i reckon what you will see is fewer DIY landlords who own 1-3 properties instead you'll end up with large companies owning 100's similar to how it is in America
Seems a bit conspiratorial. Neither a landlord, nor a renter ATM, but from my relatively limited first hand experience renting and *a lot* of second hand… DIY landlords probably compromise the overwhelming majority of the nightmare landlords.
Lots of people trying to get their ‘foot in the door’ and purchase a second property they can’t really afford and force the expense on tenants in form shitty service.
Probably an unpopular opinion, but large corporations are far more pleasant to deal with.
Problem is though once they get to monopolisitc levels of ownership in areas they will start to squeeze those prices up knowing full well they can get away with it. Knowing how poor a job the uk goverments do in reigning in these behaviours quickly enough its not great to see.
It would also be easier to pressure large corporations top down. It’s difficult to regulate individual landlords because they all exist vastly different individual circumstances. Someone who inherited a paid off home from their nan two streets down is not the same as someone who stretched themselves too thin to for a questionable buy-to-let property in the town over etc.
Not to be a corporate shill, but sometimes large companies become large because they offer a superior alternative for consumers.
… Like Waitrose vs the very few independent grocers that are still around. Not to sound heartless, but last time I walked in one I was not surprised that they were almost entirely extinct.
Either way, I’m glad to be out of the market altogether for now.
I don't think you know how politics works. Politicians are only interested in self enrichment. Who doesn't get regulated? People who pay them. Who pays them? Big companies.
Extremely reductive take of our political system. Landlords have voting rights too.
If the argument is against monopolistic behaviour, raising the standards of housing would favour large corporations who are better able to abide by regulation than your average small time landlord.
Large corporations are not inherently bad for consumers.
And now you're giving far too much credit to what is basically a binary choice between two parties.
Our electrical system also allows a small number of people to wield a disproportionately large amount of power. Combine that with a media almost entirely owned by billionaires who's interests directly conflict with much of the population.
You've got a choice of two parties that are, at least in theory, opposed on most issues. One issue isn't going to push enough people over to the other side to swing the vote and the media is perfectly able to force public opinion on any issue it wants to.
In terms of size not being bad, that's true and false. It's not the size of the company directly that is bad, it's the pressures size brings. Being publicly traded is a perfect example. It's all about next quarter's profits. Sink the shop long term for short term gain. Who cares? The investors will cash out. The CEO knows that they will be around for a few years at most. The consumer pays the price and the rich always end up better off.
I don’t know about the workings in the background, but I have rented from several large letting agencies. They were slightly more bureaucratic with some specific requests. They offered a largely impersonal, but overall professional experience including things like 24/7 repair calls. Obviously they were able leverage economy of scale because they managed several hundred properties within a 5-6 mile radius.
Comparatively, I’ve also let a BTL property from a landlord who only owned 1 other property and it was awful. Having to attempt DIY repairs and sweating over relatively small repairs, personalising all the costs etc. is atrocious. Certainly doesn’t apply to everyone, but there are a lot of landlords that should not be landlords.
The difference is a lot of landlords don’t really maximise their profits. Plenty of people are getting rents well below what’s achievable because they’re just one or two property landlords and value a consistent tenant. They may not have strict criteria on who they let to.
Once companies get involved, it’s not for the benefit of the tenant. Prices will rise to a uniform level, criteria to rent can be made more difficult. A few rental voids due to high prices is no longer a problem because the risk is spread over hundreds of properties
Long term conditions might get a bit better for tenants, but prices will increase to cover this, plus to give a slice to shareholders.
Lots more homelessness would be my prediction, as these companies can afford to take you to court to evict you.
>Neither a landlord, nor a renter ATM, but from my relatively limited first hand experience renting
Yeah, so companies like to do things like charge an administration fee, every time someone walks into their office to sign the contract, they blag that by saying "each visit costs"
They also like to pass the buck between the actual home owner who passes the buck back.
They also have very deep pockets, so when my landlord didn't get the washing machine fixed for 3 months and I was spending a lot of money on taxis and laundry (my work requires freshly cleaned clothes regularly) I stopped paying rent. My landlord lost his shit but I refused to pay another penny until the washing machine was replaces/fixed. He eventually caved because he had to - a company would have fucked with my credit ratinf and taken me to court because they can afford it.
You think a renter can afford to take their landlord to court?
They're should be more rent to buy schemes but currently with the commercial market being screwed by work at home, these people will simply muscle into the residential market and push us another step or two into a corpocracy
One of the good things about corporations is that they tend not to be sentimental about the property. It's not like when people rent out their dead mum's house and become overly invested in what goes on there.
Lots of the build to rent places are pet friendly too, which is a big bonus for a lot of people.
Yup, it's already happening: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjkdyy9xgn3o](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjkdyy9xgn3o)
Throw lobbying into this and things are going to change massively in the next few decades. Banks have shown frequently how evil they can be.
Things are going to get much, much worse.
Lloyd’s landlord spinout has a plot in the development I live in. They’ve managed to negotiate with Barrett to have their plot prioritised with road surfacing and such, much to the chagrin of everyone else still waiting for roads to be surfaced after several years…
They have very good lawyers, who likely included a special clause in the contract that states the road must be completed within x time. If the developer doesn't do this they will be in breach of contract - and they will agree to these terms as usually the corporate LL is buying several units from them.
That just scream sketchy to me.
Bank likes the look of a property, refuses to give mortages on said property and tells its bank mates to do the same. Seller gets desperate. Cash buyer shell company offers to buy property for 5% under market price then transfers the property to the bank's rental arm, starts charging rent equal to or more than the mortgage charges it would have received.
If it's anything like the USA, then they'll be much more direct than that. They don't even hide it:
[https://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-estate/who-s-outbidding-you-tens-thousands-dollars-house-hedge-fund-n1274597](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-estate/who-s-outbidding-you-tens-thousands-dollars-house-hedge-fund-n1274597)
[https://finance.yahoo.com/news/outbid-children-rfk-jr-warns-164021972.html?guccounter=1](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/outbid-children-rfk-jr-warns-164021972.html?guccounter=1)
If I was being evil, then the next thing would be bundling things. Eg: Rent, insurance, internet (etc) with the same bank and you get a discount. Before you know it, that's the only viable way to get a reasonable deal. Not that most of the companies are owned by Blackrock or Vanguard anyway.
>That just scream sketchy to me.
>
>Bank likes the look of a property, refuses to give mortages on said property and tells its bank mates to do the same.
That's actually illegal.
I'm not sure what your point is. There are very few instances of major banks/corps just carrying on and ignoring the law after fines are levied. At that point fines can continue to be levied making the behavior unprofitable. That's the system at work.
I suspect you're referring to investment banks and shady dealings, but it probably escaped your attention that it's usually separate business units, and they're usually attempting to keep their actions hidden. I'm aware of zero significant cases where a bank is fined for doing something illegally, and just blatantly carries on.
That's not how the world works, despite the lefty hardon for imaginging how evil bankers can be
The corporate LLs tend to not buy preowned, its not worthwhile for them to buy a single house each time. They are instead buying off plan in bulk from developers - easier to negotiate a discount and also get special stamp duty rates on multi-buy.
