Everywhere housing prices went way up, I doubt everywhere had the same issues with regulations since the 70s.
Now let's talk about cheap credit...
All the other factors certainly contribute, but cheap credit only affects how much the most desperate buyer is able to pay. This becomes the limiting factor almost everywhere, meaning that prices would be equally unaffordable if credit wasn’t cheap.
Building much more is the only fundamental solution, as this will reduce the proportion of desperate buyers. But of course local democracy prevents that - meaning, the problem persists indefinitely and we’re only wasting time discussing it.
I disagree with this statement, cheap credit allows banks to offer longer term mortgages and buyers able to afford a larger principal with the same per-month cost, pushing the prices upwards due to keeping payments low on a per-month basis, due to low interests and longer term plans.
This definitely pushes the price of all market upwards. It's a similar effect to tuition costs in the US, cheap credit, bankruptcy laws make them pretty safe for banks to take risk, flooding the market and allowing universities to hike prices.
Building is fundamental, but cheap credit has an upwards pressure in price, magnifying the effect.
All in all, I completely agree with your take on the solution. Build fucking more, population and specially cities have grown quite a lot on the past 3-4 decades, we still live with most dwellings built then than now.
The interest rate is the "price" of money. Central banks controlling the interest rate effectively practice price controls for debt. Much has been written about price controls, but fundamentally they create inefficiencies. Unfathomable amounts of debt have been completely misallocated in pursuit of whatever the goal of interest rate control has been.
Profit margin at the publicly listed UK house builders in around 30%
The point is that cheap credit (mortgage regulation) significantly raises the upper bound on this limit.
Countries could build new housing faster than the population grows, but as long as it can be scooped up by the wealthy for renting out, the scarcity would prevail.
(It would be different if the wealthy were buying these houses to live in them or to leave them empty, as that would increase demand and constrain supply. Happening in London, Vancouver and a bunch of other places, I think. Also sort of like what happened with the quinoa fad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinoa#Effects_of_rising_deman...)
Buying a house is not that easy. You need a bank to approve your mortgage, plus pay upfront money (plus pay for furniture and such) that people might not have because high rent prices stop them from saving money. More renters and less buyers might cause more wealthy people entering the market for speculation, compensating the decrease of people that want to buy to live. And on the other hand, given that housing is a necessity and not something that people can live without, landlords can still push prices up even with increased offer.
In general, I see a lot of takes on the housing market that focus too much on the theory and forgets the reality: people need houses, moving is not easy nor cheap, speculators and realtors can push prices up without that much pressure, and a lot of people don't have enough to face the expenses of buying a house.
Side note: It's heartening that the HN community has evolved in the last 10 years -- the current top comments wouldn't have been at the top 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. While I think there is still a long way to go, it has come far from almost unbridled worship of PG, libertarianism and "meritocracy".
This might be true if one could get as cheap and deep leverage on alternative investments as a house mortgage.
Running an economy on feelings is a sure way to ruin an economy. People who buy multiple dwellings would be more than happy to rent them. Renting is good. It provides a liquid market to access housing. If the market is efficient, rent or buy should be a preference rather than a financial decision: The financial impact should be the same.
If people refuse to rent, or sell their property then you have something wrong with your economy (too much regulations, people are afraid of devaluation, etc...). You don't fix a structural problem of an economy by implementing a per-person limit to buy houses.
[House] renting is only "good" for the people making a profit off it. For the actual renters it's patently absurd.
"Rent-seeking" is a term with negative connotations for a reason.
"Rent" in an economic context refers to "any payment to an owner or factor of production in excess of the costs needed to bring that factor into production" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent) as opposed to profits or wages: without a profit nobody would invest in anything and without wages nobody would work so these are both necessary costs. In a well-functioning market the monthly payment to your landlord is primarily a compensation for the cost of capital (profit) as well as administration and maintenance (wage), though of course if there's a bubble in the housing market, landlords will be happy to take advantage of that too (rent).
