Legal & General plans to become large-scale landlord

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

You are simply making assumptions about what I think here.

No where have I denied they are profit making and this will br a profit making venture. I don't even see why you are off down this extremely obvious tangent.

Everything I have said has been about the tenant and how renting from such a company should provide much higher standards and value.

Appears to me you are trying to argue for arguments sake.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

Oh right. Like we've seen then?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh right. Like we've seen then?

My view, presumably not share by yourself, is that we have an inadequate supply of housing in many parts of the UK.

IronWolf

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

A little bit off topic, but by using the word 'toasting' you reminded me of an incident in about 1998/9.

At that time I was working for a [larger] competitor of L&G and took part in our 'fire walking' event for Marie Curie. We all did our stint, raised a lot of money, and not a single person had any negative after-effects of the fire-walk. It was perfectly genuine, and no 'trickery' is involved.....

It was only a week or so later that we read in the papers of a similar charity fire-walk by L&G, noteable by the huge number of people hospitalised as a direct result of the walk. Apparently they had hired a bit of a cowboy firm to run it.... so naive that they put the scorching hot coals on a stainless steel runner, thus causing the heat to reflect almost 100% back up to the feet. A basic error, apparently, that no experienced fire-walk 'facilitator' would ever make.

However, due to GD's absolute faith in their quality as landlords, I will admit that my anecdote has nothing whatsoever to do with the price of fish [or indeed houses].

Im surprised a 'huge' number of people were burnt. I mean if I saw someone go before me and get their feet burnt I wouldn't then proceed to try it myself!

OffGridLiving

Who's Graham arguing with now? Oh, it's Clapton's turn is it?

Deary me, can't GD get a girlfriend and take out his frustrations more naturally?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are simply making assumptions about what I think here.

That Devon bloke accuses yet another poster of making assumptions of what he said. It's always someone else when Devon is involved...

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well I'd rather be a tenant of L&G than of some random landlord using any old agency.

What...........
There has to be a moral issue around an insurance company stepping on the toes of small business men/women!

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

My view, presumably not share by yourself, is that we have an inadequate supply of housing in many parts of the UK.

Why do you bother?

You know full well I share the view.

I just don't get why you do this?

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

What...........
There has to be a moral issue around an insurance company stepping on the toes of small business men/women!

Does there?

What's the moral issue then?

Percy1983

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

What...........
There has to be a moral issue around an insurance company stepping on the toes of small business men/women!

Big difference, the insurance company will run it as a business and not an immoral cashcow.