Updating post from Reddit.
Nothing surprising to those here. It was clear as far back as the early 2000s each tax policy change made it more lucrative for corporate investors to own property, compared to small UK landlords. And what's been the genius part is keeping themselves out of the focus and diverting hate towards small landlords.
And if you want to see an even worse example of the impact of this then observe the current Irish Property situation and how that was made worse by Vulture Funds. Its not expressly stated in the link but this was directly due to the 2008 global crash which killed the Celtic Tiger and resulted US firms coming in and buying discounted property from mortgage defaults.
Just look to the USA. That's us in a decade or two.
If people are still not yet convinced that the likes of the Tories and Farage are interested in cloning American model here, then surely they just need to see what's happened to our companies, housing and healthcare. All replaced with American model of asset stripping, indefinite subscriptions, and insurance to do anything.
>Tories and Farage
And labour? .. every successive government on both sides is hell bent on getting rid of small landlords in favour of big companies owning and managing the rental sector. Easier to tax and control the sector
You're not wrong. I was just lazy with my comment. It's not a big conspiracy but private interests and lobbying, with the full clamouring from the likes of action groups, like Shelter, etc.
There was a photo of Blackrock sitting with starmer and reeves on x where Labour boasting about selling of UK assets to Blackrock.
Bro what are you saying, Labour does it always right they are the good guys /s
Yep. Labour hasn't even attempted to hide they're in bed with Blackrock.
What I've realised is ultimately most of our legislation is drafted by civil servants, and it's largely a matter of who gets to present it as their idea. See Great British Rail - it was in the pipeline long before Labour got elected. It would've happened either way.
I see you’ve been watching Yes, Minister.
Don’t forget the hate towards immigrants, who many falsely believe are a main driver of UK property prices.
No one in their right mind 'hates' immigrants - except for the actually criminal ones which Sweden has basically been destroyed by in the past few years - it's the jewish NGOs who are trafficking the replacement migration into the UK and Europe and all other civilised nations which are the issue.
It’s actually Blackstone (a private equity company), not Blackrock, which is buying UK real estate.
Great find. BlackRock seems to be the new Soros everyone is shit scared about because they are so big via their tracker fund business.
People also seem to think these investment companies are out there bidding against families on single houses. They’re not. They’re funding homes that are not yet built and increasing stock, which we badly need. To build a rental portfolio of course.
>People also seem to think these investment companies are out there bidding against families on single houses. They’re not.
Blackstone is doing exactly that in the US, albeit often via intermediary "iBuyer" companies.
I'm sure at some point, a mechanism will make itself available where PE firms like Blackstone can easily purchase 1000s of single units in the UK.
>They’re funding homes that are not yet built and increasing stock, which we badly need.
Houses aren't consumer goods like cars. Honda building lots of cars doesn't stop other car makers from also building cars.
Developable land with planning permission is finite, for each build to rent home that is built, that is one less new build home that could be sold to an owner occupier.
Rental houses and owner occupied houses aren't unrelated products. A development of rental houses still provides housing, and a million new rental houses would still reduce the price of housing for everyone.
A million new homes sold to owner occupiers would be much better though. It'll create loads more homeowners while also reducing the price for everyone.
That's my point it's one of the other, given how restrictive planning permission is.
Unless these homes are owned by the community/councils it's just a rent extraction vehicle. Absolutely nothing will be invested in these areas. It's the definition of rent seeking.
A development of rental property still uses resources that are taken away from owner occupied houses.
I agree that we need extra homes but we don’t need institutional investors buying them.
There is a difference between simply buying them and funding development of new units.
It is the investors who are funding the projects with expectations of receiving return from rent. It’s heavily favouring the investors over the average family
Yes, they build to end up with a rental income stream. This is what pension funds want and need. The average family who have pensions are the investor, that’s key. And the average family benefits from having more choice and lower rents, without institutional money we will continue to lag building targets. Developers don’t build houses out of charity.
I understand what you are saying but average individuals can’t make healthy pension contributions to reap the rewards anyway because they can’t afford to live/housing. The issue is that there is a housing, living and home-ownership crisis. Developing houses for people to make pension contributions is meaningless when a person can’t afford to live. The only people that would benefit are again, large investors.
