You're viewing a single thread.
They should abolish buy to let mortgages. How is it fair that a renter literally pays for the mortgage by proxy but doesn't have a stake in the home.
I am not being snarky. Can you explain your comment? I don't understand what you are saying.
A common landlord technique is putting a minimum down payment on a house and having their renters pay off the morgage. I think the above commenter is saying that it should not be allowed to get a massive loan on a house that you aren't going to live in.
People (talking mom & pop) should not be able to purchase a home simply for the purpose of renting it out.
I agree with that.
The problem is the reason people do that is because of a few things.
- The ROI is absolutely retarded. My last house (I live in don't rent) I made 800k in 10 years. That's insane. Find me an index that turns 500k into 1.3mil in 10 years
- Passive income if you don't do shit that landlords should be doing like regular maintenance.
The bourgeoisie loves this one neat trick: just let a few of the poors own a little something, and they'll fight off the rest of the poors without even needing to be told.
Seriously though, anyone want to sell out a generation for a bit of land and monies? I mean, you'll never be able to pay for unnecessary things with just values and integrity
I will go to my grave that society writ large is broken. It's not just the rich. Everyone has become a selfish turd out to get a buck on the backs of everyone else. The difference is that some of us are self-aware enough to see it in ourselves.
It's depressing if you don't step back and laugh at it all.
I was literally just thinking about this on my way home yesterday. Society is completely broken, there is no us only ME. this is especially terrible in the United States where we fetishize "rugged individualism." You don't care for anyone but yourself. Look out for #1...
So when the choice is "money for me" or "consider my impact on my surroundings" the result is "lmfao consider others? It would be stupid for me to not make this money at the expense of others."
Every shitty self serving decision made for ones own profit is the "smart thing" to do, even if it was literally destroying the entire town around you. I hate it.
This is just whataboutism thou. Are you a landlord?
Yes and I charge well under market value (like $500 under what I could get) and my tenant does not have to live on the street. Would you rather I kick her out or let her live in my house for free?
You are trying to pass the idea that society is already broken so everybody should just do what the fuck they want. Your are part of the side of society that is actually broken, so all your tirade sounds pretty hypocritical.
What are you talking about Willis? I said no such thing.
I live a simple life and surround myself with those who live a simple life.
As for hypocrisy, we are all hypocrites. If you don't think you are you're a liar which is worse IMHO.
Nah, you just want people's money and you are trying to feel morally ok about it, but deep inside you know it's not ok and never will
Ok?
S&P 500 did better than that in the last 10 years. I really hate that housing has gone the way it has, because on average it's not as insanely profitable comparable to other asset classes as people make it out to be, it's pretty comparable.
I wish it wasn't comparable though, because we're just parking a ton of cash to do nothing with it.
Capitalism is dumb.
True except it's a little different than equity investments because of the ease of leverage. No one is going to loan me a half million dollars to invest in the S&P500 but they'll have no problem giving me a house to rent out (if I can prove income).
Yeah that's true
I don't think the mom and pops are really the problem (in fact, this is I think one of the few viable ways for regular people to actually get ahead) but all of the things surrounding housing. One can get place renting for $2k, but can't get approved for that mortgage amount even with tons of history showing it's paid. Corporations owning massive amounts of property are also a much bigger problem. Appealing to an individual (mom and pop) is generally a lot easier than to try to appeal to a corp in which you're just Lessee #4949857 who's spreadsheet tells them to squeeze you for more money because.
Past that, I'd also argue renters need much more support when it comes to their rights because quite a lot of the things that people are posting here as anecdotes to why their landlords are shitty are already illegal, it's just extremely difficult to get anything done about it. I'd suggest also that there was some regulatory body (if one doesn't exist already) responsible for certifying housing/landlords because then at least shit would get fixed once a year.
My only half-decent experience renting was a blue-collar mom and pop who leveraged their own home to buy a second home to rent, that they rented significantly under market value. If anything, we should be trying to setup more systems that allow this outcome (they fucked me on the deposit though, but that's the part about renter's rights.)
One can get place renting for $2k, but can’t get approved for that mortgage amount even with tons of history showing it’s paid
I think the issue there is that there's more risk to mortgage companies than "tons of history showing it's paid". There's a reason they use complicated equations instead of interviews to make decisions related to risk. Questions that don't directly relate to someone being unable to pay mortgage:
- Will they take action that reduces the property value enough to put them underwater
- If they choose to walk away for some reason, what percent of our investment do we get back?
And with the rest of the equation, home ownership is higher risk than renting because a tenant isn't responsible for damage and repairs. If, for example, peeling asbestos gets discovered and you have to move out to fix it to the tune of $10,000 or more, will that homeowner be able to afford it? Will they just walk out and start renting somewhere? There's a lot of things not covered by homeowners insurance that can financially devastate a homeowner, and the mortgagee (bank) might notice an income disruption that a renter would not.
And #3 - redundancy so a family member doesn't end up homeless. I have family that does fairly well for itself. When their first kid turned 18, they bought a rental house in case she needed it someday. When their second kid turned 18, they bought a rental house in case he needed it someday.
So they own two buildings "for the purpose of renting it out". Building number 2 is now perma-"rented" to kid number 2 because he needed it.
Also, bullet point #1. The NDQ typical long-term return is approximately 11%. Due to recent bubble bursts, it's down to 10.4%. Importantly, that's almost exactly 1.3mil in 10 years from 500k. Everything I've ever read and learned from investing or investors repeats that rental real-estate is a stable investment, not an aggressive one.
Good points and I don't feel like counterpointing a lot of it because I'm tired.
