why dont landlords never sell up

stu12345_2

quick question, if those that have a fair size pension, they never sell their shares, they live of the return dividends, warren buffett advice.

then why cant landlords never sell their property and just live off the rental income for their lifes.

thus landords have an income for life, tenant has a place to live for life.

theartfullodger

Why not indeed?

CLAPTON

stu12345 wrote: »

quick question, if those that have a fair size pension, they never sell their shares, they live of the return dividends, warren buffett advice.

then why cant landlords never sell their property and just live off the rental income for their lifes.

thus landords have an income for life, tenant has a place to live for life.

check out the volume of shares that change hands on the stock exchange daily

kingstreet

Interest-only mortgage using sale of property as repayment method?

stu12345_2

why would any landlord give up an income for life only to sell and run out of capital, thats not sound advice. have i stumbled on to something so simple that noone else sees it.

for example where i work, my employer has offered to buy the land its yard sits on for nearly 1 million, but landlord gets 60000 a year in rent for life. he says he would never sell and give up an income

stu12345_2

with interest only, surely the landlord can carry on interest only and continue with regular income for life


and thus if they dont, but sell up, then sell to another new landlord who starts another 25 yr interest only loan, and the tenant gets another 25 yrs tenancy and so on and so on.

if thats the case why dont hotels all sell up after 25 yrs, they dont, they keep the income coming in

i was told number one rule of an asset is something that brings in an income, a liabilty doesnt, hence sell it.

eg a pensioner gets a buy to let, they get income for life, a pensioner wouldnt do it only to sell up 3 yrs later and miss out all that income

AdrianC

People's circumstances change.
Perhaps they're an "accidental landlord", who rented out their old home when they moved in with a partner, and now want to use the equity for their own home again.
Perhaps they don't need the workload any more.
Perhaps they've decided that the return isn't worth the work.
Perhaps any one of a dozen other circumstances that mean they don't want to remain a landlord.

If you want a home-for-life, buy it. If letting it is so profitable for the landlord as to be such a no-brainer, then it'll be cheaper for you, as well as being more secure.

theartfullodger

stu12345 wrote: »

with interest only, surely the landlord can carry on interest only and continue with regular income for life.....

Most B2L mortgages end at age 65 or 70. I remortgaged one property 2 years ago to end age 80: It was hard to find a lender.

stu12345_2

then why dont councils given the chance take 25 yr interest only loans then evict all tenants and sell in open market. hence council homes built in 1960 will be mortgage free by 1985, but councils hate selling, they lose a valuable source of income

Pixie5740

Councils don't hate selling. Where are you getting this nonsense from? Councils have hardly any houses and flats left to sell because of right to buy.

Landlords could keep their properties indefinitely if they owned them outright. If there's a mortgage though it has to be repaid at some point. With property you need to weigh up capital gains with rental yield.

theartfullodger

Councils are heavily constrained with what they can do: For example when Thatcher bought Tory votes by flogging off council houses for a huge discount to the tenants the councils were forbidden to use the £££ to build new council properties.