In reply to David Riley:
> >They are not increasing house prices if the homes are occupied. False
> How does that work then ?
If a million people invest £100,000 each in buy to let, house prices are boosted.
If the million people make different decisions and put their investments in shares the FTSE is boosted.
If the million people make different decisions and put their investments in golf memorabilia then the price of golf memorabilia is boosted.
The supply and demand for investments changes prices.
> One house, one family in occupation.
> If the family buys the house instead of renting it there is no change in the supply and demand that determines house prices.
Prices don't just reflect supply and demand for accommodation, they reflect supply and demand for investments too.
It would be a strange market if investment or disinvestment does not change prices in the market.
> Unless people renting are not in a position to buy or do not want to. It would then seem as if demand had fallen so reducing prices. If a large proportion of landlords sold, the result would be lots of empty properties up for sale after the limited number of occupier buyers had gone.
Prices to rent and to prices to buy would be expected to fall until they get a tenant or buyer.
> But there would be a crisis lack of rentals. Is that what you want ?
Rather than expecting properties to be left empty I'd expect them to be sold or rented at reduced prices if the investment became less attractive.
Post edited at 13:33