7 February 2007
The belief that buy to let investors are pricing first time buyers
out of the housing market was dismissed by a leading expert in
property economics at the Annual Conference of the Association of
Residential Letting Agents, ARLA, held in London today, February
7th.
Professor Michael Ball, Professor of Urban and Property Economics,
University of Reading Business School, told delegates that there is
only one way to lower house prices.
“It is to build more houses that people actually want to live in and
in places where they want to live,” he said.
Professor Ball said that Buy to Let has substantially improved
housing market stability. Without Buy to Let and a stable rental
market, young households would be forced to enter owner-occupation
earlier, at a more financially precarious time of their lives.
“Buy to Let has increased the size of the private rented sector and
extended the alternatives to both owner-occupation and social
housing,” Professor Ball explained. “It has also spread renting
wider, to towns and suburbs that had little or no private renting
before. It has assisted in the regeneration of inner city
neighbourhoods and in some areas it has helped to revive the housing
market.”
As a result, Professor Ball said that it is not clear that house
prices would have been lower without Buy to Let, as housing demand
is still with us but supply is likely to have been less.
Turning to the effect of Buy to Let on tenants, Professor Ball said
that it has sheltered many households from the full impact of house
price rises, as renting is often a cheaper monthly-money-outgoings
option.
“It enables households to build up their own equity and, although
tenants do not share in capital gains directly, they do so through
lower rents and lower risk. They can do this while living in good
standard accommodation, as competition in the rental market is now
greater. This appeals to young, mobile people in employment.
Overwhelmingly these are the client base of the Buy to Let
landlord.”
Professor Ball pointed out that more younger people rent rather than
own property compared to previous decades. He said that this is due
to changing lifestyles, employment patterns and affluence, as well
as other financial circumstances, including the rising costs of
equity requirements for house purchase.
Two thirds of rented property is owned by private individuals. This
is up from 50% ten years ago, when Buy to Let was initiated. This
change has occurred as corporate landlords have left the market but
more individuals have wanted to invest in residential property.
“Without Buy to Let, the private rented sector would probably be
much smaller. The quitters would have exceeded new entrants,”
Professor Ball said.
Many of these new investor landlords have substantial equity in
their rental properties as well as in their own homes and they work
or have other sources of income. Many Buy to Let properties have no
mortgages on them and many have loan-to-value ratios well below
mortgage lenders’ cap limits.
“Landlords are generally very secure financially and this helps to
explain the low default rates among Buy to Let borrowers,” said
Professor Ball.
Buy to Let is now over ten years old, with over a million households
living in Buy to Let properties. This 10-year-old initiative
accounts for the housing of 5-6% of all households in the country.
It contributes over £30 billion to the UK economy every year.
Investment in residential property is a mainstream personal
investment activity with 750,000 Buy to Let mortgages, £84 billion
in outstanding mortgages and well over £120 billion in property
assets (2003 figure).
This is a bigger industry than all pubs, hotels and restaurants
put together and it is four times larger than the car industry.
The forecast for the next decade is for an annual growth of between
20,000 and 30,000 Buy to Let properties becoming available to rent.
Read Professor Michael Ball’s special report
Buy to Let, The Revolution
– Ten years On