fallen by 8pc, on a year-on-year basis.

    The CML said: “The increasing costs of home-ownership are clearly deterring many potential first-time buyers.” The data also showed that first-time buyers are trying to protect themselves from future increases in interest rates.

    The survey revealed that 88pc of first-time buyers - the highest proportion ever - chose a fixed-rate product. Fixed-rate mortgages remain the most popular mortgage product in March, accounting for a record 78pc of all loans, up from 75pc in February.

    ---

    Source: here

    Btw, notice that jsessionid= bit in the URL? Whoever at Suns' Java design team had that idea should be put to the wall and shot using frozen turkeys shot out of railgun.

    #2
    Originally posted by AtW
    As for London rents - you gotto to be sadguru to accept them .
    Aye I accepted them alright - from my tenants who were paying my mortgages, like you are paying your landlord's

    HTH
    Hard Brexit now!
    #prayfornodeal

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by AtW
      [i]AtW's comment: don't know about other cities but they got it wrong for Brum - I pay 600 per month for 4 bedroom house in a nice leafy place near city center - to say 1 bedroom flat rents out for more is bullcrap.
      A quick glance on www.rightmove.co.uk shows quite a lot of 1-bedroom flats to rent for 600 in Birmingham. It also shows a lot of 4-bedroom houses to rent for 600. I could speculate on a number of possible reasons for this, but it does not seem to be "bullcrap" that 1-bedroom flats rent out for this.
      God made men. Sam Colt made them equal.

      Comment


        #4
        typically misleading journalistic crap...

        'A survey by online property group Lettingagent.com revealed that London's landlords reap an average of £730 a month for a studio, and as much as £2,410 a month for a luxury apartment.

        However, landlords in Leeds get the least bang for their rental buck, with studio apartments yielding 81pc less than they do in London, at £404 a month.
        '


        they have forgotten to compare the purchase prices and the ROI


        maybe they are just trying to attract more demand from the dimwits to the london area


        Milan.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by milanbenes
          ...
          they have forgotten to compare the purchase prices and the ROI
          Figures show that over the long term, investing in property has generated a lower return than the stock market. Since 1973 property prices have risen roughly 9% a year. This compares with shares that have returned an average of 11% since 1918.
          God made men. Sam Colt made them equal.

          Comment


            #6
            oh my gawd, more journalistic crap...

            'Since 1973 property prices have risen roughly 9% a year. This compares with shares that have returned an average of 11% since 1918.'


            hmmm comparing house prices since 1973 with share prices since 1918 !

            I wonder what the percentages would be if they compared house prices and share prices since 1918 ?

            Milan.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by milanbenes
              oh my gawd, more journalistic crap...

              'Since 1973 property prices have risen roughly 9% a year. This compares with shares that have returned an average of 11% since 1918.'


              hmmm comparing house prices since 1973 with share prices since 1918 !

              I wonder what the percentages would be if they compared house prices and share prices since 1918 ?

              Milan.
              Would that be a specific set of shares or would you have to be a market genius to get that kind of return?
              I am not qualified to give the above advice!

              The original point and click interface by
              Smith and Wesson.

              Step back, have a think and adjust my own own attitude from time to time

              Comment


                #8
                very nice question, these journo's don't half write some crap

                I wonder where the phrase 'as safe as houses' came from

                and I have never heard the variant...

                'as safe as equities' lol


                Milan.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by milanbenes
                  oh my gawd, more journalistic crap...

                  'Since 1973 property prices have risen roughly 9% a year. This compares with shares that have returned an average of 11% since 1918.'


                  hmmm comparing house prices since 1973 with share prices since 1918 !

                  I wonder what the percentages would be if they compared house prices and share prices since 1918 ?

                  Milan.
                  House price data is only readily available since 1973. I'm happy with that, but to compare ROI for shares I want figures for return (not just share prices). I am looking, and if anyone has comparable figures I'd appreciate a link.

                  Meantime, the widely quoted long-term return of 11% does seem to be a good benchmark for shares.
                  God made men. Sam Colt made them equal.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by milanbenes
                    very nice question, these journo's don't half write some crap

                    I wonder where the phrase 'as safe as houses' came from

                    and I have never heard the variant...

                    'as safe as equities' lol


                    Milan.
                    I don't think "as safe as houses" refers to investment! Obviously your shares will not keep the rain out. Anyway the house that you live in is a special case (at least as long as you are allowed to enjoy it as a tax-free benefit), I'm talking about investment property vs investing in shares.
                    God made men. Sam Colt made them equal.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X