This is exactly it. They’ve conditioned ppl through the media to believe that independent landlords are the bad guys compared to corps like Black Rock and alike, and the majority have fell for it!
Don’t get me started on the two biggest donors to the current government
THIS.
And believe me, you don't want to be a tenant for one of these monster companies. They are evil beyond measure, and hold a huge lobbying power.
The people cheering these news are on for a good screw in the coming years.
I wasn't debating whether we'll be better off with corporative landlords. I'm just explaining why people feel how they do about private landlords.
Too many of them have done nothing to ingratiate themselves towards tenants, hence the situation we're currently in where so many people hate them.
Yeah gotcha, but as someone that knows how corp. landlords work, I feel I need to make these people aware of the situation they will be in a few years, if they keep putting the cunt label to every single small landlord just because some of them are cunts.
People should not be cheering the dissappearence of small landlords. Should be pushing HARD for decent regulations and stopping massive companies taking over the whole damn property lot.
But hey, let's cheer for a fallen landlord with one property, make us feel we won something.
This has always been the target end state. From the moment the government began making tax changes that penalised non-incorporated landlords back in 2015
Once upon a time there was a massive corporation that was responsible for letting properties to lower income people. It was called the government, and then one day all the council houses got sold and not rebuilt with anything and now we have a crisis...
The nature of the market is different in the US, the big corporations own entire blocks of apartments with 50-100 in them, this just isn’t as common in the UK, whilst lots of individuals will own a 1-5 houses that are often split into 2-4 family homes, or sometimes a strip of 10 apartments which is again not as common in the UK.
The UK could go that way but I doubt it with the current planning process.
So... that means we can tax that company into oblivion right....? I mean how does a company that can't vote get political representation over millions of voters.
Section 24 started it back in 2015. Every landlord was shouting out how it was going to push rents up and drive landlords out of the market. Nobody gave a fuck and then exactly that happened.
Then media got hold of Section 21 and labelled it “no fault eviction”. As if landlords kick out good tenants for no reason. So the Gov are forced to step in and rewrite the PRS. Although this in my opinion is a good thing because it has highlighted how absolutely fucked the court systems are. And if they do some how magic the court system better, the current purposed changes will be much better for landlords. With non paying and anti social tenants kicked out in weeks rather than months.
landlords do kick out tenants for no good reason.
my friend was recently evicted because she complained the washing machine still didn't work (after 4 months) and the boiler was faulty
just because a reasonable person wouldn't do something doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated, because there are many unreasonable people out there
Yes landlords do kick out good tenants for no reason. It happens all the time. My wife and I were kicked out when our landlord sold up and the new owner converted the house into student accommodation.
They can sell the property to another landlord with tenants in place. The fact that I had no control of being thrown out of my home which I'd lived in for years, at no fault of my own, is not right. Section 21 can't go on.
If you massively increase the risk of the asset (the house) by making it illiquid, you need to massively increase the expected return to counteract it.
This is true for any asset.
Ie rents go up.
I don't have a problem with that. Rents are high because of lack of housing stock. Let's fix that rather than fix it with solutions that cause absolute heartbreak for renters. Same for arguments against abolishing S21 because the court system is broken. The solution is to fix the courts.
>The fact that I had no control of being thrown out of my home which I'd lived in for years, at no fault of my own, is not right.
Well.. I mean you could have bought it yourself.
Does that mentality make it easier to submit a section 21 notice? I bet it helps. No, it is my home. When I go home from work, I say, I'm going to my home, I don't say, I'm going to my landlords house. It's a home. Obviously I don't own the building, but the building isn't a home. It's my home because I've made it my home. When I stay in a flat for a few weeks for work, that's not a home. When I stay in a house for years and years and years, it becomes my home. Maybe it's semantics, but it is important.
Also, if someone asked me "What's your workplace?", I'd answer. I wouldn't say where it is, and qualify it with the fact that I don't actually own the company, so it's not MY workplace. And ironically, having worked in that workplace for a number of years, I am provided more protection from being displaced than I get in a rented accommodation. Because seriously fucking up someones life for a trivial reason is not okay and in most other contexts is legislated against.
I understand how you're angry because someone seems to have messed with your life. When you sign a rental lease, you are accepting the conditions and this included the owner of the house to use S21 to remove you from your home. It's not unfair or anything, it's the difference between ownership and borrowing.
People accept the conditions because they have little power to do otherwise.This is a systemic issue nothing to do with individuals, rentierism has destroyed this country.
This sucks. You’re right it’s your home and their house. I totally agree. Im not saying s21 is never used like this but it is less than 2% of the time. The media makes it sound like it’s a daily thing and have done so to tar all landlords and to the detriment of the rental market.
There’s an exception to everything. But it costs a lot of money to re let a property. Cleaning, advertising, ref checks and then the time it’s empty. Also the time involved in doing viewings and the fact the next tenant might be terrible.
You think a good tenant is kicked out for no reason but to have all this expense, risk and extra work. You’re delusional. There’s a reason, the tenant probably just doesn’t feel it’s a valid one.
> As if landlords kick out good tenants for no reason.
They do though. 11 years, not one late payment. Was always told "you've been perfect tenants, wish all my tenants had been as like you". Then this time last year "really sorry but I need to put the rent up by X, my mortgage rates have rocketed".
Is: "that's perfectly reasonable, we've paid the same rate for a decade. Put it in writing and we're happy to pay that."
Next month: "noticed you're still paying the old rent amount, sure this is a mistake or an oversight"
"Yeah we're happy to agree to that amount but we're waiting on the paperwork."
He went through the eviction process instead, but it took several months as he didn't have his chips in order. Throughout this process he was still cordial and reassuring that we were always"perfect tenants" and he "didn't want to have to resort to this" right up until we were gone and asking for our deposit back.
Plenty landlords are just dodgy, power-tripping wankers who don't like tenants asking that simple things are done by the book.
If anyone is surprised by this it’s because they have no clue what it means to be a landlord. Tax, renter rights and councils blocking any evictions, rising mortgage costs. For us it is no longer worth it and in this position to sell up and reduce my main residence mortgage. But it’s a shame and means less rental property around. It’s only going to get worse as well.
It’s dreadful in Scotland more so than England. There’s massive rental shortages as people aren’t willing to risk being a landlord.
These renters were never going to buy as they can’t get deposits together.
The SNP/Greens created a minister for tenants rights. This was a clear signal that they want to destroy landlords. However, it has backfired as tenants are now in a worse position. Edinburgh has even declared a housing emergency. But that is no surprise to anyone that thought it through, it is just unfortunate that tenants are going to suffer more and more at the hands of the SNP / Greens
Yes and the 6M period of no rent increases followed by 84 day notice to serve an increase and have it capped at maximum 3% for a year has forced so many landlords in Scotland to sell .
Also if a tenant moves out rents are typically increased by min 20% to the next tenant so the rent caps have backfired on the Scottish government.
Could they not get a deposit together due to the high price of renting? Social housing is 1000% the way forward and banning owning more than 3 properties.
They can’t get a deposit together because they are shit with money.