The UK further made things worse by penalising smaller landlords in favour of larger corporations. Just screams cost-cutting and low quality because all these investment firms think about is numbers.
Essentially developing new homes for pensions is useless when people cant even afford to own a home and it does not help the housing crisis.
If I were to utilise one of these homes, I’d be paying rent to fund my own pension lol
The govt favours institutions, big companies or corporations = less people to deal with and they can be politically swayed. Look at blairs work on legal aid.
>"People also seem to think these investment companies are out there bidding against families on single houses"
No, that’s people like you and everyone else in this subreddit.
You know people can't afford houses in the US, right? There's a reason for this but you seem to think otherwise...
Houses are pretty affordable in the US outside of about 5 major cities. Just see what the average UK house price would get you in Texas relatively.
If that’s the case why are there homeless working people?
I can give an answer to that and will use this article I saw on a BBC documentary about homelessness.
Chappy has been homeless for 6 months. Normal tale that you can’t sympathise with - needed to get out quickly. Slept on friend’s couches for several months. Was actually even still working and had been living with parents so plenty of opportunity to save.
Apparently not a great employee and was sacked but for something easily fixable like being late every day. Eventually ran out of friends settees so sleep on and went onto the street after 2 months.
A month later gets a dog (somehow 🤷♂️) and in this time is found by a homeless charity who wants to help. However because he has a dog he will need to give that up.
So an entirely helpable person has a chain of not realising how important earning income is, especially in a situation like this, actually moved out of a family home where the situation wasn’t even that bad (apart from being utterly stupid, a likely cause of friction at home, this wasn’t a domestic violence situation, more a “I can’t play on my Xbox all day” situation), despite working and living with parents had no savings at all and whilst on the streets quickly amassed another mouth to feed which he considered a priority over accepting a housing offer despite being homeless for longer than he’d had the dog.
All of this is a simple chain of stupidity, bad choices and selfishness and it really made me lose interest in homelessness because it doesn’t seem to be unique.
Of course this is only one example that really stuck in my mind but it’s the answer to your specific question. That’s the reason why at least some people are homeless yet under apparently normal conditions.
Mmmm mr blackrock multibillionaire who doesn’t know I exist please fill me up 😩🍆💦
A liberal leftist apologising for multi billion dollar companies managing trillions worth of assets? No, surely not.
Not a leftist and no, you just don’t understand how it works. BlackRock does not actually own those assets, millions of people who use their tracker fund products do. They’re probably in your pension.
You're full of shit mate. We don't badly need any housing.
We just need to shut our borders to the third world.
Do you (only) read the Express by any chance?
Bold of you to assume he can read.
'Bold' of you to post something 'original.'
Do you only ever cone to the echo chamber that is reddit?
7 million new beds to find and immigration isn't an issue, this is reddit it's boomers fault mate.
Needed immigration: 340,000 Net immigration: 430,000 = +90,000
Housing shortfall: 4,300,000
Herrp derrp immigration is the problem
Doo bee doop, what is needed immigration?
Net migration has been 2.9 million over the last 5 years. The 5 years before that 1.5 million. Given that any shortfall has been an ongoing issue for a number of years 10 years is a reasonable time frame to look at.
That is 4.5m people over 10 years. To add to this Children born to non-uk born women make up 70% of all new born. Thetefore, having a large immigrant population accelerates population growth
Long and the short, immigration is the single biggest factor behind the shortage. I don't know why that's a controversial thing to say?
The 4.3m housing shortfall figure is not the only estimate, the Bidwells estimate is 2.5m. You have to remember that these modelling exercises are coloured by self interest.
Oh then fine. Sorry most subreddits are leftist cesspits
Are you OK?
Hes suffering from a severe case of liberal cesspititus
A landlord sub is leftist?lol
Sorry, I seem to get recommended random subs sometimes and I commented without reading the name. I accept my downvotes with dignity.
