Good. Fuck landlords. There should be a law they can only own multi family units.
Why would that push them to sell?
Costs rising more than 3% a year. Since it’s California I’d imagine the insurance is going up much faster than 3% of total ownership costs. If small landlords cannot stay in the black because they can’t afford the insurance with capped rent increases they will sell to the entities that can afford to self-insure. Corporations like BlackRock
Blackrock and other REIT’s should be abolished. Using single family homes as an investment vehicle is what got us into this, we need to regulate the bad actors out of the marketplace.
everything is an investment if you’re stupid enough or the supply is pathetic enough.
After reading a comment by another poster I don’t think these are “small” landlords, at least not mega-corporate buyers, but the kind that serial buy properties leveraging the assets to buy more. So not someone that bought an investment or two but someone buying as many as they can get away with. Maybe the bigger fish are doing it too… but anyway, they don’t have the profit margin on the rates they took the loans that are now rising. They probably didn’t do fixed rates, as you wouldn’t as a non-homeowner. So rates went from 3% to what…8%? Margin is eaten up along with inflation, labor costs, materials, etc.
Screw ‘em. They just want to make the renter eat it so they can profit, I have zero sympathy and I hope they go bankrupt.
The running costs are not only insurance costs. The insurance “crisis” e.g. entirely predictable results of climate change affects everyone and why would the tenants have to foot the increased risk of damage to their landlords property?
Finally i doubt that it will just be swept up by actors like Blackrock. If the profit is limited due to the law, then the value of the property will reduce until equilibrium at which point each solvent market actor has equal opportunities. Because of the 10 Million property values now at 6 Million, the insurance rate will react accordingly.
Because they’re over leveraged. They’ve purchased assets when rates were low and now that rates have gone up they haven’t factored this into their profit margins and would either go under or not make enough.
It’s disgusting. If you have enough money to play the game you should have enough money to live with the consequences and a tenant isn’t your get out of jail free card for your shitty planning.
What is this? Making risky business decisions and getting both private profit and taking private risk? Get out of here you damn socialist! America is when the profits are privatized and the losses are socialised!
Ok. So they’re playing the old game of leveraging assets (properties) to buy more and painting themselves in a corner because of rates. Well, fuck these serial buyers squeezing the market. Hope they do get forced to sell.
I don’t understand. If they get a fixed rate at the time of purchase what difference does it make that rates have gone up?
Very often these aren’t traditional fixed-rate mortgages. That’s what they probably have on their “primary” home, but when you’re buying homes with the explicit purpose of using them as income generators, the landscape of available loans changes.
Thank you for a very well explained response. Also in countries like Canada mortgage terms are redone every 5 years on average making us much more susceptible to rate changes than in America.
Because they’re over leveraged. They’ve purchased assets when rates were low and now that rates have gone up they haven’t factored this into their profit margins
Nobody forced them to make risky business decisions.
This is the consequences of their actions and shouldn’t be anyone else’s problem.
Nobody forced them to make risky business decisions.
Exactly… you want to make a nearly risk free investment? Try a long term bank deposit or invest in government bonds.
I agree 100%
“what do you mean a vampire shouldn’t suck so much blood? might as well put a stake through my unbeating heart!”
Oh yes I think selling a great idea!
If someone buys a home that was rented. Would the cap apply to them? Because this might result in a loophole
That’s a good question. But keep in mind that they’re are significant taxes associated with selling a home in most places that would dissuade landlords from trying to game the system that way. Then again, they’re just one more loophole from making that plan work.
So it’s a win-win then?
Cheaper homes in L.A.? We can’t have that!
Reminds me of: https://youtu.be/fS9PvVCyazY
The poor little landlords! They have to find something else to do with their lives besides sitting on their rear ends most of the month and laughing all the way to the bank once a month.
Well, the British government has introduced a lot of changes recently, that made the landlord lives harder and landlords did start to sell. Now we have a situation, where people fight over places to rent, most places don’t even get advertised, people take them without viewings and rent prices have skyrocketed. All while housing stock in general got noticeably reduced. And, of course, homelessness is through the roof.
landlords did start to sell
while housing stock in general got noticeably reduced
I’m not sure how those two things can coexist. So landlords started selling but then nobody that owned just one property sold so despite the influx of properties being listed for sale, the stock reduced? So there’s fewer rental units which has people trying to get into them but there aren’t more people purchasing the properties?
These types of policies also affect the types of units that get built. If rental units are a risky business move, then more construction will go towards larger single family homes, which are 1) less space efficient (fewer units), but 2) much more expensive (so the builder gets their money’s worth)
The other thing is with rent control, housing stock will decrease because people will not move. If you are in a rent controlled unit, you’re very strongly incentivised to never leave : because while your rent has been grandfathered to a low price, when you move you’ll suddenly starting paying the inflated rates everyone else has been paying to offset the sub-market rents you had. Live in the same place long enough and this could be a 1000% increase.
The problem is raising rents are always due to lack of supply. I used to be very supportive of rent control but realized it’s just a shitty band-aid on the real problem - lack of housing.
