3 ms·

A slight tangent: I wonder what is going to happen to rents over the coming year now that most of the moratoriums have expired and the evictions are starting to

A slight tangent: I wonder what is going to happen to rents over the coming year now that most of the moratoriums have expired and the evictions are starting to work their way through the court system. Some landlords are going to try to work with delinquent tenants on some sort of payment agreement. Some of these will work out, some won't, which will mean more evictions in the legal pipeline. The people who are evicted aren't going to be able to easily rent another home so there should end up being a glut of rental properties on the market. In theory this should drive down prices as landlords compete for tenants with clean rental records but maybe inflation will end up eating the downward price pressure. Some percentage of those evicted won't be able to find alternate living quarters and end up on the street or living in a vehicle.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Ekaros 5y ago
On other hand any reasonable landlord should increase rents moving forward to take in account next possible moratorium. I would, it is clear that state is against them so they must set rents to level that can cover such scenario again.
- blitzar 5y ago
  Pricing model before would have had near 0% probablilty of 12 month moratorium. New model must take it into account, it is simply a question of what probability. Or take out insurance to cover the scenario. Reminds me of Wimbledon. Oddly reported as a "windfall" but no doubt they were called "stupid" for spending $2mil a year on pandemic insurance. It has learnt from the SARS outbreak, taking out pandemic insurance since 2003 https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/wimbledon-set-for-coronavirus-windfall-in-huge-pay-out-from-pandemic-insurance/1433146.article https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/wimbledon-set-for-coro...
- tsol 5y ago
  Well to be fair the market decides. It's not solely up to landlords, it's up to what the market is willing to pay. Unfortunately even if you did, corporate landlords probably won't because they can afford to. Leaving their prices lower, and a continuation of the cycle of property moving into the hands of corporate landlords like Blackrock. It's a tough issue

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Ekaros 5y ago

On other hand any reasonable landlord should increase rents moving forward to take in account next possible moratorium. I would, it is clear that state is against them so they must set rents to level that can cover such scenario again.

blitzar 5y ago
Pricing model before would have had near 0% probablilty of 12 month moratorium. New model must take it into account, it is simply a question of what probability. Or take out insurance to cover the scenario. Reminds me of Wimbledon. Oddly reported as a "windfall" but no doubt they were called "stupid" for spending $2mil a year on pandemic insurance. It has learnt from the SARS outbreak, taking out pandemic insurance since 2003 https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/wimbledon-set-for-coronavirus-windfall-in-huge-pay-out-from-pandemic-insurance/1433146.article https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/wimbledon-set-for-coro...
tsol 5y ago
Well to be fair the market decides. It's not solely up to landlords, it's up to what the market is willing to pay. Unfortunately even if you did, corporate landlords probably won't because they can afford to. Leaving their prices lower, and a continuation of the cycle of property moving into the hands of corporate landlords like Blackrock. It's a tough issue