It’s easy to be right in your head when you ignore what everyone says isn’t it champ. Keep it up, stay angry and unhappy and confused
I never disagreed with anything you've said. I assumed you were a leftist, and leftists are often hypocritical. I don't dispute your views as they are congruent with your identity
lol
It's good to get this information correct. Easy mistake to be made, but I honestly think it doesn't matter the exact faceless megacorp. I mean John Lewis and Lloyds Banking Group are at it.
The change in ownership is what society and governments should question. If we think a few companies owning increasing property for indefinite subscription is a good thing, then fair enough, but as we've seen time-and-time again, billionaires will benefit and everyone else does not.
Edit: this was also discussed on the main thread. I was mistaken to think that the youtuber had made a mistake.
Just to add, something like 2% of the UK housing market is owned by corporate landlords which is tiny compared to the rest of Europe.
We dont want corporate landlords.
On reddit they don't want any landlords.
We don’t want any landlords lmao
People need places to rent too 🤷♂️
They do, shame social housing has been decimated and sold off to private landlords and those rents have gone up massively while quality of the housing and treatment of tenants has got worse and worse.
Shame a huge number of people are also permanently renting due to housing becoming unaffordable who would much rather be able to buy a place.
Speak to almost any tenants about their experience with landlords and the rental market and you’ll find they fucking hate it.
Absolutely agree. Its the “free market will sort it out” mentality which is completely the wrong way to go, for various reasons.
Personally speaking, without private landlords, my life would be been very different and likely markedly worse. We need rent control, regardless if who's letting.
I feel like this is yet another argument like the one Warren Buffett made about companies and billionaires paying taxes.
If the people running countries weren't allowed to be powered by greed alone, this sort of behavior would end overnight.
Stop calling it lobbying, it's bribery.
Close the tax loopholes. This all goes away.
If your small and doing it it's bribery. If you're large and in a suit, it's lobbying. This is the world we live in sadly
>Easy mistake to be made
Easy mistake to make if you're not doing your research or paying attention to what you're reading. It makes everything else in your video questionable as, if you can get something as simple and important as the main focus of the video wrong, why should anything else you say be trusted?
Honestly, this is embarrassing and you making excuses for the mistake makes it even worse.
I've added an update to my comment. I was mistaken to assume it was a mistake in the two companies
Blackrock was spun out of Blackstone though, no?
BlackRock has a stake in Blackstone. But on the wider scale, BlackRock are a much larger threat on a wider scale than the above video, managing more than $11 trillion in assets. Blackstone is a tenth of that.
thanks.. Will buy blackstone stock now..
Don't matter get these fucking immigrants out, buying all our shit and making profit off it (sarcastic. But not surprised they're the reason we care so much about ukraine)
And who is Blackstone owned by? (It's blackrock and vanguard)
Tenants are already facing rent pressure as landlords leave the market. I doubt a monopoly will make that any better - but we will see.
I sat on Reddit years ago and warned that the rent freeze in Scotland (which frankly was the government over extending their authority) would cause chaos as soon as it ended and I was downvoted to hell in the Scottish subs. Then the 48 hours after it ended these were floods of ‘rent increase what the hell is going on!?’ Type posts in the same subs.
These large investor landlords have the ability to lobby and shape policy. Small landlords cannot compete.
What do you mean? I’m sure there big corps lobbied the government, greased the wheels for years and quietly bought up the competition so they could provide fairly priced low cost rental properties while being totally fair to tenants.
Oh and once they own everything good luck getting a rental if you leave under dispute- no hiding the past from the new landlord cause it’s the same company!
I’m not supporting large landlords- also, they pay very little tax in comparison to smaller landlords.
Lol, u/purely_specific was being sarcastic there!
You guys are on the same page.
People hate me (online at least) because I am a "landlord" - but seriously, wait until Blackrock etc really get rolling. Poor tenants are going to get fcked.
Correct on all points mate.
People seem to forget what it’s like battling a big company - think about a dispute with virgin media and how annoying that is because you cannot talk to anyone who actually cares or can help. That’s what it’s going to be like, but with your home.
And then some impersonal algorithm is going to overcharge you or kick you out and absolutely noone will be accountable.
