-
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-
I presume @Soul is talking about cash buyers.
For live-in homeowners, if there is a short to medium term fall, then as long as negative equity doesn't apply, it does mean that moving up the ladder is easier as the absolute gap between properties also falls. Every cloud and all that.
-
Pension funds, banks buying properties and foreign investors are largely cash markets.
Those on BTL mortgages will pass on the increased costs to renters (further fucking anyone looking to buy a house) until that market goes pop too.
We're a long way off houses shrinking to affordable rates for the masses and getting there will crash the economy / fuck normal people for years first.
leggy_blonde
Soul
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.