It will keep rents low for a bit, but won’t fix the fundamental problem that allows high rents in the first place: and people will still struggle to find housing.
And you can bet your ass that any new will have massively increased rent or prices to compensate.
The real fix, like everywhere else, is to kick out the nimbys and allow building again
It will force them to sell, which will perhaps make buying a home more affordable, so less people have to pay rent and more people pay a mortgage on a home they bought.
While I sympathize with high rent prices, it’s still no different than say someone who owns a Wedding venue and rents out the location, tables, chairs, etc. They paid for the initial investment and are making money off of it through rental. That’s how investments work. Otherwise, what benefit is there to owning it outside of selling it outright.
You are mistaken. I mean, I got married, and I rented a space for it. I payed it once. It’s 20 years behind me. It was a one time deal. The two have nothing to do with each other. You’re obviously kinda dumb. Or lazy. Or both. I mean, come one, that’s your comment? It’s so stupid.
People require housing. They dont require wedding venues
Yes, but it isn’t fair to expect anyone to provide housing at their own personal loss. I agree that people need homes, and we’re on the same page there. However, consider it this way. If you could earn more by charging a higher amount, would you charge less out of generosity, or would you try to maximize your income? This applies to anything. If you’re selling a car, would you sell it for less just to be nice, or would you sell it to the highest bidder? People need cars too. You see my point?
people don’t need cars the same way they need shelter and food. I’m sick of landlords acting like they’re providing some kind of social service when they financially benefit from the arrangement at the expense of the tenant, whom unlike the landlord has nothing to show for years of renting, where the landlord has now paid off their mortgage and has more capital to purchase further properties… Its an inherently self concentrating system - a renter will struggle more to buy a single property than a landlord does to add “another investment to their portfolio” through more favourable loan securitization and asset evaluation.
Landlords provide housing the same way scalpers provide tickets - considering they amass a huge majority of a working individual’s income despite contributing nothing themselves and sitting sedentary for their serfs to pay their wages, I dont really give a shit what income maximisation they pursue. Anything more than a dollar is a profit, and one which they are just as likely to have “earned” from inheritance as they are from any actual hard work and skilful property quisition.
If it’s so tragic and unprofitable to be a landlord, might I suggest selling up and getting the fuck out of the equation, instead of playing monopoly with the housing supply and acting like you’re a saint for refusing to fix the fucking mould problem, so I can pay for your ugly family’s next holiday instead of having a stable roof over my head.
I have no vested interest, as I’m not a landlord. My point is that people generally won’t settle for less when they can earn more. Regardless of how essential the item or service is, businesses and individuals will always aim to maximize their earnings if the market allows it. It would be a poor financial decision not to. Whether someone feels resentful because others profit off of them (which, by the way, is all of us in America when we buy foreign goods who use children for harvesting raw materials or other labor), it’s irrelevant to the situation. It isn’t going to change until God changes it.
Then don’t provide housing at all, let the market be affordable enough that people can buy housing. All rental companies provide is a funnel to keep the impoverished from saving their money to buy a home they can’t fathom according anyways. Same thing with house flippers. Buying a shit hole and giving it a paint job should not make it worth 3x the value you bought it at. Affordable housing is not the job of citizens, it is the job of the government and the government is doing its job making said housing, more attainable through rent caps.
If the government gets involved, the owners will just sell, making homeownership even more unaffordable and reducing rent options. What you want is less greed in the world, and that isn’t going to happen in its current state.
I’m not the one downvoting you, but I think this is where you might lose me - I agree that people will buy housing and rent it out if they can make a profit, and we’ve had landlords doing that basically forever. But if the government gets involved and owners sell, I don’t see how home ownership can be more unaffordable. Basically we have a hugely constrained supply of housing. If, say, there were 50 skyscrapers full of apartments that went up overnight in San Francisco that charged $1000/month, rents would have to go down everywhere else because there would be the introduction of so much supply that nobody would pay more than that cost (because that’s the alternative to where they’re living now). Obviously that’s a fantasy scenario, but the various governments (city, state, and fed) all are not doing anything to move towards that goal, which would create supply equal to demand. If current landlords sell, then that would drive prices further down, not up - you’re literally increasing the supply again, and also because they will be competing against each other to sell, it should drive down prices for those homes as well.
Maybe everything should be capped at 3% since that’s the standard BS bonus we all get each year.
Oh man, I wish…
You get a bonus?
Aww… Yeah, if you don’t, move to a different job 😉. Easier said than done, I know. My dad and mom never got bonuses of significant value but when they did get extra money as bonus they were so happy. I get a bonus but I’m not really money driven. It makes my wife happy.
“Landlords say that would push them to sell.”
So, you’re saying it would increase available housing supply? Sounds great.
Oh, and for the record, they will not, in fact, sell. Most housing in Ontario is still under a 2% annual rent increase limit. Landlords are doing just fine (and by “Just fine” I of course mean “We have a national housing crisis because landlords are hoarding all the available supply”)
I think there is quite an easy solution to the housing issue we’re facing: exponential tax increase per property.
