5 ms·

>Building more houses won’t change this situation until the number of houses is greater than the number of tenants. That's wrong though. Building more houses e

>Building more houses won’t change this situation until the number of houses is greater than the number of tenants. That's wrong though. Building more houses eases this situation as it approaches the number of tenants. It gets better! Better is good! And the (perceived) appreciation of houses is also part of the asset price, not just the rental income.

matt-p 1y ago
arguably asset price is built on scarcity vs demand everything else is all second order really.
- rhubarbtree 1y ago
  No, asset price is built on yield, not on scarcity. That is exactly my point. It's a bit brain-melting, but once you realise it, the talk of NIMBY-ism etc. is just irrelevant. If you add more assets with a good yield, assuming that yield is better than bonds etc., then those assets will get bought. The only other brake on that is diversity of portfolios, but it doesn't strike me as particularly important, especially if many landlords only own a few properties.
  - matt-p 1y ago
    Yes, but isn't yield due to scarcity? For example right now there's more demand than supply for a 2 bed house for £2000pcm, but if we doubled the supply then there'd be competition and we'd end up at a much lower price?
    - jamil7 1y ago
      This assumes the population of a city is fixed.
rhubarbtree 1y ago
> Building more houses eases this situation as it approaches the number of tenants. It gets better! Better is good! Why? I don't see any reason this should be true.