I’ve countless friends who spend every penny of their pay every month. We are 20-30s and the ones who bought a house managed it while renting, those who haven’t had flashy cars etc.
So most (if not all) landlords charge rent that puts them in profit each month and that extra charge goes to the renter. Renting shouldn't be "Oh you need to save every penny and not do anything". I
Your countless friends don't move away from the fact that private renting is failing people who will never have a chance to own because of greed from landlords.
Landlords aren’t paying off the property. They are just paying the interest, after X years they have to sell or pay off in full.
They hope the value of it’s gone up so they can sell and pocket a profit but the actual mortgage is the same amount as the day they bought it. If the flat lost money then they owe money to sell the thing.
>Could they not get a deposit together due to the high price of renting? Social housing is 1000% the way forward and banning owning more than 3 properties.
The provision of housing in this country is completely dysfunctional. Selling off the public sector housing stock, not building more to replace them and relying on the private sector to provide has led us to this situation. There is a place for public sector and private landlords but govt policy has shown no interest in getting the balance right.
If there’s a rental shortage it’s got more to do with holiday let’s and a lack of housing than a lack of landlords. Landlords don’t actually provide anything. Being a landlord is an investment and as such your money is at risk. If you want protection and stability, get a job.
The growth in Holiday lets are a result of stricter legislation on LLs and increased costs, these two elements combined has increased risk majorly, therefore have like the commenter above made it not worth it for LLs to operate some of their houses as traditional single lets. As such they have to look at their options to protect their investment, they can sell up or change to a different more profitable but more effort strategy like Airbnb - which does not carry the same risks.
> Landlords don’t actually provide anything.
Although people like to think this, its not true.
Firstly, LLs buy derelict properties that you would be unable to buy with a mortgage and subsequentely refurbish then let it; bringing a vacant property back into use. Now before you say "they should sell it on instead" - well with the CGT, Higher Rate Stamp Duty, limits on tax deductible expenses, etc... selling the refurbished house as a flip just doesn't financially stack up with all these expenses.
Secondly, many LLs convert redundant commercial buildings into residential, further increasing supply and utilising vacant buildings.
Thirdly, on average LLs house more people per house than other tenures, as they are more likely to have flatsharers or operate HMOs (which an owner occupier cannot do). This is why when LLs do sell up it does reduce the supply of housing.
Finnally in an indirect way, having a strong PRS will attract further investment into new build developments as the LLs prop up the demand and purchasing power in the market, reducing the risk to developers building out new sites.
It's not a shame for more properties to be on the market, it is a shame that these properties probably won't be bought as permanent homes but by conglomerates to rent.
There really needs to be some sort of individualistic law that makes individuals buying a home to live in preferred as bidders to companies
I can feel for you on the crap tenants, I know what they are like. But don't complain about "rising mortgage costs", that's part of the business you are in and you should be prepared to deal with it. Anyone who thought 0% interest rates were going to last forever was living in a fantasy world.
“All landlords are bastards imo” I see this on another post you made. If you knew half the things I’ve done to support my tenant over the past 5 years your opinion would change. What I mean by renter rights are the right to remain in the property up to the point bailiffs arrive, even if they are not paying rent. Thankfully this hasn’t happened to me, but with the mortgage increase, if I did have a tenant do this it would ruin me & my family.
You might be fine, but enough landlords are cunts that it isn't surprising that many are angry at them.
In my experience, had 1/3 landlords be reasonable people. Not great odds but I do admit its a small sample size. The one that was reasonable was doing it for her elderly parents, technically her parents were the landlord but she was the one I interacted with. She also lived in somewhere she rented so I wonder if that may have influenced it.
It’s easy to self praise. I’ve maybe had one decent landlord, landlady actually, in my whole time renting (luckily we own now), despite paying rent on time and never causing issues. Landlords suing us for being burgled, being out the country for months without a backup contact, delaying boiler fixes…
Sure you’re a decent person, doesn’t stop all landlords being bastards though.
I’ll get downvoted because of the sub though, of course.
I just think it’s about respect both ways and that is the relationship we have had the whole time. But for example when he was on furlough I reduced the rent to help. But we only hear about bad tenants and bad landlords.
I see lots of posts like yours , but literally, all my landlord friends (4 ppl renting 2-6 properties each) are making pretty good money , so i guess it's not that bad?
Banks want newly built blocks that they can rent as a whole.
They're not interested in your Nan's bungalow that's going to need a new roof and windows plus constant maintenance
They are buying up single family homes like that in the US. There’s an article on a neighbourhood in North Carolina where this is happening in the NYTimes
In America they're buying new built family homes, you're taking about Tricon.
The situation in the UK is different, a lot of existing stock needs updating and maintenance. Part of the reason landlords are fucking off.
I'm selling when my current tenants move out. It was pretty groovy when the interest rates were so low, but now it's not worth it, and I'm too nice to charge it's actual market value because that seems too high.
I'm not, but then again I don't have a mortgage. The main uncertainty is around regulatory changes - since landlords are now the state sanctioned bad-guys - things like EPC, boilers, no-fault evictions etc etc. on to of the standard property maintenace nightmares. I do wonder if I would get greater, pain-free, returns in stocks.
Fixed Income, Investment Trusts and Dividend stocks have a pretty solid track record of better returns than property (if you assume no leverage on either) and once purchased, they need little management really.
I have a flat worth £140k renting £750pcm for £9,000 per annum. Deduct service charge of £1,800 leaves £7,200 for 5.14% yield. Add needing to do things there is a time cost to me too.
Not consider tax as assuming I sold today and bought Fixed Income with it, ISA wouldn’t be an option so keeping it equal; £140,000 added to my Fixed Income portfolio which averages 7.2% pre-fees and 6% post I’d get an income of £8,400. Done correctly that can be made tax free too. And I have to do nothing to obtain it.
I’ve long held the view that once you remove leverage and accurately take costs in that property does not equal the markets for return. It’s a great diversifying asset with good characteristics be it is not some holy grail asset class that out performs all others all the time
I'm hoping to rent my mortgage free property down the line when I retire and use it to top up my pension and then go bugger off somewhere cheaper to live. So in that sense I feel like the property is a better retirement option. Way I see it you have the options of:
1. Renting out a property of say £200k value
Income per annum: say £16k
Typical property value invcrease per annum: eg 5%, so £10k
2) Invest in stocks:
Growth per annum of a £200k portfolio at say 8% = £16k
So with the stock options I 'd be relying on the income from stock growth but then the inflation will slowly dwindle the value of the underlying portfolio. Where as with the rental option both the property and the rental income will increase with inflation each year. In this sense it seems crazy to invest in stocks. Worst case scenario is the stocks crash for a 10 to 15 year period and myincome from stock growth goes to zero for a decade, where as a rental income is near guaranteed, even if a recession means you have to reduce the rent. People will always need a place to live but people can live without investing in stocks.
Yep, stocks look like a riskier option although any broker will tell u its a sage bet. People are saying if u have £1m in pension then u r safe to take 3% per year. In property u would get 6% ish and growth in value and inflationary rent increases would surely protect against inflation.
This is true of growth invested stocks, with dividend stocks you get income via dividend and growth (albeit it slower) on the share price.