I will say though on the returns. I used the 10 years in my house as an example but recall that was not a steady increase. Normally housing should be well below an index. What happened say the last 4 years was that the price of my house went from about 700k to 1.3mil. the 10 year example masks what I was saying. Houses had to 100% be returning more than an index the last 5 years otherwise how do you explain the rampant greed? Corporations AND individuals have been drunk on overleveraging on the residential market. They're not doing that for index rate returns otherwise they'd be in an RRSP.
Let = rent
That's interesting. In my state, rental rates are just plain higher than mortgage rates. Maybe that's why I've never heard of buy to let mortgages.
That's normal. The idea is you buy the house with a mortgage to then lease (let) out to tenants. The tenants then pay you rent equal to the mortgage plus a bit extra on top, which you use to pay the mortgage and make a profit.
Around here, it's not really linked. The heat of the apartment market is directly tied to the projected ROI, based on the demand of rental properties and the demand of rent itself. Like Bitcoin mining, sometimes the ROI gets really low or even negative in the short- or medium-term. The friction between the two factors tend to warm or cool one of the markets, but it takes times.
Consider/remember this. Many landlords aren't paying a mortgage, and don't need to tie rent to "a house's value at the time of purchase". They still profit when rent is below the average mortgage, or if rent is well above it. The only thing they care about is maximizing profits regardless of how full/empty their units are. Similarly on the renting side is lifestyle renters. They don't rent "because I can't afford a mortgage". They rent because they don't want to be tied down. They aren't ready to settle and might or might not move 1000 miles next year.
Those two categories are fairly numerous, and both present forces that influence the rental market independently from the purchase market. It means that places with less long-term demand like Detroit, Philly, or Houston have ownership TCO far lower than rent rates. Flip-side, there are just as many cities on the other side of the spectrum. The average rent in Austin is $2000/mo cheaper than mortgage payments on a starter home. In San Francisco, that difference is almost $3000/mo.
The rent is rent. It doesn't have to cover the mortgage all the time. It's not like someone rent is locked in for 30 years. And some bigger businesses will take the hit knowing the appreciation of the house will catch up or know they will buy a majority of the houses in the area and then raise rent that way to eventually be higher than the mortgage.
I never understood this sentiment. For single family homes the market sets the price. It's not like when you buy a house and use it for a rental all of sudden it's cheaper or more expensive in some way. You could make a price/demand argument but then again the underlying demand is housing not money hungry landlords. If there was not an underlying housing demand, no one would rent and it would fail as an investment.
How does the community serve those who want to rent? Apartments? Now that is where we can agree. Apartment valuation is calculated on operations not on the market. The only way to raise value of an apartment is to raise rent (or reduce expenses in some way but at some point you can only do so much). At least with SFH you have appreciation that landlords can factor in for return.
Lastly, 2 of my rentals were foreclosures. If anything I'm performing the city a service by buying these properties and adding value. If you had to choose, would you rather live next to a vacant house or a rental?
To answer your question, it's fair for a renter to not build equity because they don't pay for upkeep or have the risk associated with the loan. You have to put skin in the game at some point.
Edit: there are some good points for the other side of the argument if you keep reading. I don't know what the answer is but I'm not convinced that restrictions or to disincentivize rental operations is the answer.
never understood this sentiment. For single family homes the market sets the price. It's not like when you buy a house and use it for a rental all of sudden it's cheaper or more expensive in some way. You could make a price/demand argument but then again the underlying demand is housing not money hungry landlords. If there was not an underlying housing demand, no one would rent and it would fail as an investment.
Close. You're right there's no profit without demand. Now, consider what happens when certain entities with way more money than most of us comes along and decides they want to induce artificial scarcity by buying up and leaving empty a ton of houses.
Lastly, 2 of my rentals were foreclosures. If anything I'm performing the city a service by buying these properties and adding value. If you had to choose, would you rather live next to a vacant house or a rental?
They both kinda suck. I'd rather live next to someone who is invested in the property.
To answer your question, it's fair for a renter to not build equity because they don't pay for upkeep or have the risk associated with the loan. You have to put skin in the game at some point.
I could agree with this if rent was pegged to a percentage of the mortgage value. The issue is that the landlord makes a purchase and now owes, let's say, 1k/mo for everything. Rent, taxes, fees, etc.
They want to rent that place out, great. Maximum rent should be LESS THAN that 1k, because the landlord is already getting theirs, they're getting equity, and the only thing they have to do is upkeep they'd have to do regardless.
Apartment valuation is calculated on operations not on the market
Apartment valuation in my area spiked until the ROI crossed 10+ years. People stopped buying apartment buildings for a while except as owner-occupied with renters to assist. But in my area, none of those reach anywhere near a net-zero mortgage. The market absolutely still has an effect on valuation in most areas.
But two towns over, people are selling apartment buildings with 2-3 year ROIs, and they're being swept up by one of a small handful of investors. Building maintenance is terrible, and there's very little interest in the legal risk of being slumlords except those who are already slumlords over 40-50 buildings or more.
I beleive housing should be a privately owned venture, at least for suburb housing where the entire plot is included. Outside of that social schemes should purchase/build properties for rental purposes.
Like you said, the housing market is in demand. But how much of that demand is manufactured by landlords purchasing more property to rent versus real buyers looking to buy-to-occupy?
Your argument for cost of maintenance is part of the equation, however the rent costs should be the cost of maintenance and upkeep with a modest margin for investment. However that's not the case. Landlords want to take their cake and eat it. Rent is now the cost of the mortgage, AND maintenance/upkeep AND profit. Its a win for landlords and a lose for renters. If the renter is capable of paying the inflated rental costs on a regular, then they should be owning their own home. The current status-quo is unfair.
Just FYI, I am a home owner. I know the costs of mortgages, the risks that are involved and the maintenance costs of keeping a home running.