Sounds a lot like my experience with private landlords and estate agents tbh
Exactly. I told people to be careful what they wish for . Get rid of us and replace us with large corporate landlords will not be good for the everyday normal renters.
Yup, most people can't see an issue until it's touching their nose
They're doing the same in farming.
BlackRock don't pay any inheritance tax.
This is so skewed to corporations winning and eventually owning everything.
They make no secret about this, it's Agenda 2030.
Aren't private rental properties on the continent largely owned by big companies? I can see benefits of bigger companies being easier to regulate, more likely to be professionalised and more predictable for renters compared to lots of small landlords.
Whilst an element of this is true for sure (though, looks at things like United utilities dumping sewage - it's not guarantee), it's not all good.
A small time landlord is far more likely to say "hmm..10% rise... After taxes that's about £50pm extra... That said, they're pretty good... Fuck it I'll not raise it to keep them sweet. Can't be bothered in case I've got it slightly wrong and they ultimately leave!"
Whereas a corp is far more likely to push the limits of it, especially when they have far more meta data to work with.
As a landlord, I can confirm. I have held off rent raises because I don't want to deal with hunting for new tenants, and the current ones are decent enough.
I've literally just done it because this guy's fantastic.
I was also very explicit that this was a case of "I always assess it, but you've been a fantastic tenant so I'm not changing it. I won't look at it again until around the 2 year point, but I'll be keeping you below market rate regardless. You've been great and I want to do right by that. This is just a gesture to show that's noticed and appreciated. Thank you."
He's done bits of DIY around the house, always running it by me for the bigger jobs and refused to be reimbursed for materials, let alone his time.
I'm more than happy to not increase, and I'm giving extensive flexibility as he's come across a really shitty time in his personal life. He's been "behind" on rent for a while, but the balance isn't growing (it's actually shrinking, steadily). He's normally marginally ahead as he pays fortnightly, for 50% of the month.
Not only is this a nightmare to account for on scale, but what do you think corporate risk profiles would say if they're behind for 4 months out of less than 2 years? I have no doubt the guy would be out if it was a corporate account.
Rings true.
I once gave a tenant a month free rent. At Christmas. Just because I could.
not to mention they can all get together and push up rental prices
easier to regulate? Unlikely. They have much greater lobbying, they are much more able to write the regulation themselves.
And past a certain point, they will be "too big to fail."
When people talk about larger entities being better, I always recall Grenfell Tower. That landlord was huge with over 10,000 units.
Will get downvoted but this is a healthy component of the housing system.
The UK, London particularly needs more housing supply, one barrier to developers building new housing is not obtaining sufficient presales to get a development of the ground. Having institutional investors buy a bulk lot of units helps the developer get a project off the ground which enables individuals to buy remaining units.
The video itself is a bit sensationalist and probably a bit made up in parts. He makes it sound like Institutional investors are buying apartments one by one off estate agents, going to viewings. That's not how it works, they work with a developer to buy a bulk lot of houses.
There are advantages to corporate landlords, they are much less likely to choose to sell property part way through a lease, and can generally be available long term so you're less likely to have to move.
If you look at the numbers, I'm sure you'd find the number of corporately purchased units pails in comparison to the number of forced affordable and shared ownership housing units developers are forced to build, which push prices up for regular joes.
I don't think it would be healthy if corporate ownership was 100% of the market, but it is a heathy and good component of the broader market of private landlords, private owners, and council housing.
I agree. Another element is that there's a tendency for small landlords to still see the house as their home (either it was their home, or they have a more personal attachment to it), this leads to lots of overbearing rules, personal feelings which is hugely unprofessional. A corporate landlord won't do this, it's business, not personal.
Another area is discrimination, if a small scale landlord doesn't rent to you because you're a person of colour, gay, on benefits, it's nearly impossible to spot, but if this is happening at scale it's more easily noticeable and can be prevented.
Indeed - these companies have no interest in buying random ageing houses or apartments. It's frankly not worth it to them.
What they will happily do though is buy up X% of a new development.
