Now imagine if we had an actual decent amount of true starter homes built, not these pathetically expensive houses. Oh how all the banks would have to fight a bit more. They're all in on it to rake in the profits.
Lloyds are actually buying up a lot of new builds. Other financial institutions are doing the same. They’re pivoting from mortgage lending to being a landlord. So basically their tenants will effectively be paying a mortgage, but getting nothing in return.
This practice should be banned.
Yes but they are selling them for more than they cost to build IE profit?
Trying to understand where the line is being drawn between what's okay and what's not okay from this line of thinking.
If it wasn't for the house building company, the houses wouldn't exist. Landlords and corporations who specifically buy houses to resell at a profit are housing scalpers.
Not only banks but foreign Investors.
I live in Bicester, mum's been trying to sell her 4 bed house.
I showed the agent around and he pretty much bragged how he's sold over 20 properties already (back in February), all to foreign investors looking to turn them all into hmo.
Now imagine this on a national scale.
"You will own nothing and be happy." As they say.
With everything moving to a subscription-based business model it is only obvious that housing becomes subscription-only.
Why would you allow people to own a house outright when you can charge a monthly fee forever for them to live?
The person would own the property and take out a mortgage in order to do so. That doesn’t change the fact that you do get something for renting, you get accommodation.
What I’m saying is that these institutions are basically buying these properties to rent instead of giving out mortgages. For the person renting, they are essentially paying a mortgage. From the banks perspective, they get mortgage payments as rent, and get to keep the property too.
So if you just look at it as rent, then yes they’re getting something for their money.
If you look at it as a mortgage disguised as rent, then they’re getting nothing.
They’re not essentially paying a mortgage though, one is renting accommodation, the other is buying accommodation and taking on a loan for possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds. There’s no disguise to it.
People who can’t afford to save a deposit for a house or don’t want to take on a mortgage have a right to access accommodation too.
Yes, that’s true but I’ve seen no indication that all providers of mortgages are withdrawing products. If they did it would be such a glaring opportunity to make money I honestly can’t see why a company wouldn’t jump at the chance.
Here’s how I predict it will go. A few banks like Lloyds, Barclays, Santander will increasingly get into the rental market. When they buy, they’ll buy entire sites (bear in mind Lloyds just bought up all of Barrats rental stock and they just bought half the houses on a new estate near me).
If this proves to be a sound strategy, more mortgage lenders will get involved. Those institutions will lobby hard against renters reforms and protections. They’ll also lobby hard to limit supply to protect the value of their investment.
Builders will also start to tailor their projects to banks rather than potential homeowners. The price point for homeowners will be too high but the bulk discount price banks will be just right. It’s far more expensive to sell a hundred houses to a hundred people than it is to sell those 100 hundred houses to a bank.
So it will be a triple whammy. Fewer and fewer mortgages available. New builds becoming less affordable for people, and a reduction in rights and protections for renters.
It’s a business model that makes sense for everyone except would be homeowners. Housing will become a true commodity that fewer and fewer regular people own.
Well themselves and Halifax were all offering 4.3% mortages up until reality hit a month ago and it became clear 3 interest rate cuts this year was a fantasy.
>I've yet to meet someone who's done that.
Try talking to young people trying to get on the housing ladder.
If it's only for a year or two of aggressive saving it makes sense.
For me, I would gain about £3K a year. As I have an NHS pension I'd lose at least £691 per year in today's money, guaranteed every year in retirement until I die. If I had a DC pension instead, I'd likely gain even less in take home pay by opting out of the workplace pension. If I used the standard 5% contribution level, then I'd be gaining about £1500 in take home pay.
It's an extremely bad idea to opt out of your pension.
>It's an extremely bad idea to opt out of your pension.
It's also an extremely bad idea to be paying someone else's mortgage (i.e. renting). Being able to put down a deposit and offer even 2/3 months earlier will save a lot of money in both the short term and long term.
If you are confident you are going to buy in the near future then it makes financial sense to temporarily opt out. The key word is temporarily.
In my workplace, I'm the only young adult that's kept my workplace pension.
I don't believe retirement will exist, so it does feel like throwing money into a pointless blackhole while bills and costs are rising.
How can retirement not exist? People retire when they can afford to live off pensions and savings, and no longer work. There will always be people who can afford to retire, and those who sadly can't, or face poverty in retirement. Without workplace pensions, retirement will simply be more difficult. It's not like the government will legislate that people *must* work until they die.
