-
Biggest one being properties as investment. Whether that be pension funds, foreign investment or just a load of people who have watched homes under the hammer.
The issue I see with this is that, assuming those investors have been in the market more than a year, they've already seen significant return on their investments that allows them to remain in the market for longer than people who have to live in them / pay a mortgage etc.
This probably means that a lot of ordinary people are going to lose their shirts in any upcoming housing crash long before the market adjusts to any point where investors need to sell which means we'll just start the same problem all over again.
Soul-
Hmmm do you think?
Maybe if not mortgaged, but btr mortgages were already more expensive and are likely a second property anyway - so sell the btr to free up funds / get rid of more expensive second mortgage might be a sensible strategy for lots of people. I don't really see why those btr investor gains allow them to stay in properties more than owner occupiers - but maybe I'm missing something
andyfallsoff
Pretty simple - because people can’t afford to buy the houses that are there?
If prices can rise faster than population % increases, then there must be other factors at play - biggest one being cheap money