Time to Quit Being a Landlord especially in Scotland

LateStarter

Up front I'll say I'm in favour of tenant's rights, and I think landlords should be regulated. But by definition most renters are people who currently cannot afford to own their own home (note I said MOST). Somebody has to build/own those houses (and let's not get into the argument that it should be the government).

Why should I (as an individual, or a company) invest in housing if there's a chance that an asset where I've invested hundreds of thousands can be made unavilable to me when I require that asset?

Banking shares anyone?

AndyT678

LateStarter wrote: »

Why should I (as an individual, or a company) invest in housing if there's a chance that an asset where I've invested hundreds of thousands can be made unavilable to me when I require that asset?

Because you would make your investment decision knowing that you were purchasing an illiquid asset and would only do so if the return on your investment adequately compensated you for the risk associated with not being able to dispose of / consume it at the drop of a hat.

benjus

jjlandlord wrote: »

The catch is that if no-one invest then people have nowhere to live.

I still think investors would invest, even if the rewards weren't quite as good as they are now (e.g. selling with a tenant in situ rather than with vacant possession). Might even help to keep the property market more stable.

benjus

LateStarter wrote: »

Why should I (as an individual, or a company) invest in housing if there's a chance that an asset where I've invested hundreds of thousands can be made unavilable to me when I require that asset?

What do you require the asset for? You could still sell it.

LateStarter

AndyT678 wrote: »

Because you would make your investment decision knowing that you were purchasing an illiquid asset and would only do so if the return on your investment adequately compensated you for the risk associated with not being able to dispose of / consume it at the drop of a hat.

Oppurtunity cost of capital mate. I fear it would drive investors elsewhere (all landlords are investors, aren't they?). And 2 months' S21 notice is hardly the drop of a hat (approximately 1.5 seconds when dropped from the average head).

I'm not defending landlords - I think it's a balancing act and it's easy to defend the rights of the tenant and ignore the other party.

AndyT678

LateStarter wrote: »

Oppurtunity cost of capital mate. I fear it would drive investors elsewhere (all landlords are investors, aren't they?) .

Hence my use of the words "adequately compensated". If other investment opportunities were hoovering up all the capital then the market would need to adapt to compensate. Either rents go higher or house prices go lower or both.

Guest101

LateStarter wrote: »

Up front I'll say I'm in favour of tenant's rights, and I think landlords should be regulated. But by definition most renters are people who currently cannot afford to own their own home (note I said MOST). Somebody has to build/own those houses (and let's not get into the argument that it should be the government).

Why should I (as an individual, or a company) invest in housing if there's a chance that an asset where I've invested hundreds of thousands can be made unavilable to me when I require that asset?

Banking shares anyone?

But it's "not available" to you only through the no fault eviction process. Plenty of other ways to get possesion if you require it, if it meets those criteria.

I dont see why you discounted the very real argument that the government should invest more in housing.

It's an illogical argument really. When you invest in something, whether that's housing, shares or businesses, you are made aware of the risks and restrictions (with personal investments it is upto you to make yourself aware), if you dont like the regulations, simply dont invest.

You are now aware of this situation. You can choose to:

1: carry on and adhere to the new law
2: sell
3: leave the property empty and hope the investment grows sufficiently as to cover and exceed your interim costs.

LateStarter

Guest101 wrote: »

I dont see why you discounted the very real argument that the government should invest more in housing.

Because it's a very emotive subject, and leads to arguments - I was trying to stay OT. I do believe that government should build a lot more - and that they shouldn't be sold off unless the stock is replenished. And that the taxpayer shouldn't be subsiding people who make a profit of the basic human right of housing. See - emotive

Guest101

LateStarter wrote: »

Because it's a very emotive subject, and leads to arguments - I was trying to stay OT. I do believe that government should build a lot more - and that they shouldn't be sold off unless the stock is replenished. And that the taxpayer shouldn't be subsiding people who make a profit of the basic human right of housing. See - emotive

I agree with you. So we'll leave it there.

I misunderstood your reasons for discounting it

gazwaldo8

And when your children are renting, and struggling with a property they cant get repairs done on and the LL tells them to get out....

So no. If you want the income from having a tenant, then accept the consequences.

No-one forced you to rent it out. You couldve left it empty.

To clarify - I am a very good LL who promptly addressess ANY problem or defect!
So yes I do accept the consequences - my £3.5k debt bears witness to that!
Couldve left it empty!! - I'll say no more on that lol