While small local landlords keep getting screwed, we are one of the most profitable market for international portfolio buyers with easy access to BTL interest only mortgage.
Very good point on the leveraging of cheap money. Compare what they can leverage Vs small UK businesses, and then I can assure you government will not bail out Jim & Jane BTL ltd but they would the big boys.
The poor have been bled dry of assets, stripping the middle class of wealth is the current objective .
This hits the nail on the head. It wasn't enough to funnel all wealth away from the working class, now it's professional and middle class. Who knows the end game when nothing left, and everything in the hands of very few. May as well just die then and they can live on this planet with the robots
The system demands infinite growth whilst we have finite resources
I walked into a friend's flat share about 5 years ago and there was a big "Welcome to your Blackrock property" laminated sign by the door with a big list of rules.
That was the day that I became radicalised.
Linking your lifelong file from your first month in their property till your death.
Coming soon, rent your casket when you pass on - brought to you by your housing partner in 2026
Quietly? lol
“Quietly” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Most informed people already know this, no one can do anything about it though.
We were very fair landlords, but it just became too much of a hassle with all the government changes and costs. Sold it and bought a holiday home instead, have been far happier.
What are the major differences out of curiosity, from your perspective. And how are the returns compared to the BTL?
Don’t blackrock (and other asset managers) offer funds that are property focused? So it’s not blackrock who own it, but the funds themselves (and thus : you and me with our pensions).
It's a consideration for sure. Is that what we want? Is that best for society?
> it’s a consideration
Well it kind of changes the subtext of this video, doesn’t it? It’s not a big evil company buying it up, it’s technically everybody.
> is that best for society
Well should people be able to get exposure to the property market, regardless if they have the ability to get a mortgage or not?
Well it's a big evil corporation, even if some are shareholders. If people are outraged by small husband and wife owning a portfolio of 1-2 properties, they should be incensed by multi billion pounds funds controlling increasing share of housing.
> multi billion pound funds
Which are mostly owned by ordinary people and their pensions.
Regardless of end ownership, the issue is control and influence. Just because Betty's pension is better off doesn't mean it's good for tenants and landlords.
> control and influence
From ordinary people and their pensions?
It completely changes the question
As I told OP, the issue isn't the end ownership. Ultimately, all publicly traded companies are owned by 'the people', but what control and influence comes with that vehicle being a corporation. There is a reason we have competition laws and legislation. Because if we didn't and left unchecked, we'd be left in a world with one or two companies supplying everything and that level of control isn't a world I want.
You just need to look to the States and see the impact of private corporate landlords.
>You just need to look to the States and see the impact of private corporate landlords.
Do you? Seems to me they control up to 3% of the US market. Not exactly a monopoly
But OP wasn't referring to shares in the business, but shares in the property portfolios they manage (not own, manage). So those properties are collectively owned by the public directly, not indirectly through ownership of company shares.
But according to reddit it's "boomers" who are the problem. 🙄
They aren't necessarily the problem but sure have enjoyed the best of everything. If you could you would too.
Well people want to get rid of small landlords like us. I heard tenants saying they would rather deal with a large VC (vulture capital)landlords than small landlords like us.
I told them to be careful what you wish for .
You would probably do the exact same thing if you had the capital. I think that’s the issue people have. I’d obviously rather deal with a “small” landlord though. But anything over 1 rental property and you’re scum in my eyes. Capital landlords are a different level of evil.
The government made a huge mistake by encouraging people to put all their savings into property. The model of small private homeowner or landlord doesn't work because they have no economy of scale.
You are seeing it with the high cost of builders for private properties that is an issue these days.
The government 's idea was to push up property prices and stimulate the building industry. However property doesnt work for investors in the UK, because the cost of builders and trades is so high. The property market has underperformed since C19.
Another absolute shocker of a mistake by the government by pushing through an unworkable policy/agenda for years that has ended up f****ing your average mom&pop investor
Mistake, you say?
This probably more YouTube fake education slop. Because well why would it be the first balanced complete and accurate argument.
Agreed, it's not epitome of journalism, but I think it's important to keep highlighting the point. Personally, I've lost the interest in convincing people that it's a negative for society overall. Nonetheless I find it worth sharing these articles and videos.