- the hotel model is a poor one for general, large-scale provision of shelter, and - the arrangement is heavily biased in favour of the hotel owner.
I always ask people who rent to take some time - whether now, or in the next ten or twenty years - to calculate how much they have spent on rent so far and how much they are still projected to spend for the rest of their lives. And then consider that they get no tangible asset for the often mind-boggling amounts the total comes to; that, in fact, they may have actually paid for other people's houses several times over with nothing to show for it. The situation is somewhat tenable when the landlords actually own their properties outright, but in the modern real estate world they are more often just middlemen that shuffle money between the renter and the bank.
I wish more people would question why the provision of shelter has become such a runaway profit-making machine, but I'm not holding my breath.
We recently bought the house we used to rent. If we would have continued to rent for 25 years, then, adjusting for inflation, that would cost us maybe 300K. That's a lot of money and you have nada at the end, you're absolutely right. But our loan plus interest plus insurance plus the leaky roof that is now up to us to fix plus 1% of your house's value for maintenance every year plus property taxes... napkin math puts it at 600K after 25 years. At that point it's ours, but meanwhile it will be harder for us to move if we have to, our monthly payment is twice what our rent was, and all of our savings are in the house so we have no money to invest in stock, less to save for retirement (tax-free) and less money if we decide we want to do something crazy like start a business. Psychologically it's a mixed bag as well: it's really nice to know something is yours, but you also start noticing a lot of things you don't like that previously you just didn't care about, and we're on the hook whenever something breaks down. We're happy with our choice, but surely you see that it's not a slam dunk in favor of one option or the other?
Ban renting of single family dwellings, but allow and encourage it where increased density is achieved (apartments, condos, multiplexes, etc). Owners of single family dwellings will scramble to convert their rentals to duplexes / multiplexes and create the additional inventory while companies acquire multiple properties to convert into apartment complexes.
However when we settled down with kids priorities changed, living close to a train station with good connections for work was less important, school catchment areas were, and the main importance is stability. The longest rental contract you can take in the UK is 3 years, after that who knows what will happen - maybe the owner will sell up, maybe they'll double the rent. A 5 year or even 10 year fixed mortgage gives certainty.
But the key thing is we wouldn't be able to rent if nobody owned properties they didn't live in.
In the UK the equivalent of 'zoning' regulations keeps M low. Government 'help to buy' here exacerbates the problem as it directly increases N without directly increasing M.
The fundamental model here is musical chairs.
The problem with the council house sell off was not replacing them on a 1:1 ratio -- for every house sold, a new one was built.
It also reduces the number of people renting, which lowers rental prices, which is also good.
It may increase the price of new houses for cash buyers. I have little sympathy for people that wealthy.
If you want to get more houses built, institute a land value tax. Taylor Wimpy owns 6,000 heactares of land. With just 25 houses per hectare, that's 150,000 unbuilt houses across the country. Assuming that a land value tax would replace council tax that would be about £1500 a year tax, or £225m a year in tax, maybe that would encourage them to speed up construction rather than building them at a rate that maximises profits.
At least you agree that there is a problem with supply.
> It also reduces the number of people renting, which lowers rental prices, which is also good.
Converting renters into buyers without building more housing reduces both the demand for and the supply of rental housing. This will not reduce rental prices.
> It may increase the price of new houses for cash buyers. I have little sympathy for people that wealthy.
Your sympathy is not required, but you should at least see how landlords paying higher prices for housing leads to higher rents for tenants.
HTB is only available on new homes so not removing any stock
> Your sympathy is not required, but you should at least see how landlords paying higher prices for housing leads to higher rents for tenants.
Why? Someone is either willing to pay £1k a month for renting a place or not, they care not for the cost of the house they are renting.