There is no reason for someone to own more than one property in a city. No reason at all. But even if you could find one - let’s say the first 2-3 properties (defined as houses/apartments of less than X area each) have regular taxes. But then? Then it gets retarded. 500k more per year for the fourth one. 4 mil extra a year for the fifth. 50 mil extra for the sixth. One billion for the seventh. You’re a property developer? You have until 2 years after the property was finisbed to make sure someone has bought every little bit of it, otherwise that 40 apartment building will end up costing you twice the foreign debt.
Can’t pay the taxes? You can always sell the place, at a fair market value. Let’s say your two uncles died in a short timespan and they both left you their houses, but you had some property already and now you’re up to 5 residential properties but you’re not prepared to pay the extra few million. You can always list their houses. Every month they are listed and don’t get bought, you reduce the price by 5%. Overvaluing the property gets it confiscated - you surrender your property to the state, which then distributes it to those in need in a lottery. You can also opt to just give away some of your less desirable properties directly instead of trying to sell them.
But no, that’d be sudden death for all the retards who keep building, all the fuck heads who keep buying and holding, and all the politicians whose pockets get padded for listening to whichever lobby.
This would driving down the cost of housing because of an increase in inventory. Sell them to whom? Other landlords? Or would it be workers?
I think I just found my latest political campaign
Private landlords would just sell to large corporate landlords who could profit with smaller margins.
And these corp landlords can choose to not rent any longer, let the property remain empty for the legal length of time and then start renting again at the new and more profitable higher rate.
I don’t know the laws in California, but isn’t there just a surplus of houses empty for this very reason? If you look at the numbers, they could be sitting on these houses and get low interest loans on the value, which earns higher invested interest elsewhere. Anyone squatting can get away with it because the company will just do the legal route and get more money from these people (even if it’s debt that just hangs over their heads for a while). The rich just keep getting richer…
Sounds like that should be blocked too.
There was a proposal about how there should be heavy fees if you own more than one house, which would solve this problem.
Great. That isn’t going to happen and doesn’t fix the initial problem.
large corporate landlords who could profit with smaller margins.
Could, but typically refuse to.
I’m guessing landlords would just property swap.
Buy, evict, rent at a higher price
good, get a real job
My mom is in her sixties, not everyone wants to work until the day they die
Guess she should have saved for retirement then like the rest of us have to do.
How does a housewife save for retirement?
With the money that put a roof over her head and food in her mouth, same as the rest of us.
My dad’s no longer paying anything to her, and he wasn’t contributing to any retirement account for her when they were married
Guess he should have been doing that. And maybe she should have been somewhat aware of their financial situation. It sounds like your mom is a product of her own poor decisions.
She’s doing fine as a landlord, thank you
In LA County, looks like the median home price is $1M. The proceeds of such a sell, combined with presumed other typical sources of retirement income and social security should provide for an above-average retirement lifestyle.
I’m not talking about LA county, which this article is about, but just the general idea that every landlord can just go and get a job.
Also, 1 million only lets you take out a maximum of $40,000 per year safely which is not above average. Social security? Is that still $900 a month? That’s way below the median income in LA county even when added together.
You’re also assuming the mortgage is completely paid off
Considering the proposal is only about LA county, figure I’d use that, but we can consider things either way.
I would expect that whatever means had the retiree have both a home and at least another property left them with other typical sources of passive income. So in aggregate, I would expect social security, with retirement savings, plus the value of the house produces an overall viable income.
Whether the mortgage is paid off or not is immaterial unless they are somehow “upside down” on it. If the mortgage is not paid off, then selling it also removes the mortgage payment.
But let’s say that it is unreasonable to sell, maybe somehow the person has all of their money tied up in the property and can’t sell the property for an amount to get enough passive income. This measure would not force her to sell, it simply caps her rental income increase to 3% a year. Her property value may go up, but that doesn’t make her mortgage go up (if she even has one). County assessments would make her tax bill increase some, though generally a pittance. Even if you are concerned about the tax bill, you could have some clause that assessments or property tax for people with rental properties is similarly capped if the owner is subject to a rental income cap. In most contexts, the ability to guarantee oneself a 3% a year raise would be pretty respectable.
What a bad-faith argument. People who do every single other job have managed to save for retirement.
deleted by creator
Housing is not suppose to be an investment. It’s suppose to HOUSE people. That fact that it is the most profitable investment is a failure of the legislature.
deleted by creator
One more time for the slow people I guess:
Housing can’t be affordable AND a good investment. Investments have to grow above inflation. Affordable things CAN’T grow above inflation.
Another bad economics take from swinging koala, must be a day ending in Y
Ok so then stop investing in assets whose prices are propped up by the state. 🎻
deleted by creator
Ok so then why are you calling these rent-seeking parasites “savers”? They’re relying on state violence for their investment to make any return at all.
Anything that becomes a vehicle for savings will have a higher market price than it otherwise would. Higher housing prices hurt tenants and taxpayers, higher imaginary points prices hurt nobody.
These pricks aren’t your buddies and they aren’t “saving”. Fuck 'em.