Just be really careful then lot of these video types hide scams or simply here for click bait then confirming bias.
There isn't anything in the video that is new as I said in my comment. It's simply fact for the last 2 decades. Housing market continues to change. Corporations increase their power and influence and less wealth left for citizens.
How much do you think it aligns with corporatism and statism dominating the future eg loss of private ownership etc?
What type of straw man is that? Private equity buying up a large share of the housing market is a massive issue in the western world. It’s literally all public information? Maybe just use your critical thinking skills for once? Seriously?
There a reason why I said ‘probably’ I haven’t and will not watch this video. Why? Don’t need to I’m an economist.
I just put up a warning that near absolute amount economic content on YouTube is ‘slop’ to put it colloquially. Or a inferior service.
This is a legitimate part of the market but it would be much better if UK Pension schemes were buying them so the profit stayed in this country and actually benefitted people in retirement - Also Councils for many years have been disincentivised from doing this as the debt went on their books (I don't know the full details but its a mess) and even worse they could build it and then have to sell it off at a loss under Right to Buy
The Blackstone Group is an offshoot of the original founding owners of BlackRock. Either way it is like a metastatic cancer that is swallowing up everything.
We still don't know what Bill Gates discussed with Starmer in their meeting, despite multiple freedom of information requests by Lewis Blackpool and others.
stop having kids - just rebel
Lol, I can't afford a house in my home borough, and that's because landlords own all the houses and drive demand / scarcity.
Cope and seeth
The 'saturn' worshippers at it again.
('Black rock' is the black cube)
Using AI fucks over artists too
Wild.
A subreddit full of people who buy up property complaining about a business buying up property.
What a time to be alive.
Supermarkets buy up produce to make a profit. What a time to be alive.
GP surgeries make a profit. What a time to be alive.
I rent a van, tools, an events space and they dare make profit. What a time to be alive.
Not sure Tesco is taking over 50% of someone’s wages to pay off their own mortgages, though...
But whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
Ah. So the cost of housing as a proportion of income should be the same as buying carrots and milk every week.. got it.
The “cost” of housing shouldn't be at the whim of some slimy, arrogant prick deciding he can whack the rent up by 25% when the mortgage has gone up by 2%.
Bring on rent controls.
Boring. Save it for somewhere else.
This is a community for Landlords. You can be anti-landlord in other places like /r/HousingUK/
Average brit would rather a multinational owned all the rental housing, rather than people owning second homes, even if that ends up being much worse in the long run. Harder to be jealous of a faceless corp.
Will be the same way with farming soon enough.
Astute observation. We have legacy class divides and the notion that anyone with more than me is bad. I'd rather my neighbour be successful because I'll feel the benefit in the economy than it be extracted out to external shareholders.
I dont have the time to watch the video but this is an issue ive predicted before and, to be honest, I think this is probably good news for small landlords that have enough of a portfolio to stay afloat. The thing about big corporate entities is they are incentivised to get the best return possible and at the same time the general lack of personal responsibility towards tenants means agents or employees are way more likely to kick problems into the tall grass.
Assuming demand stays roughly the same, the result is market rate for rents squeezes upwards. I think there is a chance also that a demand for private landlords is created where people realise that having a human relationship is quite nice. It's also very easy to compete on price with companies demanding the top end of market rate if you keep costs low.
We're in an interesting position in that we aren't an LLC but have a big enough portfolio that it would have been a good idea, but the cost of moving to one is prohibitively high. In spite of that our thought continues to be that the longer we can stay in the market the firmer our foundation becomes. We're just staying put and actively (but not aggresively) paying down to reduce the LTV, and trying to be proactive about problems to keep places in good condition and tenants happy.
The end result is reduced risk, higher returns and an easier time finding and retaining good tenants.
chatgpt script like at the very least, check for mistakes
Hi- so what?
Maybe bring in a law that no person or company can own more than say 10 properties and especially no foreign companies.
I'm pretty sure Blackrock is not interested in buying individual properties. They usually just buy huge companies holding those properties instead. This way they can hide behind corporate vale of holding companies.