> you should at least see how landlords paying higher prices for housing leads to higher rents for tenants
I owned a flat, I rented it out for the maximum amount of money I could get for it (balanced against other things like reliablity of tennant etc). It doesn't matter how much the flat sells for.
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/75180448#/ sold in November 2006 for £150k, it's now worth about £320k, it's being rented out for £1k a month because people will pay £1k a month, it has nothing to do with how much it was bought for, only what people will pay.
Okay, increasing the supply of housing will lower prices regardless of whether they are rented out or bought.
> Someone is either willing to pay £1k a month for renting a place or not, they care not for the cost of the house they are renting.
Sure, but landlords do care and won't buy property to make it available for renting if they don't expect to be able to cover the cost. This decreases the supply of rental housing, which means fewer options and higher prices for tenants. If they already own the property and can't manage to get tenants paying rent which represents a competitive return on their capital (i.e. the current market value of the property) then they'll sell to someone looking to either own the property outright or demolish it and redevelop some other form of property. Either way it removes the housing from the rental market.
> … now worth about £320k, it's being rented out for £1k a month because people will pay £1k a month …
So the owner is only getting a 3.75% return on their £320k investment. That's not completely terrible, but it still essentially has negative value compared to the opportunity cost of selling the property and investing the proceeds. This is not a sustainable situation.
> … it has nothing to do with how much it was bought for, only what people will pay.
That much is true. The original purchase price doesn't matter in hindsight. (Obviously it does matter when deciding whether the property is worth purchasing to begin with.) Aside from calculating capital gains/loss for taxes, what counts after the purchase is only what the property would sell for now, not the amount that was originally paid.
They will charge what they can. If they aren't happy with the return, they can sell the house and invest the money in DOGE or whatever, that means more houses for people to buy, higher supply leads to lower prices, which is good (with very limited exceptions - mainly of those in negative equity looking to move or remortgage)
Or libertarians, because government subsidies distort the market and all that.
> Taylor Wimpy owns 6,000 heactares of land.
UK has 25 million hectares of land, ~2m in the south east. The problem isn't Taylor Wimpy owning all of the unbuilt ones. The London greenbelt is 500k hectares. That's a more plausible bottleneck. Considering 'London greenbelt' is just one dimension of regulation on housing construction and Taylor Wimpy presumably owns land outside south east.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_Act_1980
> By 2013, some tenants who had purchased their council flats, sold them later to speculators, investors or property companies. By 2013, a one-bedroom council flat that sold for £50,000 in the early 1990s, for example, had a market price of £250,000.[9] A tight housing market led to increased rent as construction of new homes decreased.[9]
https://www.thelocal.es/20140225/spain-worst-in-europe-for-e...
It's not like our government will get EU's permission to let the banks fail or something...
The banks in question are essentially in agreement about prices and work together to keep them inflated. That's essentially cartel formation and needs to be prosecuted.
From a social standpoint, denying folks a roof over their head just because you want some numbers on a paper to look good should already mean that everyone ostracizes you. It's unquestionably evil.
Revolving doors... and all.
Maybe change could be enacted on the local government level which is the power more easily sizeable by real people and not political drones, in order to hijack current zoning laws which as far as I know are heavily concentrated down to local adminstrations like -ayuntamientos-, which in itself seems to be what's making things more complicated as corruption is harder to spot there, even if it's more obviously done than at higher levels... Anyways...
Maybe a return to the ghost villages once a job is not easily found in a city but online, but remote seems hard to implement here locally on a culture level at least until a couple generations of older folks retire from management, where one could get cheap land and construct with fairly advanced and economically minded new construction processes, like 3d printing homes or whatever, maybe...
But at the end of the day, we're still fucked, paying high rents for small jails in highly contaminated city centres... One can only dream to retire on the countryside for now.
It seems as if high housing prices are an explicit policy of most major powers at this time.
No, not really.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/240991/average-sales-pri...
> Didn't various governments put vast amounts of money into the economy in an effort to ensure house prices returned to their previous levels and continued to rise?