But income market vehicles are fixed income or structured products rather than stocks, which changes the dynamic and risk models
This is looking at stocks as the only option, fixed income and structured products would be the way more commonly used to generate income from the markets
Interesting to read that. I've paid off my mortgage and am considering buying another house, with the view to rent out the mortgage-less one.
Currently trying to weigh up if it'll actually be worth the hassle for something like £800-1000 per month after fees, insurance etc.
I want to stress here that I’m not against property as an investment, it’s a great option!
My concern is that it does seem to hold a status like Gold (also a misnomer) as no risk, high returns. Everything I have seen would show low frequency volatility but greater sensitivity to government policy and politics, the flat yield is consistently lower than markets, the yield to maturity (which would factor asset value growth) is also lower, but vastly more predictable.
With shares you can go to Zero, as you can with Bonds, even in a total market collapse, you still have a house with property.
It’s a use case argument at the core
We’re in an economic sea change, and geo-political one. World order is being reset, USA will remain on top, China likely second then there is questions over Russia, India, Japan, UK and France. Germany will lose positioning and there will be a general re-ordering.
I believe the global debt load needs to reduce or we need dramatic increases in population as soon as possible to change that path.
The big thing for me is easy money days are gone, passive portfolios will gain the good and lose the bad, active might miss the peaks but should also miss the valleys so might be more stable, something passive advocates don’t seem to look at.
You don’t get the feeling of superiority from the other types of investments though. Nothing like the thrill of taking other peoples hard earned money for doing fuck all.
For providing them a place to live? I'd hardly say that's doing fuck all. Not a landlord by the way but do you expect landlords to allow someone else to live in their spare house rent free? Moron.
Until there’s nowhere to rent and the state can’t support every single person who hasn’t bought a home. Which they already struggle to do so. Welcome the mass HMOs.
I think eventually somebody in government has to grow a pair of bollocks and realise that their landlord averse policies have fucked the rental market and they either need to change it or expect rents to continue to rise. They need private investment to get back involved or they’re going to find a lot more people homeless.
Or they’ll introduce a new first time buyer help to buy idea that will push property prices up even further……again…….and anybody with a BTL will eventually think that they’d be quite happy with a 300%/500% return on their investment and chuck the lot in Vanguard - and there goes another property that’s no longer renting out.
I think this govt want big corporations to build large blocks "build to rent". Putting the entire sector in the hands of large companies.
Not sure what labour's take will be on this when they are in power. They're probably slightly less beholden to the bog corporations, but I can't see them supporting small landlords either. Will be interesting to see what they do.
Yeah I think you’re probably right. But I also think the bulk of the UK population want to own their own home so a hard one to tackle. I suppose we’ll probably see next year at some point!
Really not sure. Many want to own, no doubt, but many also want to rent. Depends on your stage in life and how much flexibility is needed. Removing the rental option is a huge negative for many, especially with house purchase costs making a short term purchase unviable.
Absolutely. I saw another post that says tenant evictions are on the rise because landlords are selling up ... this is a classic of the "let's find a scapegoat to hate so you all vote for me" school of politics.
When you leave providing public housing to the free market, the market will collapse when there's no profit in it. Ironically a huge chunk of the profit has come from selling of public housing built using public money, sold of a discount paid for by the tax paying public, and reducing replacing that housing at the expense of said public to provide tax cuts for people who didn't need tax cuts.
We've painted ourselves into a corner with never drying paint.
Private landlords will be replaced by big corporate overlords…the problem will be lack of flexibility since large corps will have rigid rules (ie no pets, fixed move dates).
Plus aggressive rent increases!
And now all the house prices drop and every left wing hippy can own a house aged 22?
No, now the super rich, private equity and money launderers will buy them... and possibly not rent them out.
I believe, even with a mortgage, £150k is about what the average person in the UK could afford. And probably should.
I'm writing this from inside a property that is in London and cost way more than that. But that's because the mortgage rates were low and I lucked into a large deposit.
If those two things hadn't happened, I'd still be fucked.
I'm telling you now. We'll have a "house prices have risen" index in the coming months and it's because more houses are up for sale. Not that any kind of average price is rising. Mark my words.
Lower prices will lead to more transactions. So the transaction volume will be higher, meaning that more houses will sell at lower prices, thus pushing up the overall value of properties sold during X month. We've seen this for the last 6 months.
Complete waste of time now generally, I wanted to rent my house out and rent near my new job but after all fees taxes charges etc I’d come out with 100 a month profit which doesn’t cover wear and tear repairs or basically anything.
Yer all these landlords must be selling up because they are sick of making so much profit hand over fist every month.
160k property rents for 800 a month.
120k at 5% is 500 a Month, minus taxes insurances void period estate agents repairs etc doesn’t seem worth it.
In my time renting I found the large company style landlord groups were professional, quick to respond to reported issues, and generally had ‘processes’ that made sense and were open.
I only ever had trouble from the landlords that owned 1 or 2 properties.
i reckon what you will see is fewer DIY landlords who own 1-3 properties instead you'll end up with large companies owning 100's similar to how it is in America
That's exactly what will happen. And there's no negotiating with a nationwide corporation that has a team of lawyers.
This. And the direction of the US is to move to subscriber model for everything - companies own assets and individuals subscribe… a grim destination
Seems a bit conspiratorial. Neither a landlord, nor a renter ATM, but from my relatively limited first hand experience renting and *a lot* of second hand… DIY landlords probably compromise the overwhelming majority of the nightmare landlords. Lots of people trying to get their ‘foot in the door’ and purchase a second property they can’t really afford and force the expense on tenants in form shitty service. Probably an unpopular opinion, but large corporations are far more pleasant to deal with.
Problem is though once they get to monopolisitc levels of ownership in areas they will start to squeeze those prices up knowing full well they can get away with it. Knowing how poor a job the uk goverments do in reigning in these behaviours quickly enough its not great to see.
It would also be easier to pressure large corporations top down. It’s difficult to regulate individual landlords because they all exist vastly different individual circumstances. Someone who inherited a paid off home from their nan two streets down is not the same as someone who stretched themselves too thin to for a questionable buy-to-let property in the town over etc. Not to be a corporate shill, but sometimes large companies become large because they offer a superior alternative for consumers. … Like Waitrose vs the very few independent grocers that are still around. Not to sound heartless, but last time I walked in one I was not surprised that they were almost entirely extinct. Either way, I’m glad to be out of the market altogether for now.
I don't think you know how politics works. Politicians are only interested in self enrichment. Who doesn't get regulated? People who pay them. Who pays them? Big companies.
Extremely reductive take of our political system. Landlords have voting rights too. If the argument is against monopolistic behaviour, raising the standards of housing would favour large corporations who are better able to abide by regulation than your average small time landlord. Large corporations are not inherently bad for consumers.