Didn’t expect to see people simp for private equity here :/
AI slop thumbnail
Haha true but broke YouTuber isn't going to be spending money on a graphic artist
Why do so many people believe this conspiracy-theory bullshit?
Is it a conspiracy theory? It's just fact and some of us do not want corporations to own housing, same as those that don't want want privatised water companies, or rail, etc.
Blackrock did not buy "the whole board". It's not true. Blackrock haven't bought "the whole board", or got pricing power across the rental market, or stopped people getting homes. Only a tiny proportion of the UK housing market is owned by one big corporate, and the housing shortage has different causes (when's the last time you supported a planning request to build more housing?). If your political beliefs lead you to conspiracy theories like that, then you really need to reconsider your political beliefs.
Some people prefer AI-generated shite on Youtube; but if you'd consider serious analysis of the housing market, let me help: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7671/
Anyone who wants evidence-based housing policy should care about basic stuff like Blackstone and Blackrock being completely different companies.
I'm sorry if this firm response is a shock. I think we would both be happier if you'd learned it was a problem before you embarrassed yourself spreading obvious conspiracy theories.
It's an AI generated image. That's not the message in the video. Also, it's not controversial expose. It's simply stating fact. Private corporations are controlling a share of housing stock. And so what's if it's a small percentage. Isn't that how anything starts? The discussion is whether we should allow any housing to be owned by foreign corporations, and where Amazon style tax accounting will mean UK economy doesn't benefit.
Everything else you said is moot.
The UK economy is suffering from a crippling shortage of houses. I would love to hear somebody explain how investment in housebuilding is bad for the economy, because... money come from foreigner bad?
Lol why respond and then block me? If you're not happy to debate, don't join the conversation.
I won't bother responding to your simpleton question because you've shown what you're like. Embarrassing really.
Blackstone bought Bourne Leisure owners of Haven and Warner Leisure Hotels, time to start hitting them where it hurts!
I hate this sort of shit. What an amazing world we live in
The bad guys stealing all the money are always large corporations. Blaming even prolific Individuals who own multiple properties is the trick. And they’ll keep tricking everyone until we all have nothing and are serfs.
Yet Reddit wants the end of the evil independent landlords. Who exactly did they think was going to replace them?
They reap what they sow.
They'll see the end result. We're already seeing it. Previous equilibrium wasn't perfect but we had stable rents. More tinkering by the government = worse deal for everyone but the few big corps that will win ultimately.
Oh well, tax the duckers into a black whole singularity, greedy hunts.
You will own nothing and be happy. Imagine what it’s gonna look like in 5 - 10 years when thousands slowly lose their jobs to AI. It’s gonna be a bloodbath and these will buy them all up for pennies.
Tax the owners … it’s done in other countries. Simple yearly property tax of ownership. If it is not your main home or you own as a company tax higher.
Corporate landlords are generally a better option than the individual private landlord for tenants, because they operate on smaller margins and will have professionals working for them full time. They are also beneficial to the economy as you have a small number of people managing a larger number of properties, so you're tying up less of the workforce in a largely unproductive and extractive industry.
So, those are the pros... The cons, are that house prices will be driven out of reach of the average person, as the market becomes more speculative and less reliant on individual incomes / wages.
Those pros are not pros!
Having dealt with those "professionals" I can assure you I would rather a private landlord any day of the week.
Dealing with a company, like Haarts, and you are less than a number. You are a stain to them, an inconvenience on the route to making money.
And what about the taxes. I pay huge tax bill every year. That's money directly back into the economy. You think megacorp 101 is paying their tax. Dear me they've done a beautiful job convincing the lamb to go to the slaughter.
[deleted]
Garbage attracts garbage
Fuck landlords.
Need a hug?
Good. Half of my pension is in Blackrock, and property is very profitable.
That kind of mentality is why this country is so miserable. Selfish.
You're on a landlord sub, friend.
Landlords arent always selfish though. Lots of people need to rent.
Your first point hit the nail on the head. I’d say 90% of landlords are extremely selfish. Maybe higher. And it’s probably 100% of landlords who own 2+ properties.