No.
They put lots of money into the economy as Keynesian economic expansion policy, to combat unemployment.
House prices simply weren’t as dramatically effected as you seem to think. Check the statistics on the previous link if you don’t believe me.
That's true in the US and UK.
I'd contend that preventing massive asset depreciation, including housing, was an explicit policy of every major economic power in North America, Europe and China. I don't know, but suspect other major economic powers also participated in that, but I'm not as well versed.
(I should point out that in the 1950s it was just as large a multiplier of household income, but in that time we went from one wagerearner to two.)
Alas, no mortgage agency would loan for this property, there was no central heating system, and the roof was suboptimal. Only people that had $200k at hand could possibly consider it. And off course a cash offer came from a rich family who lived there for a week, did some renovations and sold it again for more then double the price, more then anything that a normal family could afford, even with a mortgage.
Things are bad indeed.
Don't forget if nobody is renting then nobody is "destroying" the property. That's other tactic. You reconstruct everything so its "too good" to be rented cheap. This way you lower the pool of "normal" flats so their prices go up to a point where the "too good" is the only option.
It's apparent from the increasingly huge differences between rent prices. Often times the longtime landlords who own maybe one building are renting so it makes them enough money to take care of the property + good profit on side and they are happy. They don't check market prices often and are 30%+ cheaper. The rent prices are completely fabricated with no relation to running costs or price of the property.
You can do it differently when you are on the other side of the table. However you'll soon find out that most of these things are done for a reason.
Much more important question is that who has the right to live in a city. Maybe most of the people living in there, people who give that city its purpose and take care of it, want older cheaper flats.
Maybe these companies misjudged their customers and are just forcefully trying to feed on peoples need to live somewhere.
People with money are not perfect or of inherently better character, the banker that does coke on Friday is just less likely to use the floorboards as kindling compared to a junkie with more congruent background.
Username fits i guess.
Pretty much every landlord (also developers) is out there to stab the other landlords in the back if they have the option, which they don't have. The price increase is purely driven by the availability of people who are willing to pay for the price increase and the landlords are not allowed to solve the problem.
Some countries have wealth tax. Some countries don't.
It's sensible to park your money somewhere, where it's not taxed.
If you build more of it, yes, you will meet some of the housing demand (basically just for the richest), but housing is competing with rich people saving.
You need to tax unproductive behavior to rid of it.
They have also put heavy restrictions on bank lending.
Basically they are desperately trying to slow/reverse responsibly an out of control housing bubble.
That said they have unique cultural and geographical issues in terms of the sheer scale of their urbanisation
Edit: or even if there is a prospect of this being the case.
In addition, how do you account for the massive drop in new development that occurs as much fewer new houses are built as the housing prices are being deflated due to investment being banned? What about apartment buildings?
All genuine questions I would be interested in hearing a solution too?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities...
It's partially a cultural problem imho.
Lots of tiny Jerry built flats in tower blocks are not the answer - even more so when the rise of WFH is taken into account.
Also it is illegal to put extremely flammable cladding on the side of a building. The problem was that if someone sells you "non-flammable cladding" and they are lying, nobody properly checks.
You can still have that. All you need is a real estate tax. But nobody wants that. People don't want cheaper homes, they want to become part of the home-owner elite and get their own appreciating asset.
Real estate prices are going up everywhere - including places with negative demographic trends.
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/help-to-bu...
For me housing is the least thing i want to worry about, so i gladly rent and simply can fix any problems by calling my landlord who is by law obliged to keep the house in a liveable condition.
Also flexibility, i can move whenever i want without worrying about the value of my house (which in reality likely only looses value)
How do you reconcile this impression of yours with the fact that housing prices are shooting up in all major cities, and have been so for decades? Why is this happening if fewer people are actually interested in owning their own housing?
