The forums are being retired.
After many years of great discussion, we've switched off new topics and replies. Every thread stays right here though, so you can still browse and search the whole archive any time.
For up-to-date chat with fellow investors, come join us on Facebook:
Whew! This has become more than a little circular! Anyway, I completely agree. Rents will soon cover mortgage payments (with maybe a little left over!)
Cheers, F.[cowboy2]Originally posted by Ronulas:Secondly, regardless of what the stats say, where I invest very few own their own homes so stats are meaningless. The reality of the situation is that there are large pockets of people can not afford to get into the market and therefor must rent.
If you invest in areas where “very few own their own homes” then doesn’t that mean there is likely more competition between rental properties? Would that not serve to keep rent prices down? Sounds like it’s all swings and rounabouts to me.
Originally posted by OSienna:Originally posted by Ronulas:Secondly, regardless of what the stats say, where I invest very few own their own homes so stats are meaningless. The reality of the situation is that there are large pockets of people can not afford to get into the market and therefor must rent.
Just because very few people own their own homes in these areas, does not mean that there is an oversupply of rental properties. Just the opposite. There are too many people and good rental properties are scarce. Rental yields are high. As I said from the begining. Supply and demand dictate rental yields.
If you invest in areas where “very few own their own homes” then doesn’t that mean there is likely more competition between rental properties? Would that not serve to keep rent prices down? Sounds like it’s all swings and rounabouts to me.
You will always miss 100% of the shots you don’t take!
Sorry I messed up the quoting in my last post. [biggrin]
You will always miss 100% of the shots you don’t take!
