Edit: so the interest rates have risen several percent along with the cost or labor and materials eating into the profits of serial buyers who leverage loans to buy more on previously purchased properties. If they don’t jack up the rent, they can’t manage the debt.
That said, fuck those guys, hope they go bankrupt. This isn’t someone who has an extra property they invested in years ago, these are the clowns buying everything up and squeezing the market.
Because they're over leveraged. They've purchased assets when rates were low and now that rates have gone up they haven't factored this into their profit margins and would either go under or not make enough.
It's disgusting. If you have enough money to play the game you should have enough money to live with the consequences and a tenant isn't your get out of jail free card for your shitty planning.
Very often these aren't traditional fixed-rate mortgages. That's what they probably have on their "primary" home, but when you're buying homes with the explicit purpose of using them as income generators, the landscape of available loans changes.
Thank you for a very well explained response. Also in countries like Canada mortgage terms are redone every 5 years on average making us much more susceptible to rate changes than in America.
3% was the top annual pay increase at the Fortune 500 company I used to work at. 3% max increase for those that "exceeded all expectations". Probably less than 1/3 of employees.
So if it's good enough for a Fortune 500 company, it's good enough for every landlord. 3% max, and only to max 1/3 of their locations/rooms.
This is the truth. You need to create conditions that make renting unprofitable and unsustainable, and all of a sudden property prices will begin to fall as landlords sell. This happened in London after WW2, when renting was over-regulated and most of the residents ended up owning their own apartments as landlords sold off property. After deregulation, the reverse trend began again.
Rent control is a bandaid on a real problem that makes things worse long term. What California needs is build more, which means end the NIMBY and unfreeze property taxes so those seating on underutilized land are forced to develop it or sell.
Would property taxes actually do much? They're so little even in high property-tax states that I think you'd need to do a lot more than that to FORCE rich people to utilize their other properties. High taxes would potentially push more costs on renters. Maybe we should just outlaw having more than 1 or 2 homes... including for real estate companies and banks :)
I keep wondering how to make the law do that. Making a company is like $100, that's nothing compared to the house price. They would just have shell companies all over each owning a single location. 123 Fake St., LLC; 124 Fake St., LLC; etc.
High taxes would potentially push more costs on renters.
Potentially, but I think here not so much. Competition drives prices down. In a perfectly competitive market, prices are pretty much equal to the cost of production. In that case, any tax would be completely passed on to the customer. But you can't produce land at a certain location. My guess is that rents are largely determined by willingness to pay.
Hmm build more. I’d be curious to see the stats on this. California has probably built 10 times more than the rest of the country combined over the last decade or so. People need to GO THE FUCK BACK HOME.
I mean, my wife and I didn't sell to the two highest bidders on our first house because the fuckers were obviously going to rent it out.
One was a bid entered by a piece of software often used by flippers and rental companies (had branding at the bottom of the pages etc) and the other was a cash in hand bid with an overt offer of more under the table, which is fairly illegal where we live.
We selected third place, someone who had messy handwriting, obviously has been written by two different people, and ended the bid with "777" which was cute and showed us not only were they human, they really wanted the place. And no wonder, with offers like the first two likely happening on nearly every sale in the area.
"7% plus the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, West Region (All Items), as most recently published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or 10%, whichever is lower."
I guess the argument is that they will raise rent by the maximum, even at excessive risk of losing tenants? Because if the tenants will pay that much, why wouldn't the landlord charge that anyway?
I'm old enough to remember when the government has tried to cap the cost of one thing while ignoring other factors. It never ends the way the government thinks it will.
That's bullshit. Nyc has rent stabilized apartments and it's fucking fantastic. Not perfect of course, but really really good. Those apartments are highly sought after. The biggest problem is that there aren't remotely enough of them
It shouldn't be - but ill tell you right now that no one will be a landlord unless they can make money from it, and people who move out of home at 18 won't have the money saved to buy straight away.
Make no mistake, I don't like the housing crisis and its causes either but I know rent caps isn't how we fix it long term.
If you're talking about a government that is ignoring other factors, which is not true in this situation. Go read the article.
But even in general, if you're trying to argue that the government can't possibly solve the problem of mega corporations buying up tons of property, making tons of money, and screwing over millions of Americans, then you might be right but I sure hope you're wrong.