As a sidenote: in my own personal experience housing is the single major issue of all my close friends and family, but it's only an option for a small minority of them. In fact, I have never met a single person who was in the financial position to buy a house/apartment and didn't do so.
I live in Switzerland and a lot of my social circle is in tech, so i know quite some people who have the financial means to own their housing but only few do. Most in the high income spectrum even use the flexibility of moving regularly.
I personally don't consider buying a house anytime soon either. I could prolly afford the house i rent, however i dont live near a city, i highly doubt the value would ever rise, more the opposite as the house is old and needs regular repairs. Buying the house would be like 350 times the rent, at least. Plus all the repairs are suddenly my problem.
And any costs to maintain a livable condition is going to just be added to the cost of the rent anyway, so it's not like you're actually saving money.
Buying as its own costs of course, and sometimes it's more cost effective to rent. The most unuseful answer, hence, is that it depends on the specifics.
However both points are kinda non issues due to our renting laws and the more or less standard contract around here. Getting kicked out only works with a reason, plus a prior notice from i think at least 3 months plus they are not allowed to increase the rent just for maintaining liveable conditions (i.e. repairs that have to be done).
But sure if you are willing to think and calculate in long terms (~30-50 years) buying often is the cheaper option. Yet comes with an additional workload (taxes, repairs, ...)
Depends on the country. In Poland, the landlord is only responsible for heavy/structural repairs (cracks in walls, broken windows etc.), while everything else, like clogged pipe, broken fridge etc., is actually tenant's responsibility by law, and they can be held responsible (witholding of deposit, lawsuit) if they neglect it.
Something like 60% of US people own a home. 30% even own their home completely outright, with no mortgage.
Obviously 30%, let alone 60%, of the population cannot be considered 'upper class', and 'middle class' is probably even a stretch.
The home ownership rate seems broadly stable since the 60s to me, with gentle ups and downs with the economy, so as well as saying home ownership is an upper-class or middle-class thing not being true it's also not the case that 'it wasn't always like this'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_S...
Huh? Why can't 30% (or 60%, for that matter) of the population be middle class?
Wikipedia [1]:
> The American middle class is a social class in the United States.[1][2] While the concept is typically ambiguous in popular opinion and common language use,[3] contemporary social scientists have put forward several ostensibly congruent theories on the American middle class. Depending on the class model used, the middle class constitutes anywhere from 25% to 66% of households.
But anyway even if you don't agree with that, the original claim was that they were 'upper class'! Which is obviously ludicrous. You do not need to be an elite to own a house - drive down almost any suburban street in American you'll see people who own houses.
This goes back to the above post regarding the ambiguity around defining class. The traditional definition that I’m aware of uses quintiles, so “upper middle class” is defined as being within the top 20% (minus the top 1%-5% reserved for upper class). With this definition, the upper middle class will always be 15-19% of the population, on a sliding scale of income. This threshold comes out to about $87k/yr. at the individual level currently, I think.
But then people redefine that meaning. There was an article recently on HN saying the middle class is shrinking because more people are moving into upper middle class. They defined it based on absolute (as opposed to relative) income. But if you dig deeper into the research methodologies they normalized income so that a person making $58k/yr is equivalent to $100k if they are single. Magically, the threshold for upper middle class on an individual basis is reduced by 33%. (To be fair, they had reasons for this like the way poverty is defined by the government to factor in the number of people in a household).
I have a couple problems with this. 1) research indicates people are single, longer without kids because they feel less financially secure. It’s hard to square being single as a reason to be vaulted into upper middle class in that context 2) out of curiosity I took the average expenses for a mortgage, utilities, taxes etc. and tried to balance that against the $58k definition of upper middle class. In that case, if you have the average student loan debt you can’t afford the “average” American lifestyle even on an upper middle class income.
The point of all this being, we need to be careful about how we define economic class.