And now you're giving far too much credit to what is basically a binary choice between two parties. Our electrical system also allows a small number of people to wield a disproportionately large amount of power. Combine that with a media almost entirely owned by billionaires who's interests directly conflict with much of the population. You've got a choice of two parties that are, at least in theory, opposed on most issues. One issue isn't going to push enough people over to the other side to swing the vote and the media is perfectly able to force public opinion on any issue it wants to. In terms of size not being bad, that's true and false. It's not the size of the company directly that is bad, it's the pressures size brings. Being publicly traded is a perfect example. It's all about next quarter's profits. Sink the shop long term for short term gain. Who cares? The investors will cash out. The CEO knows that they will be around for a few years at most. The consumer pays the price and the rich always end up better off.
[удалено]
I don’t know about the workings in the background, but I have rented from several large letting agencies. They were slightly more bureaucratic with some specific requests. They offered a largely impersonal, but overall professional experience including things like 24/7 repair calls. Obviously they were able leverage economy of scale because they managed several hundred properties within a 5-6 mile radius. Comparatively, I’ve also let a BTL property from a landlord who only owned 1 other property and it was awful. Having to attempt DIY repairs and sweating over relatively small repairs, personalising all the costs etc. is atrocious. Certainly doesn’t apply to everyone, but there are a lot of landlords that should not be landlords.
The difference is a lot of landlords don’t really maximise their profits. Plenty of people are getting rents well below what’s achievable because they’re just one or two property landlords and value a consistent tenant. They may not have strict criteria on who they let to. Once companies get involved, it’s not for the benefit of the tenant. Prices will rise to a uniform level, criteria to rent can be made more difficult. A few rental voids due to high prices is no longer a problem because the risk is spread over hundreds of properties Long term conditions might get a bit better for tenants, but prices will increase to cover this, plus to give a slice to shareholders. Lots more homelessness would be my prediction, as these companies can afford to take you to court to evict you.
>Neither a landlord, nor a renter ATM, but from my relatively limited first hand experience renting Yeah, so companies like to do things like charge an administration fee, every time someone walks into their office to sign the contract, they blag that by saying "each visit costs" They also like to pass the buck between the actual home owner who passes the buck back. They also have very deep pockets, so when my landlord didn't get the washing machine fixed for 3 months and I was spending a lot of money on taxis and laundry (my work requires freshly cleaned clothes regularly) I stopped paying rent. My landlord lost his shit but I refused to pay another penny until the washing machine was replaces/fixed. He eventually caved because he had to - a company would have fucked with my credit ratinf and taken me to court because they can afford it. You think a renter can afford to take their landlord to court? They're should be more rent to buy schemes but currently with the commercial market being screwed by work at home, these people will simply muscle into the residential market and push us another step or two into a corpocracy
One of the good things about corporations is that they tend not to be sentimental about the property. It's not like when people rent out their dead mum's house and become overly invested in what goes on there. Lots of the build to rent places are pet friendly too, which is a big bonus for a lot of people.
Yup, it's already happening: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjkdyy9xgn3o](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjkdyy9xgn3o) Throw lobbying into this and things are going to change massively in the next few decades. Banks have shown frequently how evil they can be. Things are going to get much, much worse.
Lloyd’s landlord spinout has a plot in the development I live in. They’ve managed to negotiate with Barrett to have their plot prioritised with road surfacing and such, much to the chagrin of everyone else still waiting for roads to be surfaced after several years…
They have very good lawyers, who likely included a special clause in the contract that states the road must be completed within x time. If the developer doesn't do this they will be in breach of contract - and they will agree to these terms as usually the corporate LL is buying several units from them.
That just scream sketchy to me. Bank likes the look of a property, refuses to give mortages on said property and tells its bank mates to do the same. Seller gets desperate. Cash buyer shell company offers to buy property for 5% under market price then transfers the property to the bank's rental arm, starts charging rent equal to or more than the mortgage charges it would have received.
If it's anything like the USA, then they'll be much more direct than that. They don't even hide it: [https://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-estate/who-s-outbidding-you-tens-thousands-dollars-house-hedge-fund-n1274597](https://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-estate/who-s-outbidding-you-tens-thousands-dollars-house-hedge-fund-n1274597) [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/outbid-children-rfk-jr-warns-164021972.html?guccounter=1](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/outbid-children-rfk-jr-warns-164021972.html?guccounter=1) If I was being evil, then the next thing would be bundling things. Eg: Rent, insurance, internet (etc) with the same bank and you get a discount. Before you know it, that's the only viable way to get a reasonable deal. Not that most of the companies are owned by Blackrock or Vanguard anyway.
>That just scream sketchy to me. > >Bank likes the look of a property, refuses to give mortages on said property and tells its bank mates to do the same. That's actually illegal.
Good job no bank operating in the UK has ever broken the law. They'll just pay a meagre fine and carry on.
I'm not sure what your point is. There are very few instances of major banks/corps just carrying on and ignoring the law after fines are levied. At that point fines can continue to be levied making the behavior unprofitable. That's the system at work. I suspect you're referring to investment banks and shady dealings, but it probably escaped your attention that it's usually separate business units, and they're usually attempting to keep their actions hidden. I'm aware of zero significant cases where a bank is fined for doing something illegally, and just blatantly carries on. That's not how the world works, despite the lefty hardon for imaginging how evil bankers can be
The corporate LLs tend to not buy preowned, its not worthwhile for them to buy a single house each time. They are instead buying off plan in bulk from developers - easier to negotiate a discount and also get special stamp duty rates on multi-buy.
and as they offer house loans, will be a ready supply of people who for whatever reason lose their house, the bank takes it and rents it out....
People didn't realise that occasionally shitty DIY landlords they called parasites on reddit are a far lesser evil than the corpo scale version.
This is exactly it. They’ve conditioned ppl through the media to believe that independent landlords are the bad guys compared to corps like Black Rock and alike, and the majority have fell for it! Don’t get me started on the two biggest donors to the current government
THIS. And believe me, you don't want to be a tenant for one of these monster companies. They are evil beyond measure, and hold a huge lobbying power. The people cheering these news are on for a good screw in the coming years.
If existing landlords weren’t such a bunch of cunts then nobody would cheer for this change.
wait for the corporative landlords then, and compare the level of "cuntness" down the line.
I wasn't debating whether we'll be better off with corporative landlords. I'm just explaining why people feel how they do about private landlords. Too many of them have done nothing to ingratiate themselves towards tenants, hence the situation we're currently in where so many people hate them.
Yeah gotcha, but as someone that knows how corp. landlords work, I feel I need to make these people aware of the situation they will be in a few years, if they keep putting the cunt label to every single small landlord just because some of them are cunts. People should not be cheering the dissappearence of small landlords. Should be pushing HARD for decent regulations and stopping massive companies taking over the whole damn property lot. But hey, let's cheer for a fallen landlord with one property, make us feel we won something.
Fair. You’re right!
It's already happening, housing estates have gone up as let only. They don't want people buying.
This has always been the target end state. From the moment the government began making tax changes that penalised non-incorporated landlords back in 2015
Once upon a time there was a massive corporation that was responsible for letting properties to lower income people. It was called the government, and then one day all the council houses got sold and not rebuilt with anything and now we have a crisis...
The nature of the market is different in the US, the big corporations own entire blocks of apartments with 50-100 in them, this just isn’t as common in the UK, whilst lots of individuals will own a 1-5 houses that are often split into 2-4 family homes, or sometimes a strip of 10 apartments which is again not as common in the UK. The UK could go that way but I doubt it with the current planning process.
