The panel universally agreed that it does but only if we are honest about what is under pressure. The product works so well because it remains a practical route into ownership for households that can meet regular housing costs but cannot raise the deposit or secure the mortgage needed to buy outright. The question is whether delivery is keeping pace.

The buyer case remains strong in 2024-25, according to government figures, large private registered providers and local authorities recorded 18,603 initial shared ownership sales, up 2% on the previous year. Of the sales where buyer status was reported, an estimated 70% were to first-time buyers.

The average shared ownership purchaser paid a deposit of £22,200 on a 38% initial share. This compares to first-time buyers in the wider market who paid a median deposit of £36,500 (or a mean of £78,131). Almost a third received help from family or friends.

For many households, that is the gap Shared Ownership fills. It is not necessarily the cheapest housing option over a lifetime and it is not right for everyone. But for the mortgage-ready, deposit-constrained household, it can convert existing housing expenditure into security and an equity stake. With average private rent in England at £1,446 a month in June 2026 (ONS figures), that proposition remains highly relevant.

Affordability is changing behaviour

The panel was clear that buyers are becoming more cautious. At SOWN we are seeing average initial shares around 34%, (just over 25% in London), compared with roughly 38% last year. Other specialists on the panel described a similar shift.

That is not irrational. When mortgage rates are higher than the rent charged on the unsold equity, a smaller mortgage can reduce the monthly payment. A buyer who could stretch to a larger share may decide not to do so because other household costs leave too little margin.

This is where the product both proves its value and exposes its strain. Adjusting the initial share keeps the door open for the buyer. But smaller shares reduce the first-tranche receipt for the provider, affecting the price it can pay and its appetite for future acquisitions.

Demand is not the same as deliverability The delivery figures remain impressive. According to government figures, shared ownership completions rose from 4,084 in 2015-16 to 20,353 in 2024-25: the tenure is no longer a marginal product.

But the current indicators for future supply are more troubling. The Regulator of Social Housing reported that unsold affordable home ownership stock increased to 7,977 units in the quarter to March 2026. The 18-month pipeline fell to 25,600 homes, its lowest level for almost nine years.

The same report also shows that margins are under pressure. First-tranche margins fell to 14% in 2024-25 and to 11.4% in the quarter to March 2026, the lowest quarterly figure since the regulator began collecting the data in 2011.

•   The Finance Professional Show 2025: The Video
•   De-risking development: how the government can boost BTR
•   Planning policy must catch up with how people actually live

Those are not shared ownership-only figures in every case, but they tell the story the panel was describing: providers face higher borrowing costs, building safety costs and greater demands on existing stock. Each new acquisition has to compete for capital with urgent investment elsewhere.

When Section 106 homes can remain undelivered

The number of Shared Ownership properties delivered by Registered Providers has decreased significantly. MHCLG data shows that between April 2025 and March 2026, 1,969 intermediate affordable housing schemes were started - including for shared ownership - which represents a decrease of 34% from the previous year. This is due to a combination of factors including weaker market-sale demand, higher borrowing and construction costs, building safety and decarbonisation pressures on providers’ balance sheets, reduced capacity to acquire Section 106 homes and a growing mismatch between the shares buyers can afford and the receipts providers need to make schemes viable.

Furthermore, viability issues emerge if a provider is offered homes at a price that assumes buyers will purchase a 40% share but the market can only afford 25%.

The Section 106 agreement itself can introduce further challenges. Local income caps, local-connection tests, nomination periods, obsolete rent formulas and fixed initial share assumptions can narrow the buyer pool until the homes are affordable only in theory.

The national income limits of £80,000 outside London and £90,000 in London are already blunt. They do not distinguish between a £400,000 three-bedroom home in Southampton and a much cheaper equivalent in Hartlepool. Local caps can be blunter still: the permitted buyer may not be able to afford the home, while the capable buyer cannot buy it.

The reform should be practical

The answer is not to weaken the affordable housing objective but for obligations to secure the outcome while allowing the product to remain mortgageable, saleable and financeable.

That means earlier provider involvement, clearer specifications and faster variation where the original terms no longer work. It also means reviewing income caps. Regionalisation may be difficult, but the current position excludes households that still cannot buy outright and leaves providers with a smaller pool of viable buyers.

Shared ownership also needs a clearer public identity. Help to Buy was understood because the government promoted it effectively. Shared ownership has been left to explain itself scheme by scheme, provider by provider and, all too often, only after negative stories have shaped public perception.

Still stacking up, but not automatically

Shared ownership still stacks up for households with stable incomes, limited deposits, high private rents and no easy route to full ownership. It also stacks up for development when it broadens demand, supports absorption and creates mixed communities.

But it will not stack up by default. It needs finance that reflects today’s mortgage market, Section 106 terms that reflect local affordability and a policy framework that recognises the difference between social rent and intermediate ownership.

The UKREiiF discussion left me more convinced of the product, not less. It also made clear that a successful tenure can be held back by the machinery around it. Shared Ownership still has the demand; the work now is to ensure the supply can follow.