Legal & General plans to become large-scale landlord

Graham_Devon

Who said they are doing it to be nice? No one did. Only you have and then crafted yoru argument around it.

All I'm saying is that they appear to be doing it for all the right reasons. There is absolutely nothing dictating they had to state they were doing it due to "intergenerational injustice".

They chose to state that and have obviously planned this based on a need for decent accommodation run in a decent manner.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Who said they are doing it to be nice? No one did. Only you have and then crafted yoru argument around it.

All I'm saying is that they appear to be doing it for all the right reasons. There is absolutely nothing dictating they had to state they were doing it due to "intergenerational injustice".

They chose to state that and have obviously planned this based on a need for decent accommodation run in a decent manner.

Presumably irony but just in case

they obviously planned this to make money.

totally acceptable and commendable as making profit helps us all to become richer.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

I have already welcomed any increase in new building.

There are some that welcome large corporations but despise small business people. I don't share that view.

However we will see in due course how it all pans out and how many are actually built and how they are managed and how much subsidy they seek.

And yes the reference to 'intergenerational injustice' is almost unbelievable coming from L&G.
Hopefully the idiot will be encouraged to seek new challenges outside the company.

Seems were going down the route of making stuff up for you to take a position on again.

What's all this rubbish about hating small business?

BTL is an utter shambles. There are good and bad. But the lack of regulation in this sector is allowing it to destroy itself from within. Others can see this, L&G can obviously see it and are tapping into it.

I can't quite beleive anyone would argue this is a bad thing....well, that wasn't interest in making money out of the BTL game themselves.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

Presumably irony but just in case

they obviously planned this to make money.

totally acceptable and commendable as making profit helps us all to become richer.

Who on earth is implying they haven't done it to make money!? That's pretty darn obvious!

Are you now going to tell people I've assumed they are doing it as a charitable donation to the country to create a position you can argue from!?

Mr._Pricklepants

CLAPTON wrote: »

And yes the reference to 'intergenerational injustice' is almost unbelievable coming from L&G.
Hopefully the idiot will be encouraged to seek new challenges outside the company.

I bet it was ruggedtoast.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Who said they are doing it to be nice? No one did. Only you have and then crafted yoru argument around it.

All I'm saying is that they appear to be doing it for all the right reasons. There is absolutely nothing dictating they had to state they were doing it due to "intergenerational injustice".

They chose to state that and have obviously planned this based on a need for decent accommodation run in a decent manner.

The only reason to do this is to create shareholder return. If a happy by-product is that there are increased rental options that are decent and well run that's great.

If the cost of providing decent, well run housing eats into the yield sufficiently that other investment options provide a better return they should choose them instead.

You have bought into the idea that L&G will enter the market, provide decent housing, manage it well and force lower rents based on what? Why are L&G the only big company that you approve of?

Let's see what you think when L&G ask for taxpayer funding.

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

absolutely:

we need large scale monopolistic greed capitalists to move into the rental market;
we all know it will reduce prices and improve quality as has been proved time and time again.

the government can help by introducing whole new raft of new rules and regulations making it impossible for small landlords to compete, knowing we are safe in the hands of big business.

I've rented overseas from a monopolistic greed capitalist company who probably managed to turn into a monopolistic greed capitalist company by having at least some faint clue as to what housing laws are and what customer service is; the experience was a bit pricey but otherwise fine.

I have rented in the UK from different types of landlord ranging from a professional investor who used a professional management company to look after his properties, down to amateur, accidental, and buy to let landlords. If I had to rent again I would run a country mile to avoid these last three types. I suspect most tenants feel the same.

If small landlords and their appalling letting agents offered a better service there wouldnt be anything for them to worry about.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seems were going down the route of making stuff up for you to take a position on again.

What's all this rubbish about hating small business?

BTL is an utter shambles. There are good and bad. But the lack of regulation in this sector is allowing it to destroy itself from within. Others can see this, L&G can obviously see it and are tapping into it.

I can't quite beleive anyone would argue this is a bad thing....well, that wasn't interest in making money out of the BTL game themselves.

Do you have any facts and figures showing that BTL is a shambles?

So is it more or less of a shambles than the 'horse meat' shambles?

or the many 'shambles' in large companies?

In what way is it destroying itself from within: the recently announced figures seem to point to an large increase in BTL mortgages.. is this a typical sign of an industry imploding?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seems were going down the route of making stuff up for you to take a position on again.

Oh dear, so the Devon bloke accuses yet another poster of making up stuff that he said.

When will he realise that it seems to be everyone else is making up stuff and not that he muddles each thread whenever his points get broken down.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I've rented overseas from a monopolistic greed capitalist company who probably managed to turn into a monopolistic greed capitalist company by having at least some faint clue as to what housing laws are and what customer service is; the experience was a bit pricey but otherwise fine.

I have rented in the UK from different types of landlord ranging from a professional investor who used a professional management company to look after his properties, down to amateur, accidental, and buy to let landlords. If I had to rent again I would run a country mile to avoid these last three types. I suspect most tenants feel the same.

If small landlords and their appalling letting agents offered a better service there wouldnt be anything for them to worry about.

The best service and price is the result of plenty of supply (both volume and number of suppliers).
The market will do the rest.