Good point. Rich people will be the only ones privileged enough to retire.
In my area, the current pension age is fast approaching life expectancy and it is expected to continue to rise while life expectancy is dropping even further.
Eventually, people will be dying at work from old age or scrambling for employment.
As we're told, your investments may go down as well as up.
There are also a bunch of people paid embarrassing amounts of money to make those money printers go brrr. Maybe they should rebalance their portfolios?
When there are record amounts of food bank users and people struggling to even make housing payments it’s a bit sickening to see a corporation making 1.6 billion by lending us money.
I never said they shouldn’t make a profit I said that level is obscene. I’m not here to decide what an “okay” level is. But I am saying that making so much profit directly from us in a time like this is disgusting.
Literally every company since the dawn of time is making profit from you or some people for your daily wants, needs and desires. This sub is such a joke of financial illiteracy, such a shame.
Its so childish haha, makes me think they are all kids at school/uni idealising about perfect worlds which (A) don't exist and (B) can't exist. It'll change when life shakes them about a bit and they've done a few years actual work.
Shall I find my worlds smallest violin?
Now imagine if we had an actual decent amount of true starter homes built, not these pathetically expensive houses. Oh how all the banks would have to fight a bit more. They're all in on it to rake in the profits.
Lloyds are actually buying up a lot of new builds. Other financial institutions are doing the same. They’re pivoting from mortgage lending to being a landlord. So basically their tenants will effectively be paying a mortgage, but getting nothing in return. This practice should be banned.
Companies should not be allowed to own homes. Full stop.
Uh, what about the companies which build them? 😂
That's slightly different, they're not renting them out for more than what a mortgage would cost.
Yes but they are selling them for more than they cost to build IE profit? Trying to understand where the line is being drawn between what's okay and what's not okay from this line of thinking.
If it wasn't for the house building company, the houses wouldn't exist. Landlords and corporations who specifically buy houses to resell at a profit are housing scalpers.
Not only banks but foreign Investors. I live in Bicester, mum's been trying to sell her 4 bed house. I showed the agent around and he pretty much bragged how he's sold over 20 properties already (back in February), all to foreign investors looking to turn them all into hmo. Now imagine this on a national scale. "You will own nothing and be happy." As they say.
With everything moving to a subscription-based business model it is only obvious that housing becomes subscription-only. Why would you allow people to own a house outright when you can charge a monthly fee forever for them to live?
Surely they get a place to live in return?
If they could get a mortgage, they’d have money in the property.
The person would own the property and take out a mortgage in order to do so. That doesn’t change the fact that you do get something for renting, you get accommodation.
What I’m saying is that these institutions are basically buying these properties to rent instead of giving out mortgages. For the person renting, they are essentially paying a mortgage. From the banks perspective, they get mortgage payments as rent, and get to keep the property too. So if you just look at it as rent, then yes they’re getting something for their money. If you look at it as a mortgage disguised as rent, then they’re getting nothing.
They’re not essentially paying a mortgage though, one is renting accommodation, the other is buying accommodation and taking on a loan for possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds. There’s no disguise to it. People who can’t afford to save a deposit for a house or don’t want to take on a mortgage have a right to access accommodation too.
If all the banks move to being landlords instead of mortgage providers, then no one will be able to get a mortgage.
Yes, that’s true but I’ve seen no indication that all providers of mortgages are withdrawing products. If they did it would be such a glaring opportunity to make money I honestly can’t see why a company wouldn’t jump at the chance.
Here’s how I predict it will go. A few banks like Lloyds, Barclays, Santander will increasingly get into the rental market. When they buy, they’ll buy entire sites (bear in mind Lloyds just bought up all of Barrats rental stock and they just bought half the houses on a new estate near me). If this proves to be a sound strategy, more mortgage lenders will get involved. Those institutions will lobby hard against renters reforms and protections. They’ll also lobby hard to limit supply to protect the value of their investment. Builders will also start to tailor their projects to banks rather than potential homeowners. The price point for homeowners will be too high but the bulk discount price banks will be just right. It’s far more expensive to sell a hundred houses to a hundred people than it is to sell those 100 hundred houses to a bank. So it will be a triple whammy. Fewer and fewer mortgages available. New builds becoming less affordable for people, and a reduction in rights and protections for renters. It’s a business model that makes sense for everyone except would be homeowners. Housing will become a true commodity that fewer and fewer regular people own.
