The Moral of a BTL.....?

IveSeenTheLight

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

I want to explore the morals of becoming a land lord.

No need to explore the morals.

Your simply looking at secure investments to provide a return you are expecting for your retirement.
Not much different from investing in pensions or shares etc.

I similarly have invested in property and have done so also to provide a return for my family.

The properties I have invested in are rented out to people who have "chosen" to rent.
Not everyone in the UK wants to buy the property they live in.

We have just recently peaked at home ownership levels in the last few years. Historically home ownership was far lower, meaning more (as a percentage) of the UK rented previously.

Therefore, historically, there have always been renters and realistically, there always will be.

If you want to look at it morally, I would suggest that when you become a landlord, you ensure you act as a good landlord to support your tenant as an when they raise any issues.

This has an added benefit that they respect you and your property more, likely extending leases etc.

So for me, the morality question with regards to BTL, is not about owning the property, it about how you manage the property.

chewmylegoff

If there were no landlords there would be no property for anyone to rent. Do you think that students want to buy houses in their university towns; that people moving to a new city want to immediately buy before they even know the area; that young professionals in their first few years of work want a massive mortgage instead of the freedom to rent with their mates and move about?

Sure there are people who want to buy houses and are unable to afford them and are forced to rent, but there are also plenty of people who want to rent. Thus landlords are a necessity if our society is going to function properly.

IveSeenTheLight

the_flying_pig wrote: »

why different to a supermarket?

well, it's mostly common sense IMO and even if not is old ground that's been covered about a million billion pillion times on this forum alone but as a starter for ten of the things that Sainsburys does to get food on my table that I myself wouldn't be able to do if I tried to go alone:

(1) use its size/buyer power to strike favourable deals with [alternative viewpoint - 'shaft'] farmers & so on in this country & overseas in a way that i couldn't possibly do myself;
(2) similarly use its size to arrange freight transport of stuff by sea, air, rail, & road in ways that i couldn't possibly do myself;
(3) employs armies of in-house butchers, bakers, quality controllers, etc etc to do jobs that i couldn't possibly [etc];
(4) is loads better at storing [including drying, freezing, etc] stuff than i ever could be;
(5) etc.

etc.

etc.

i could probably string this list out to a couple of dozen points without really trying very hard.


a similar list compiled for BTL would be far shorter, probably exceptionally tenous in most cases, & glaringly incomplete if it omitted the obvious fact that in many cases it's crowding out/competing with would-be owner occupier buyers.

From your list above, as well as "shafting" farmers, do they not also put at risk local business men / women from being local butcher / bakers / candlestick makers etc

With all the "shafting" they are doing, do they pass on said savings to the consumers? If so, why is food RPI far greater than house price HPI?

These "supermarkets" have grown their business by moving into historically non supermarket produce.
They even offer mortgages.

So how long until these supermarkets consider being landlords and leasing out property and how would your argument stand up in that theoretical but potentially viable condition?

Prothet_of_Doom

the_flying_pig wrote: »

OK, i'll bite.

"morality" is a really, really, difficult thing.

e.g. under a so-called 'golden rule' [you should treat others as you'd like others to treat you] then, yes, there are reasonably strong arguments that BTL is immoral.

]

Over my life I have rented 4 properties as a student, as I had no intention of living in that city, and as an adult rented 2 shared properties, and one on my own in order to work miles from where I live, and own my house.

I've never felt that any of the land lords were not treating me as I expected to be treated, apart from a small dispute over the length of the grass :rotfl: Yes it said we had to keep the garden, but that tools would be provided, but the mower was never replaced when it failed, despite me pointing it out more than a few times.

Conrad

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

This is not helped by my sister in laws belief which she feeds to my wife, which basically says "nobody should own more than one house, nobody should make a profit out of other people's need for a roof over thier head"

If she has a pension I will guarantee it invests in all sorts of global corporations, the very same the Guardianistas rail against. Furthermore such investments rely on the neo-liberal capitalism many of the left claim to want dismantled.

A defence sometimes used to refute this is where they claim for example the teachers or union reps super annuation pension scheme does not directly invest in such things. This is a classic obviscation of the facts. Those schemes simply contract out a lot of their investing to third party funds that do indeed invest in 'nasty' capitalism.

Generali

There is no morality as such to BTL, there's only behaving in a moral way just as I hope people would in any business.

Don't lie or cheat or put employee or customers' health at risk. Follow the law, pay your taxes and keep to your side of the contract for as long as the other person does.

The idea that BTL is somehow inherently immoral is twaddle of the highest order.

jamesd

BTL is one of the most moral investments there is. You're investing in property and providing homes to people who would otherwise be stuck with only council or charity housing. Nowhere near enough of that for everyone and it's often not the best of places to live compared to decently managed private housing.

Renting is best for those who want flexibility or who don't have the capital to buy. It's not a second best choice, it depends on what the person's needs are. Not a lot of point in buying a place to live when you're on say a one year contract. Many who dislike BTL are just projecting their own desire to own and assume it applies to everyone else as well.

BTL is in price competition with owner-occupiers and the result is an increase in the price available to businesses that build new homes. But this doesn't mean that BTL is evil, because those same people who are living in BTL properties would be forced into buying themselves, if no BTL housing was available. The market prices based on this supply and demand is what provides the money to builders of new housing. Higher prices means higher rewards for building new places to live.

A healthy housing market needs a good supply of new properties and a good mixture of rental and buy-only properties.

Four properties in different areas is OK but eight or more would be better for diversification and reducing the effect of voids. BTL is fine as a long term investment for producing income. That means the effect of capital value variations won't hurt much and that you could sometimes choose to sell to exploit capital value gains and switch to other types of investment sometimes. You'd probably find that as you got older you would want to do this to reduce the hassle of being a landlord.

Prothet_of_Doom

Interestingly via shelter's website you can find out all sorts of stats about your area. There are 18 homeless families in temp accomodation, 7000 people on council housing waiting list, and 5700 empty privately owned properties.

ILW

Generali wrote: »

There is no morality as such to BTL, there's only behaving in a moral way just as I hope people would in any business.

Don't lie or cheat or put employee or customers' health at risk. Follow the law, pay your taxes and keep to your side of the contract for as long as the other person does.

The idea that BTL is somehow inherently immoral is twaddle of the highest order.

Is buying up scarce but essential resources for the overall good?

jamesd

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

Interestingly via shelter's website you can find out all sorts of stats about your area. There are 18 homeless families in temp accomodation, 7000 people on council housing waiting list, and 5700 empty privately owned properties.

Probably more than 5700 empty, I assume those are just the ones declared as empty an unfurnished. It is worth wondering how many people would move from the 7000 person council list if BTL landlords bought the 5700 properties and started letting them out. Assuming some would be in multiple occupancy it seems entirely possible that there is the potential there for BTL to eliminate much of the council waiting list. I wonder what the council can do to encourage more BTL to help solve this problem?