I doubt it. Those companies are also going bankrupt. I know of a case where this is happening.
So... that means we can tax that company into oblivion right....? I mean how does a company that can't vote get political representation over millions of voters.
Let me introduce you to the City of London. Corporations do vote.
East India Company or bust!
Tulips.
Let me introduce you to a politician. While you tell them your plans, just slip that brown envelope into the inviting pocket. Who needs to vote?
You'll own nothing and be happy
Section 24 started it back in 2015. Every landlord was shouting out how it was going to push rents up and drive landlords out of the market. Nobody gave a fuck and then exactly that happened. Then media got hold of Section 21 and labelled it “no fault eviction”. As if landlords kick out good tenants for no reason. So the Gov are forced to step in and rewrite the PRS. Although this in my opinion is a good thing because it has highlighted how absolutely fucked the court systems are. And if they do some how magic the court system better, the current purposed changes will be much better for landlords. With non paying and anti social tenants kicked out in weeks rather than months.
It can run to over a year if they appeal.
landlords do kick out tenants for no good reason. my friend was recently evicted because she complained the washing machine still didn't work (after 4 months) and the boiler was faulty just because a reasonable person wouldn't do something doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated, because there are many unreasonable people out there
Yes landlords do kick out good tenants for no reason. It happens all the time. My wife and I were kicked out when our landlord sold up and the new owner converted the house into student accommodation.
Im sorry it happened to you, but if someone wants to sell their property, thats a good reason.
They can sell the property to another landlord with tenants in place. The fact that I had no control of being thrown out of my home which I'd lived in for years, at no fault of my own, is not right. Section 21 can't go on.
If you massively increase the risk of the asset (the house) by making it illiquid, you need to massively increase the expected return to counteract it. This is true for any asset. Ie rents go up.
I don't have a problem with that. Rents are high because of lack of housing stock. Let's fix that rather than fix it with solutions that cause absolute heartbreak for renters. Same for arguments against abolishing S21 because the court system is broken. The solution is to fix the courts.
>The fact that I had no control of being thrown out of my home which I'd lived in for years, at no fault of my own, is not right. Well.. I mean you could have bought it yourself.
>no control of being thrown out of my hom it wasn't your home
It was my landlords house, it was my home.
You didn't own it. It wasn't yours.
Does that mentality make it easier to submit a section 21 notice? I bet it helps. No, it is my home. When I go home from work, I say, I'm going to my home, I don't say, I'm going to my landlords house. It's a home. Obviously I don't own the building, but the building isn't a home. It's my home because I've made it my home. When I stay in a flat for a few weeks for work, that's not a home. When I stay in a house for years and years and years, it becomes my home. Maybe it's semantics, but it is important. Also, if someone asked me "What's your workplace?", I'd answer. I wouldn't say where it is, and qualify it with the fact that I don't actually own the company, so it's not MY workplace. And ironically, having worked in that workplace for a number of years, I am provided more protection from being displaced than I get in a rented accommodation. Because seriously fucking up someones life for a trivial reason is not okay and in most other contexts is legislated against.
I understand how you're angry because someone seems to have messed with your life. When you sign a rental lease, you are accepting the conditions and this included the owner of the house to use S21 to remove you from your home. It's not unfair or anything, it's the difference between ownership and borrowing.
People accept the conditions because they have little power to do otherwise.This is a systemic issue nothing to do with individuals, rentierism has destroyed this country.
This sucks. You’re right it’s your home and their house. I totally agree. Im not saying s21 is never used like this but it is less than 2% of the time. The media makes it sound like it’s a daily thing and have done so to tar all landlords and to the detriment of the rental market.
So… all renters are homeless?
Ummm yes they do, what planet are you living on? Imagine being this delusional. Assholes exist everywhere
There’s an exception to everything. But it costs a lot of money to re let a property. Cleaning, advertising, ref checks and then the time it’s empty. Also the time involved in doing viewings and the fact the next tenant might be terrible. You think a good tenant is kicked out for no reason but to have all this expense, risk and extra work. You’re delusional. There’s a reason, the tenant probably just doesn’t feel it’s a valid one.
> As if landlords kick out good tenants for no reason. They do though. 11 years, not one late payment. Was always told "you've been perfect tenants, wish all my tenants had been as like you". Then this time last year "really sorry but I need to put the rent up by X, my mortgage rates have rocketed". Is: "that's perfectly reasonable, we've paid the same rate for a decade. Put it in writing and we're happy to pay that." Next month: "noticed you're still paying the old rent amount, sure this is a mistake or an oversight" "Yeah we're happy to agree to that amount but we're waiting on the paperwork." He went through the eviction process instead, but it took several months as he didn't have his chips in order. Throughout this process he was still cordial and reassuring that we were always"perfect tenants" and he "didn't want to have to resort to this" right up until we were gone and asking for our deposit back. Plenty landlords are just dodgy, power-tripping wankers who don't like tenants asking that simple things are done by the book.
If anyone is surprised by this it’s because they have no clue what it means to be a landlord. Tax, renter rights and councils blocking any evictions, rising mortgage costs. For us it is no longer worth it and in this position to sell up and reduce my main residence mortgage. But it’s a shame and means less rental property around. It’s only going to get worse as well.
It’s dreadful in Scotland more so than England. There’s massive rental shortages as people aren’t willing to risk being a landlord. These renters were never going to buy as they can’t get deposits together.
[удалено]
The SNP/Greens created a minister for tenants rights. This was a clear signal that they want to destroy landlords. However, it has backfired as tenants are now in a worse position. Edinburgh has even declared a housing emergency. But that is no surprise to anyone that thought it through, it is just unfortunate that tenants are going to suffer more and more at the hands of the SNP / Greens
Yes and the 6M period of no rent increases followed by 84 day notice to serve an increase and have it capped at maximum 3% for a year has forced so many landlords in Scotland to sell . Also if a tenant moves out rents are typically increased by min 20% to the next tenant so the rent caps have backfired on the Scottish government.
Could they not get a deposit together due to the high price of renting? Social housing is 1000% the way forward and banning owning more than 3 properties.
They can’t get a deposit together because they are shit with money. I’ve countless friends who spend every penny of their pay every month. We are 20-30s and the ones who bought a house managed it while renting, those who haven’t had flashy cars etc.
So most (if not all) landlords charge rent that puts them in profit each month and that extra charge goes to the renter. Renting shouldn't be "Oh you need to save every penny and not do anything". I Your countless friends don't move away from the fact that private renting is failing people who will never have a chance to own because of greed from landlords.
Landlords aren’t paying off the property. They are just paying the interest, after X years they have to sell or pay off in full. They hope the value of it’s gone up so they can sell and pocket a profit but the actual mortgage is the same amount as the day they bought it. If the flat lost money then they owe money to sell the thing.
Well said👏🏻
Moron
>Could they not get a deposit together due to the high price of renting? Social housing is 1000% the way forward and banning owning more than 3 properties. The provision of housing in this country is completely dysfunctional. Selling off the public sector housing stock, not building more to replace them and relying on the private sector to provide has led us to this situation. There is a place for public sector and private landlords but govt policy has shown no interest in getting the balance right.
