Rent controls - good or bad?

[Cyclone]

Selling something means getting the price right so if you couldn't sell is was because the price was too high, if you had dropped the price to the correct amount you would have sold, so renting it out was a choice brought about because you chose not to sell at the correct price.

I advertised at the price advised by the estate agents, we barely even had any viewings.

I made the right choice of course, because several years later I've now sold it for that same price. Dropping the price to sell it then would have left me worse off than I now am.

 

 

Yes the number dropped below the numbers that were being sold during the frenzied bubble that property speculators caused, but anyone wishing to sell their house were able to sell their house.

The numbers dropped way below the long term average.

Most people didn't WANT to sell at the reduced price. So as well as a shortage of credit there was a shortage of property on the market.

An effect which would only be worse in your imagined doomsday crash.

[-Boomer-]

[sarcasm] Landlords and really really nice people [/sarcasm]

[Cyclone]

Why would that be a problem, I live in my house so it doesn't matter if its worth £1000 or a £100,000. Falling house prices would help more people become home owners and wouldn't adversely affect those people that already own an home. It would only adversely affect multiple home owners so would be good for wealth redistribution and it would save billions in housing benefits.

 

This was your original post about this particular strand of the discussion.

 

Why would it be a problem for anyone if prices fell 90%.

 

You were given a list of reasons, but instead of accepting what is pretty obvious to everyone, you twist and turn in order to score some imaginary point and claim that massive house price devaluation wouldn't be a problem.

 

http://www.money.co.uk/article/1003161-what-does-negative-equity-mean-for-me.htm

 

Skip to the section about "You're in negative equity but want to sell". Something you claimed wouldn't be a problem.

You're in negative equity and need to sell?

If you need to sell your home you'll be responsible for making up the shortfall between the outstanding owed your mortgage and the amount you make from the sale.

 

It's important to be aware that your lender will need to give their express permission for you to arrange the sale if the likely return is less than your outstanding mortgage.

 

And

 

You're in negative equity and your mortgage deal is coming to an end?

If you're in negative equity it's going to be very difficult to arrange a new mortgage once your current deal comes to an end. For this reason it can be a good idea to talk to your existing provider to try and re-negotiate a new deal.

 

If you're unable to do this then it's likely that you'll simply be moved onto your lender's standard variable rate (SVR) once your current deal ends. How this will affect your finances will depend on whether the SVR is higher or lower than the rate of interest you're currently tied to as part of your deal.

 

If the rate is lower than what you're currently paying, then it's likely that your repayments will decrease too. However, it's important to realise that they could rise at any time so you'll need to be prepared for this eventuality. If you have finances available this could be a good opportunity to pay extra on your mortgage so that you begin to build equity in your home.

 

If, on the other hand, the rate is higher than what you're currently paying, then your repayments are likely to rise. It's a good idea to prepare for this by saving as much as you can in the months leading up to the end of your mortgage deal as this will help you to cope with the 'payment shock'. However, if your mortgage payments become really unaffordable then you will need to speak to your lender about your options.

 

So, in the doomscrash scenario, nearly everyone with a mortgage is in negative equity, BTL landlords have all gone bust, pretty much nobody with a mortgaged house is able to move house, nor are they able to remortgage when their current deal ends. Repossessions rise as the entire economy falters and job cuts start...

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 08:45 ----------

 

And all trigger by this suggestion

maybe it won't be too long before Cameron announces that tenants of private landlords could also have the RTB with a discount similar to HA tenants.

[loraward]

I advertised at the price advised by the estate agents, we barely even had any viewings.

I made the right choice of course, because several years later I've now sold it for that same price. Dropping the price to sell it then would have left me worse off than I now am.

 

The numbers dropped way below the long term average.

Most people didn't WANT to sell at the reduced price. So as well as a shortage of credit there was a shortage of property on the market.

An effect which would only be worse in your imagined doomsday crash.

 

If you had no viewing the price advertised was the wrong price, if you had wanted to sell you would have sold, but instead you chose to rent it out, so you became a landlord through choice and not because it was forced upon you. Selling when prices are low would means you are buying your next property whilst prices are low, but because some people are greedy they want to sell at an high price and buy at a low price, its this greed that slowed the market. The less greedy managed to sell and buy during the slow down which was brought about by the greedy.

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 09:10 ----------

 

This was your original post about this particular strand of the discussion.

 

Why would it be a problem for anyone if prices fell 90%.