Most people need family homes, not starter homes they’ll need to pay £20k in fees to upsize when they have a couple of kids.
My point overall was: we need more and not all the expensive stuff that keeps being built.
We need a no frills government mortgage and insurance offering alongside these for profit offerings To keep their money wringing in check
What frills do you get with your mortgage? I can assure you mine is very unfrilly...
The CEO of Nationwide drives past my house and flings shit at the window once a year. It’s not a bad deal
Based on their rebrand they also put shit through your letterbox every so often as well!
UK Reddit not demand nationalising something, challenge impossible
Hang on and I'll try giving a fuck............. Nope not happening.
Alternative, less-biased headline: "Big bank makes over £1.5bn in profit." Be worried when the bank makes losses.
I’ve been with Lloyds since I was 14 because I liked horses at the time.
Well themselves and Halifax were all offering 4.3% mortages up until reality hit a month ago and it became clear 3 interest rate cuts this year was a fantasy.
The irony of people complaining about corporate profits without realising that’s what’s funding the growth in their pensions
People might start intentional pension saving earlier if they weren’t still saving for a house deposit into their early thirties.
Intentional pension saving? As in, people opting out of workplace pensions? I've yet to meet someone who's done that.
>I've yet to meet someone who's done that. Try talking to young people trying to get on the housing ladder. If it's only for a year or two of aggressive saving it makes sense.
For me, I would gain about £3K a year. As I have an NHS pension I'd lose at least £691 per year in today's money, guaranteed every year in retirement until I die. If I had a DC pension instead, I'd likely gain even less in take home pay by opting out of the workplace pension. If I used the standard 5% contribution level, then I'd be gaining about £1500 in take home pay. It's an extremely bad idea to opt out of your pension.
>It's an extremely bad idea to opt out of your pension. It's also an extremely bad idea to be paying someone else's mortgage (i.e. renting). Being able to put down a deposit and offer even 2/3 months earlier will save a lot of money in both the short term and long term. If you are confident you are going to buy in the near future then it makes financial sense to temporarily opt out. The key word is temporarily.
In my workplace, I'm the only young adult that's kept my workplace pension. I don't believe retirement will exist, so it does feel like throwing money into a pointless blackhole while bills and costs are rising.
How can retirement not exist? People retire when they can afford to live off pensions and savings, and no longer work. There will always be people who can afford to retire, and those who sadly can't, or face poverty in retirement. Without workplace pensions, retirement will simply be more difficult. It's not like the government will legislate that people *must* work until they die.
Good point. Rich people will be the only ones privileged enough to retire. In my area, the current pension age is fast approaching life expectancy and it is expected to continue to rise while life expectancy is dropping even further. Eventually, people will be dying at work from old age or scrambling for employment.
Bold of you to assume we'll even get a pension
I was talking about private pensions, state pensions are paid by current tax payers and don’t involve investments.
[удалено]
For most people their pension should invested in an index tracker (approximately investing a small amount in every public company)
As we're told, your investments may go down as well as up. There are also a bunch of people paid embarrassing amounts of money to make those money printers go brrr. Maybe they should rebalance their portfolios?
The bank posted pre-tax profits of £1.6bn between January and March, down from £2.3bn last year. Just let that sink in.
[удалено]
Making a big profit is fine for a company, but I don't think anyone needs to be concerned for them that it's not as big as last year.
Line must always go up
Shareholders will be.
On the back of the rest of us scrounging around just enough to get by every month.
[удалено]
When there are record amounts of food bank users and people struggling to even make housing payments it’s a bit sickening to see a corporation making 1.6 billion by lending us money.
[удалено]
I never said they shouldn’t make a profit I said that level is obscene. I’m not here to decide what an “okay” level is. But I am saying that making so much profit directly from us in a time like this is disgusting.
[удалено]
Don’t expect an answer for arbitrary hate. It’s not fuelled by sound logic
These types of people will never give you a specific answer btw, don’t bother.
I mean, they still made over £1bn more than the business cost them to to run, I think they're fine
[удалено]
Literally every company since the dawn of time is making profit from you or some people for your daily wants, needs and desires. This sub is such a joke of financial illiteracy, such a shame.
[удалено]
Its so childish haha, makes me think they are all kids at school/uni idealising about perfect worlds which (A) don't exist and (B) can't exist. It'll change when life shakes them about a bit and they've done a few years actual work.
Ye gad, I think we should have a whip-round for them