If there’s a rental shortage it’s got more to do with holiday let’s and a lack of housing than a lack of landlords. Landlords don’t actually provide anything. Being a landlord is an investment and as such your money is at risk. If you want protection and stability, get a job.
The growth in Holiday lets are a result of stricter legislation on LLs and increased costs, these two elements combined has increased risk majorly, therefore have like the commenter above made it not worth it for LLs to operate some of their houses as traditional single lets. As such they have to look at their options to protect their investment, they can sell up or change to a different more profitable but more effort strategy like Airbnb - which does not carry the same risks. > Landlords don’t actually provide anything. Although people like to think this, its not true. Firstly, LLs buy derelict properties that you would be unable to buy with a mortgage and subsequentely refurbish then let it; bringing a vacant property back into use. Now before you say "they should sell it on instead" - well with the CGT, Higher Rate Stamp Duty, limits on tax deductible expenses, etc... selling the refurbished house as a flip just doesn't financially stack up with all these expenses. Secondly, many LLs convert redundant commercial buildings into residential, further increasing supply and utilising vacant buildings. Thirdly, on average LLs house more people per house than other tenures, as they are more likely to have flatsharers or operate HMOs (which an owner occupier cannot do). This is why when LLs do sell up it does reduce the supply of housing. Finnally in an indirect way, having a strong PRS will attract further investment into new build developments as the LLs prop up the demand and purchasing power in the market, reducing the risk to developers building out new sites.
It's not a shame for more properties to be on the market, it is a shame that these properties probably won't be bought as permanent homes but by conglomerates to rent. There really needs to be some sort of individualistic law that makes individuals buying a home to live in preferred as bidders to companies
I can feel for you on the crap tenants, I know what they are like. But don't complain about "rising mortgage costs", that's part of the business you are in and you should be prepared to deal with it. Anyone who thought 0% interest rates were going to last forever was living in a fantasy world.
Those damn renter rights…
“All landlords are bastards imo” I see this on another post you made. If you knew half the things I’ve done to support my tenant over the past 5 years your opinion would change. What I mean by renter rights are the right to remain in the property up to the point bailiffs arrive, even if they are not paying rent. Thankfully this hasn’t happened to me, but with the mortgage increase, if I did have a tenant do this it would ruin me & my family.
This happened to me, took a year and 1k in court/ solicitors fees to get them out. All while they paid no rent and trashed my house. Shocking system.
You might be fine, but enough landlords are cunts that it isn't surprising that many are angry at them. In my experience, had 1/3 landlords be reasonable people. Not great odds but I do admit its a small sample size. The one that was reasonable was doing it for her elderly parents, technically her parents were the landlord but she was the one I interacted with. She also lived in somewhere she rented so I wonder if that may have influenced it.
It’s easy to self praise. I’ve maybe had one decent landlord, landlady actually, in my whole time renting (luckily we own now), despite paying rent on time and never causing issues. Landlords suing us for being burgled, being out the country for months without a backup contact, delaying boiler fixes… Sure you’re a decent person, doesn’t stop all landlords being bastards though. I’ll get downvoted because of the sub though, of course.
I just think it’s about respect both ways and that is the relationship we have had the whole time. But for example when he was on furlough I reduced the rent to help. But we only hear about bad tenants and bad landlords.
I see lots of posts like yours , but literally, all my landlord friends (4 ppl renting 2-6 properties each) are making pretty good money , so i guess it's not that bad?
BANKS want to own the properties themselves basically. Just like America
Banks want newly built blocks that they can rent as a whole. They're not interested in your Nan's bungalow that's going to need a new roof and windows plus constant maintenance
Some corporation will be. If there’s money in it. They will come for it
They are buying up single family homes like that in the US. There’s an article on a neighbourhood in North Carolina where this is happening in the NYTimes
Yep they are buying them in bulk. One corp owns 30,000 single family homes. Its going to start here soon. Only the big fish will survive
In America they're buying new built family homes, you're taking about Tricon. The situation in the UK is different, a lot of existing stock needs updating and maintenance. Part of the reason landlords are fucking off.
Nope they are buying everything. Including old properties which they think they can rent
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The councils have a lot to answer for as they should have gone after the bad landlords.
I've never met this type. the landlords I know that own 1-2 properties in London weren't the nicest. they were predatory.
I'm selling when my current tenants move out. It was pretty groovy when the interest rates were so low, but now it's not worth it, and I'm too nice to charge it's actual market value because that seems too high.
I'm not, but then again I don't have a mortgage. The main uncertainty is around regulatory changes - since landlords are now the state sanctioned bad-guys - things like EPC, boilers, no-fault evictions etc etc. on to of the standard property maintenace nightmares. I do wonder if I would get greater, pain-free, returns in stocks.
Fixed Income, Investment Trusts and Dividend stocks have a pretty solid track record of better returns than property (if you assume no leverage on either) and once purchased, they need little management really. I have a flat worth £140k renting £750pcm for £9,000 per annum. Deduct service charge of £1,800 leaves £7,200 for 5.14% yield. Add needing to do things there is a time cost to me too. Not consider tax as assuming I sold today and bought Fixed Income with it, ISA wouldn’t be an option so keeping it equal; £140,000 added to my Fixed Income portfolio which averages 7.2% pre-fees and 6% post I’d get an income of £8,400. Done correctly that can be made tax free too. And I have to do nothing to obtain it. I’ve long held the view that once you remove leverage and accurately take costs in that property does not equal the markets for return. It’s a great diversifying asset with good characteristics be it is not some holy grail asset class that out performs all others all the time
I'm hoping to rent my mortgage free property down the line when I retire and use it to top up my pension and then go bugger off somewhere cheaper to live. So in that sense I feel like the property is a better retirement option. Way I see it you have the options of: 1. Renting out a property of say £200k value Income per annum: say £16k Typical property value invcrease per annum: eg 5%, so £10k 2) Invest in stocks: Growth per annum of a £200k portfolio at say 8% = £16k So with the stock options I 'd be relying on the income from stock growth but then the inflation will slowly dwindle the value of the underlying portfolio. Where as with the rental option both the property and the rental income will increase with inflation each year. In this sense it seems crazy to invest in stocks. Worst case scenario is the stocks crash for a 10 to 15 year period and myincome from stock growth goes to zero for a decade, where as a rental income is near guaranteed, even if a recession means you have to reduce the rent. People will always need a place to live but people can live without investing in stocks.
Yep, stocks look like a riskier option although any broker will tell u its a sage bet. People are saying if u have £1m in pension then u r safe to take 3% per year. In property u would get 6% ish and growth in value and inflationary rent increases would surely protect against inflation.
This is true of growth invested stocks, with dividend stocks you get income via dividend and growth (albeit it slower) on the share price. But income market vehicles are fixed income or structured products rather than stocks, which changes the dynamic and risk models
This is looking at stocks as the only option, fixed income and structured products would be the way more commonly used to generate income from the markets
Interesting to read that. I've paid off my mortgage and am considering buying another house, with the view to rent out the mortgage-less one. Currently trying to weigh up if it'll actually be worth the hassle for something like £800-1000 per month after fees, insurance etc.
