Hacker News Reader

Comment by dr_dshiv | Hacker News Reader

What if renters could have a way to pay more to gain partial ownership of their property? E.g., could progressively own up to 10%. That woulf allow for more of the feeling of ownership and allow renters to participate in the appreciation. That would mitigate some of the negative impacts of gentrification.

Has anyone given this sort of renter-ownership blend a thought?

View on HN

Imagine a system where renters could put up a small fee, say 3-5% of the homes value, then just continue paying their monthly "rent" payment as usual. However, each time they pay that monthly rent a portion of that payment goes directly to them as equity. That way years later they could move and benefit from that equity position or after a certain period of time, say 30 years, own the entire home outright.

Oh wait...

This is very different because what the previous comment is suggesting is that it will be impossible to rent out a property without losing ownership of it after x years. This would make it very unappealing to rent out a property and it would cause property prices to crash.

On the other hand, mortgages only cause property prices to go up because it allows people who could otherwise not afford a house to buy one outright (creating higher aggregate demand). At the same time, it makes it more appealing to own a house because you can collect rent on it and prices always go up because banks keep making loans to people to drive up your property's price.

I think that is called a mortgage :)

Most hybrid schemes end up being scams. You end up with the disadvantages of renting with equity tied up as well.

This exists in the UK already at least. Last time I checked (10+ years ago) you could choose to split 50/50 rent/mortgage or 25/75 either way.

In the UK that exists and is called “Shared Ownership”. Some local councils often stipulate some units shared (or key-worker affordable) are a percentage of units built in every development.

If I own 10% of a property does that mean I can put shelves up on 10% of the walls or change 10% of the locks? What's more likely is this kind of "ownership" is only paper thin. The only reason I want to own a house is because I want to control the place where I live. It doesn't make much financial sense, though. If you just want to add property to your portfolio there are plenty of other ways.

Finland has right-of-occupation scheme. Where one pays that circa 15% and gains permanent right to occupy usually a flat. The rent is slightly lower compared to free market and can not exceed that. And there is also calculated inflation correction on this. So if they move out they get the payment back with interest. Then next occupant has to pay that new price.

https://www.money.co.uk/guides/how-does-the-rent-to-buy-sche...

This exists in New Zealand. https://www.moneyhub.co.nz/rent-to-own-homes.html

That sounds complicated, and I can't imagine landlords voting that policy in.

If renters want to invest why can't they take that bit extra and invest it elsewhere?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com