“If you torture numbers enough, they’ll confess to anything. “
Which tells me that they likely bought their house over 30 years ago. Which tells me that they have been largely unaffected by the complaint you are responding to.
Who do you think owns the homes all around you, and in all the suburban streets around the city? Normal people like you. There aren't hundreds of elites living on every US street, clearly. They're just normal people who saved up over a few years or got a little helper money from their parents.
Real estate is worse than crypto when it comes to speculation.I realized this myself when my property doubled in value in less than 2 years.
Regardless, at current (historically quite low) interest rates, a typical software engineer's salary will qualify you for a very large mortgage.
You'd be surprised. At 30, I saw many of my friends go from thinking they'll never afford a home to each buying one over just a few years.
Low interest rates aren't helping most people, they're hurting by pushing up house prices. Only those with significant capital for a deposit benefit.
Most people buy as a couple, so this is achievable.
Once you're in the market, it's easier to STAY in the market. If house prices go up, you'll have to pay more to move to a new house but this is an easier pill to swallow because your current house has increased in value.
No it hasn’t.
In fact it’s up since 1990! And about where it was as far back as 1970. It seems relatively stable to me?
If owning a place to live is too expensive, it follows by logic that renting is cheaper than buying. Otherwise for the price of the rent, people could get a loan to buy.
So it really doesn't seem obvious that this is an issue of rich vs poor.
In the UK there was a trend for Baby Boomers to buy up one or two (or more) properties and rent them out as a "nice little side income" etc in addition to their pensions at a time when savings interest rates were low, so there was no point saving (since returns were awful) and property loans were cheap. You even got a tax break on the loan interest!
These people are not mega-rich - just middle-class anybodies. I don't blame them - why leave large sums of money from your pension in the bank where you'll earn 0.05-0.5% interest a year, when you can spend it to buy a property that you can rent out for 5% yeild and benefit from property value increases if/when you need to sell.
The laws have changed a bit now to make it less attractive (no more tax breaks on loan interest, and more tax on "additional" properties you buy beyond your own personal home), and there is anecdotal evidence that "amateur" landlords are exiting the market in droves. Even so it has stoked the market considerably over a good decade or more, and so prices for even very modest "starter" properties (think 1 bed flats, small houses etc) are relatively unobtainable for the average person on the street or first-time buyer.
The result is that for every house thats sold, there isn't just someone who wants it as a living space, but also 5 people who want it as an investment. So 5 people outbid each other, the highest bidder gets it, and then the sucker who wanted to live there but couldn't afford to buy it ends up renting it.
The problem (at least where I live) is absolutely not that there's too little housing. The problem is that a lot of people want to make money from the real estate market, which drives up prices.
Also, because these investors really really want to make a profit, they'll rather let an appartment sit empty than charge lower rent. The appartement I live in was empty for a year because nobody wanted to pay the high rent. (I was able to negotiate a bit, but it's still pretty high)
Pretending that the people who use the real estate market as investment don't profit off the working class who can barely afford housing is laughable.
I would argue that it is low interest rates AND low supply. If supply was sufficient then renters would just rent the houses which were purchased, possibly at a discount.
This means that someone buying it to rent out can get a loan for significantly more than someone looking to purchase, making it much easier to outbid them.
Not true. The people (or companies) winning the bidding war for these properties are paying cash. Normals don't have $900K cash laying around to buy a property originally listed at 550K.
This is not necessarily true. In Los Angeles, for example, the price-to-rent ratio is about 38, i.e. if you pay $1000 / month in rent for a place, buying a comparable place would cost you about $450,000 (38 * 12 * 1000). There are a lot of people who could afford to pay $12,000 / year for housing, but could not afford the down payment on a $450,000 mortgage.
For that matter, the interest payments alone mean that renting is cheaper than buying -- 3% interest on a $450,000 loan alone is already $13,500 / year, and that's before taking into account that you also have to pay property taxes (another $3,500 / year), maintenance (probably another couple thousand a year), and principle on the mortgage (about another $9,000 / year).