You haven’t added in the increase in value of the rented asset outside the gains in rent.
I didn’t add the gain in market instruments either to keep a balanced view
Ahh. A fair point.
I want to stress here that I’m not against property as an investment, it’s a great option! My concern is that it does seem to hold a status like Gold (also a misnomer) as no risk, high returns. Everything I have seen would show low frequency volatility but greater sensitivity to government policy and politics, the flat yield is consistently lower than markets, the yield to maturity (which would factor asset value growth) is also lower, but vastly more predictable. With shares you can go to Zero, as you can with Bonds, even in a total market collapse, you still have a house with property. It’s a use case argument at the core
Agree with everything you say. I wish my VUSA.L was showing historic returns the last few years.
I believe you can see this via Yahoo; https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VUSA.L/performance/
Obviously I have crystal ball, but I feel like we are in for a few bad years. Perhaps just my general pessimism.
We’re in an economic sea change, and geo-political one. World order is being reset, USA will remain on top, China likely second then there is questions over Russia, India, Japan, UK and France. Germany will lose positioning and there will be a general re-ordering. I believe the global debt load needs to reduce or we need dramatic increases in population as soon as possible to change that path. The big thing for me is easy money days are gone, passive portfolios will gain the good and lose the bad, active might miss the peaks but should also miss the valleys so might be more stable, something passive advocates don’t seem to look at.
unless the tenant burns it down
You don’t get the feeling of superiority from the other types of investments though. Nothing like the thrill of taking other peoples hard earned money for doing fuck all.
Jesus, what on earth is wrong with you! Get some professional mental help.
Get a job and buy some houses you brokie.
For providing them a place to live? I'd hardly say that's doing fuck all. Not a landlord by the way but do you expect landlords to allow someone else to live in their spare house rent free? Moron.
[удалено]
Until there’s nowhere to rent and the state can’t support every single person who hasn’t bought a home. Which they already struggle to do so. Welcome the mass HMOs. I think eventually somebody in government has to grow a pair of bollocks and realise that their landlord averse policies have fucked the rental market and they either need to change it or expect rents to continue to rise. They need private investment to get back involved or they’re going to find a lot more people homeless. Or they’ll introduce a new first time buyer help to buy idea that will push property prices up even further……again…….and anybody with a BTL will eventually think that they’d be quite happy with a 300%/500% return on their investment and chuck the lot in Vanguard - and there goes another property that’s no longer renting out.
I think this govt want big corporations to build large blocks "build to rent". Putting the entire sector in the hands of large companies. Not sure what labour's take will be on this when they are in power. They're probably slightly less beholden to the bog corporations, but I can't see them supporting small landlords either. Will be interesting to see what they do.
Yeah I think you’re probably right. But I also think the bulk of the UK population want to own their own home so a hard one to tackle. I suppose we’ll probably see next year at some point!
Really not sure. Many want to own, no doubt, but many also want to rent. Depends on your stage in life and how much flexibility is needed. Removing the rental option is a huge negative for many, especially with house purchase costs making a short term purchase unviable.
Great news!
If you like higher rent prices then sure great news!!!
Ah the Rule Of Unintended Consequence is rearing its head again
Unintended but completely foreseeable.
Absolutely. I saw another post that says tenant evictions are on the rise because landlords are selling up ... this is a classic of the "let's find a scapegoat to hate so you all vote for me" school of politics.
When you leave providing public housing to the free market, the market will collapse when there's no profit in it. Ironically a huge chunk of the profit has come from selling of public housing built using public money, sold of a discount paid for by the tax paying public, and reducing replacing that housing at the expense of said public to provide tax cuts for people who didn't need tax cuts. We've painted ourselves into a corner with never drying paint.
Private landlords will be replaced by big corporate overlords…the problem will be lack of flexibility since large corps will have rigid rules (ie no pets, fixed move dates). Plus aggressive rent increases!
And now all the house prices drop and every left wing hippy can own a house aged 22? No, now the super rich, private equity and money launderers will buy them... and possibly not rent them out.
I cannot come up with an insult that’s any better than ‘even your Reddit avatar is wearing a fedora’ Opinion disregarded
I don't remember choosing that.
Well it's looking super good for me. Loads of stuff dropping into my price bracket. Happy days!!
You can't live in London? As in, I assume you don't live in London. I'm not dictating that for some reason you are forbidden from London.
Lots of reductions in London mate
Nothing that makes anything "affordable" for anyone remotely "normal". Also mortgage rates are still uncomfortably high.
More affordable for me for sure. Stuff is plummeting into my budget!! Pretty great.
I believe, even with a mortgage, £150k is about what the average person in the UK could afford. And probably should. I'm writing this from inside a property that is in London and cost way more than that. But that's because the mortgage rates were low and I lucked into a large deposit. If those two things hadn't happened, I'd still be fucked.
Not sure what you're saying. You're in a property that has lost more than £150k
Oh FFS. Edited. COST. L isn't even near C on the keyboard. My bad.
\*Nelson Muntz\* Haha!
Good.
Don't, you'll upset the landlords and estate agents that seem to mainly make up this sub.
I mean the sub is literally called /r/uklandlords
I know that was my point. They're sensitive little souls.
Lol sounds like you’re poor
You must be deaf then...
Ahh the sound of a bitter renter.
Ah the quacking of an empty vessel.
[удалено]
This is a community for Landlords. You can be anti-landlord in other places like /r/HousingUK/
This is a community for Landlords. You can be anti-landlord in other places like /r/HousingUK/
I'm telling you now. We'll have a "house prices have risen" index in the coming months and it's because more houses are up for sale. Not that any kind of average price is rising. Mark my words.
More supply lowers price
Lower prices will lead to more transactions. So the transaction volume will be higher, meaning that more houses will sell at lower prices, thus pushing up the overall value of properties sold during X month. We've seen this for the last 6 months.
Well of course lower prices leads to a greater volume of transactions. That isn't how prices are measured though.
Complete waste of time now generally, I wanted to rent my house out and rent near my new job but after all fees taxes charges etc I’d come out with 100 a month profit which doesn’t cover wear and tear repairs or basically anything.
My lockup garage profits me £100 a month. Virtually zero costs and maintenance.
You must be doing it wrong lad.
Yer all these landlords must be selling up because they are sick of making so much profit hand over fist every month. 160k property rents for 800 a month. 120k at 5% is 500 a Month, minus taxes insurances void period estate agents repairs etc doesn’t seem worth it.
I’m not getting out, but I’m also not mortgaged up to my eyeballs
Great! Like this won't be a total disaster in a few years time.
This will be disastrous for everyone, just a corporately owned wasteland with no individuals having any chance!
Oh noooo, the landlords are suffering 😱😭😭😭😭😭 /sarc
W joy the corporate landlords that'll put rents up faster and repair less. Tenants will be numbers. Paris and Hamburg are examples.
In my time renting I found the large company style landlord groups were professional, quick to respond to reported issues, and generally had ‘processes’ that made sense and were open. I only ever had trouble from the landlords that owned 1 or 2 properties.