 

You were given a list of reasons, but instead of accepting what is pretty obvious to everyone, you twist and turn in order to score some imaginary point and claim that massive house price devaluation wouldn't be a problem.

 

http://www.money.co.uk/article/1003161-what-does-negative-equity-mean-for-me.htm

 

Skip to the section about "You're in negative equity but want to sell". Something you claimed wouldn't be a problem.

 

 

And

 

 

 

So, in the doomscrash scenario, nearly everyone with a mortgage is in negative equity, BTL landlords have all gone bust, pretty much nobody with a mortgaged house is able to move house, nor are they able to remortgage when their current deal ends. Repossessions rise as the entire economy falters and job cuts start...

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 08:45 ----------

 

And all trigger by this suggestion

 

People in negative equality would be the minority because most property is owned out right, some have mortgages but not massive when compared to the perceived value of their house, and a monitory have mortgages that they should have never taken out, buying something for more than it was worth is a risky business.

[poppet2]

I advertised at the price advised by the estate agents, we barely even had any viewings.

I made the right choice of course, because several years later I've now sold it for that same price. Dropping the price to sell it then would have left me worse off than I now am.

.

 

What year did you try to sell your property and over what period of time?

[psynuk]

 

Nearly all made from house price inflation.

 

no, about 50/50 rent profit to house price increase.

I don't begrudge her the profits, she was a **** and absent landlord granted but that suited me fine.

The point I was making was that it's not all doom and gloom for landlords, if it were, there wouldn't be such a clamouring to become one.

 

I accept there are risks, but you'll not hear a massive amount of sympathy because mostly the landlord is getting a very good deal out of the situation, to the general detriment of a lot of other people. Just taking advantage of a situation they didn't create really doesn't make them a bad person, maybe they're exacerbating others problems (1st time buyers mostly) which does?

But that's because pensions are mostly garbage, savings are too and stocks and shares are often dangerous. property is the only way in a lot of ways.

 

But still, rent controls probably do have their place in places where the market is turning parasitic ie London and possibly a few city centres.

that rent control need could mostly be cured by social housing though, and we all know why that's been buggered up.

Edited April 29, 2015 by psynuk

[Cyclone]

What year did you try to sell your property and over what period of time?

 

2012 to 13 I believe, and for nearly a year before I decided to let it.

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 09:50 ----------

 

If you had no viewing the price advertised was the wrong price, if you had wanted to sell you would have sold, but instead you chose to rent it out, so you became a landlord through choice and not because it was forced upon you. Selling when prices are low would means you are buying your next property whilst prices are low, but because some people are greedy they want to sell at an high price and buy at a low price, its this greed that slowed the market. The less greedy managed to sell and buy during the slow down which was brought about by the greedy.

So you admit that a small drop in house prices caused a large slow down in the market.

A massive drop in house prices would make the market entirely illiquid.

 

People in negative equality would be the minority because most property is owned out right

I'd love to see some figures on that.

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 09:52 ----------

 

no, about 50/50 rent profit to house price increase.

I don't begrudge her the profits, she was a **** and absent landlord granted but that suited me fine.

The point I was making was that it's not all doom and gloom for landlords, if it were, there wouldn't be such a clamouring to become one.

 

I accept there are risks, but you'll not hear a massive amount of sympathy because mostly the landlord is getting a very good deal out of the situation, to the general detriment of a lot of other people. Just taking advantage of a situation they didn't create really doesn't make them a bad person, maybe they're exacerbating others problems (1st time buyers mostly) which does?

But that's because pensions are mostly garbage, savings are too and stocks and shares are often dangerous. property is the only way in a lot of ways.

 

But still, rent controls probably do have their place in places where the market is turning parasitic ie London and possibly a few city centres.

that rent control need could mostly be cured by social housing though, and we all know why that's been buggered up.

 

She made 50k in rental profit on a BTL property in 7 years. Did I understand correctly?

[psynuk]

A bit over £44k , so not far off. amazingly I considered it a good price for the property

[geared]

[sarcasm] Landlords and really really nice people [/sarcasm]

 

[sarcasm]Tenants are really really nice people]/Sarcasm]

 

---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 12:00 ----------

 

A bit over £44k , so not far off. amazingly I considered it a good price for the property

 

You begrudge them for making a good (or lucky) business decision??

[psynuk]

no, maybe you should read what I wrote?

 

I don't begrudge her the profits, she was a **** and absent landlord granted but that suited me fine.