In less inflated housing markets, it is generally true that the cost of rent is similar to the cost of a mortgage, but that is definitely not true in all markets.
If you want the profit, then hold the risk.
If you want the freedom of mobility, then rent.
Feel free to expand upon the argument of real estate as a "little risk" investment.
>Renters are stuck by leases
Leases are on average, an order of magnitude shorter than mortgage loans. Less exposure, less risk. Your leverage is to walk away after a year.
offset by property taxes? Maintenance? Inflation eroding the value of the equity. Time/cost of managing the property. Potentially depreciating property values, depending on area?
I've been a landlord. It's a money sink. Tenants brought in cats (against the lease) that peed all over, making the residence smell unbearable. Had to completely rip out carpet, reseal the floors to get the smell out. Ripped out stair case railings.
It's far from "little risk". It was a time and money sink.
The area itself did not appreciate in value. So after all said and done, definitely lost money.
I'm glad to be done.
I didn't "walk away" like the renters could. I fixed the house, the damage that the renters caused, I assumed the very liabilities that the renters get to punt on. Their leverage in the deal worked in their favor that time. They get to just move on.
How is any of that different then a renter where the landlord sells the home, raises the rent (they can do that every year or so), refuses to fix something (or takes forever to find the "best" price), or just starts doing some other crazy stuff? The risk seems pretty similar to me.
No different and probably more easily explained then an eviction. Try renting anywhere with an eviction. The risk is largely the same.
The idea that you think someone could lose large amounts of money and not have it impact them personally or that there isn't personal fallout perplexes me. This feels like that episode of Seinfeld..
Kramer: It's a write off for them.
Jerry: How is it a write off?
Kramer: They just write it off.
Jerry: Write it off of what?
Kramer: They just write it off!
Jerry: You don't even know what a write off is, do you?
Kramer: No. Do you?
Jerry: No I don't
All my experience is in the midwest, where there are essentially no renter protections.
Landlords hold all the risk. There's risk of devaluation, risk of renters destroying property, risk of unexpectedly high maintenance costs, risk of insurance/taxes going up more than planned. If anything bad happens to the property, the renter can just walk away, the owner is stuck with it.
I'm not a landlord, sometimes look into it but every time conclude that the risks are far too high for what minimal profit it might bring. So I stick to index funds.
Yes, landlords have risk. My original point was that renters shoulder the same and more risk.
Less time and monetary exposure.
Renters incur less risk.
The renter is more likely to carry the financial fallout longer, because they have no assets backing their risk.
Something like a 2x or 3x multiplier on property taxes or something, especially in densely populated areas, and especially in areas where there is rampant housing insecurity. The tax needs to be greater than the potential gamble of waiting for occupants. This should be both for residential and commercial use real estate.
*facetious
You don’t get taxed on improvements to the land, you get taxed on the value of the land (ie based on the value of the surrounding land... a vacant lot—or a lot being “renovated”—pays the ~same tax per acre as a 3 story apartment building next door instead of an order of magnitude less).
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Co...
Monthly council tax will double for properties that do not have occupants. This is due to my area having over 10% of houses being bought as holiday homes or investments that stay empty for most of the year.
We have too much retail space in America and too little housing, but zoning has often made it impossible to repurpose the land.
Maybe where you live. NYC and SF are special in that they have very powerful people working to reduce the construction of new housing. This is obviously what needs to get fixed first in those markets, but it isn't a relatable problem in most of the US.
> The reality is that the most expensive housing markets are also the ones with the least vacant.
This is a basic supply and demand observation, and does not preclude the existence of people who allow their properties to sit vacant for long periods of time.
Looks to me like in NYC the vacancy rate is up to 6% (from a previous steady 2-3%) while housing insecurity is increasing.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/08/empty-rental-apartments-in-m...
https://cccnewyork.org/press-and-media/family-homelessness-i...