But that’s partly due to landlords, plenty of people are forced to rent because house prices have been pushed up by (among other things) landlords buying to let
True, but lots of people live paycheck to paycheck and in that scenario how could you ever save up fot a deposit, regardless on the value of the property.
Yes, but rent makes up a large part of peoples living expenses, so they’re forced to rent by high house prices, and then can’t save because they have to spend 30% of their income on rent. Renting isn’t helping anyone people long term (other than the landlords). It just means they’re forced to pay for their landlords buy-to-let mortgage rather than their own house. High rent prices are a big part of the reasons people are living paycheck to paycheck
This is where the 30% figure comes from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/bulletins/privaterentalaffordabilityengland/2023#:~:text=Private%20renters%20on%20a%20median,ending%20(FYE)%20March%202023.
I absolutely agree in the terms of renting being a trap. But realistically if you cant afford a deposit, what other solution is there?
Council houses and non-profit housing associations, this is a problem that had already been solved before most of the UK’s social housing was sold off in the 80s
Didn't click, but I have BlackRock shares and no property, so this is fine for me.
"this is a problem for society, any non-homeowners, any individual non-portfolio landlords, but it doesn't affect me personally so I don't care lol"
As a non-homeowner, I'm saying it's not a problem for me. So 'any-non homeowners' isn't true here.
If you rent, a monopoly in an area is bad for you, no competition means there's no force pushing rent down or standards up.
If you ever intend to buy a home, a monopoly is bad for you, as reduced supply pushes prices up.
Monopoly doesn't reduce supply.
I can't imagine BlackRock are in a rush to sell their rental portfolio, houses get bought and turned into HMOs, therefore they are no longer available
So by increasing the number of people it homes, they are reducing supply of homes?
I was specifically responding to a non-homeowner, describing a situation in which they wished to purchase a property. I understand HMOs provide accomodation for more people but if you wished to purchase a house, your location of choice being filled with rental properties that won't get sold is bad for you as you have fewer options.
I haven’t seen any evidence they’re even remotely close to being able to directly influence the rents in any area. They’d have to own an absolutely absurd amount of property to be able to do that. If anything they are increasing supply by building more homes.
That maybe true for now, until they have enough control. It's the same for anything else which ends up controlled by a few small players. Also, they don't need to influence prices directly, the have lobbying power and can control government policy which has far greater impact on their bottom line e.g. tax changes
But like the scale of what you’re talking about is massive. This says “companies like Blackrock” so not even the one company, acquired 5,000 residential units. Most of these are newly funded construction projects so they are adding to the housing supply. But even if they weren’t, that’s less than 0.02% or 2 in 10,000 of all homes in the UK. It’s just a bit alarmist to start talking about monopolies in this context.
But do you believe if they are able to make say 10% returns year-on-year, that they'll stop at 0.02%, 2% or 20% if left unchecked? I don't have all the figures, but I know when something is coming down the pipeline that will not be good for society. Just think the last time you were happy one of the big six energy companies supplied your utilities, and when they've increased their prices and profits. Or when their woeful custom service has kept you on the phone for hours and still not resolved your issue. Now imagine that for housing where there is no choice. If people don't like changing their utilities or banks for better deal/service, do we think people will move rentals?
Well yes they’ll be stopped by a mixture of the fact that the hundreds of other financial institutions want a piece of the same action, the risk of exposing too much of their assets to the property market, the fact that their model only really works with large apartment buildings which the majority of people would prefer not to to live in, the low barriers to competition, shall I go on? Energy is a silly comparison because they are selling a totally fungible good, the only thing they compete on is price. A better comparison would be supermarkets which have substantially improved the availability, choice and value of food on the market compared to 50 years ago. Of the 6 or 7 BTL landlords I had in the past, maybe 1 or 2 provided a service that was genuinely acceptable. Having a landlord with a customer service department, maintenance people on retainer and a brand reputation to uphold would appeal to me personally.
This is one of the most financially illiterate things I have ever read.
Where do you get your news? George Orwell?
Thank you. Lennon.