To my eyes this seems like a tragically dumb problem with several really obvious solutions.
Construction companies that build residences are clearly creating value for society, so they should be allowed to make some kind of profit. Real estate agencies that buy property from construction companies are doing a very bad thing by renting them as "luxury" housing to people who otherwise have no choice since their livelihood is tied to an urban area.
Why not put a cap on the profit that can be made from a residence? Something like 5x construction costs, plus ongoing costs of maintenance. Suddenly, the "luxury" housing market is no longer suffocating all the affordable housing out of town since the property owner can't expect to rake in the piles of money every month.
Many buildings are "luxury" in that they cost 15% more to build but then ask for 50% higher rent. It's not hard to find buildings that were once "luxury" but are now kinda gross since the veneer has peeled off. But there's not enough competition in housing to force the rent lower.
What gets people fed up is the seemingly universal constant of rents raising 10% every year despite no additional investment.
So if you have house A that you live in, whose tax bill is $10K, and house B that's empty, whose tax bill is $7K, then your total tax should be $17K.
If you additionally have house C that is also empty, whose tax bill is $8K, then your total tax should be $10K + ($7K + $8K) x 2 = $40K.
If you additionally have house D that is also empty, whose tax bill is $5K, then your total tax should be $10K + ($7K + $8K + $5K) x 3 = $70K.
This would strongly incentivize against this activity of having one person or entity simply hoovering up homes and treating them like bars of gold.
You won't solve sh*t. Just like the other gazillion times new taxes were introduced to solve something.
Well, I mean, unless your goal is to make the poor even poorer.
Once you moved in, increases in rent used to be regulated. Now a landlord can charge whatever they want after the initial period and if you can't afford it you have to leave.
Landlords used to have to maintain and fix the property. While they still do in theory, in practise they often just threaten one of the two options above to anyone who wants a repair done.
That's not very smart. So the current tenant leaves, and then what? Good luck finding someone else to rent the property at the original price without fixing the issue…
It's a pity if a flat is empty for a year, but that in itself also does not cause a shortage. After all, it was rented out after a year.
The market is supposed to deliver the flat to the person who needs it most. In that case, apparently it was you. Without the speculator, somebody would have rented it for a very low price long ago, and you would not have been able to live there at all. So maybe the market worked.
If the market worked, you'd see people building multi-family units everywhere until supply caught up with demand, and then you'd see a huge crater in prices as people who took a bath on real estate speculation were overrun with the resulting supply glut. This doesn't happen, for a host of various reasons. Governments want housing to be simultaneously affordable and an investment, which is impossible. Hence most cities wind up building a sort of shadow immigration system, through rent control, selective property tax moratoriums, and so on. People who have lived in a city all their life enjoy lower rents, subsidized by people who just moved in and have to buy at market rate.
There are other factors, of course. Just speculation does not really seem to be a major one.
Maybe if I put down one million and borrow another 300k, I can get a low mortgage. But I also lost one million.
$70k-150k up-front isn't easy to save up for even above-average earners (remember, these are average home prices, not luxury homes), so anyone earning average or below is forced into either renting forever, or moving to another town.
Do you really think that’s a factor? That the wealthy say “My family has all bedrooms they need, so I’m done investing in real estate?” PE firms buy up entire communities and repackage their mortgages into investment products. Foreign investors will buy property regardless of location and never step foot in it if it’s in a more stable country than theirs. Real estate investing is not about finding a place to live for the wealthy.
Invitation homes owns over 10k homes https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/us-largest-pro...
In 2015, about 1/3 of vancouver homes bought were to Chinese nationals as investments https://www.fortunebuilders.com/one-third-of-vancouvers-real...
There's literal mansion districts in my major city, where not only is building an apartment illegal, but even building a small detached house is illegal. How on earth did that happen??
US cities like LA, SF, NYC have been very expensive for a long time.