If the average number of occupants isn't changing, then cohabitation and second houses are irrelevant to this discussion.

To whom is the apartment being sold?

• If it's another landlord, then supply and demand haven't changed.
• If it's anyone's former tenant, then both supply and demand are reduced by 1 on average, so rentals don't get more expensive.

Perhaps you can find some statistics to back up your general point? If you're right, then we should see the opposite correlation - higher homeownership with higher rents.

They didn't math right because 4000 matches a price point below 1.3 million. So they're selling themselves short on rent when they could have sold for the matching 7 out 8 hundred thousand dollar price point lol.

I should do that! Just buy the darn place and quit gossiping about it. LOL... So not lol.

So, this might not be the great news folks think it is...

I own a bunch of ancient freeholds ("peppercorn rents"), so I keep track mostly for folks looking to develop the land (I.e. buy the land off me).

Recently, a lot of rented houses got sold, and bought up by "property management" companies.

This appears to be a consolidation rather than a capitulation sadly. The properties are going under the umbrella of larger firms with better lawyers.

Yeah the Telegraph is subtle about it. They exercise their bias more through selective reporting, rather than slanted language.

Typical houses in my area start at $1m. Anything under that is a fixer-upper.

More likely to be property management companies, not individuals

"44,000 rentals have been sold" - No buyers tho! They're being sold to the great void! 🤣

The average number of occupants doesn't change because everyone will still be living somewhere (excluding homelessness but we can ignore that). However, that does not mean cohabitation and second houses are irrelevant.

• Some people who were previously cohabiting (not renting) will buy homes
• Some people will buy second (or third, etc) houses.

Both of these scenarios are excluded from your example above. As a consequence of them, some renters will have to start cohabiting (or become homeless). The fact that there are more people who want to rent their (own) place then there are rental units will drive up rental prices.

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.20181289

Here you go.

Using a 1994 law change, we exploit quasi-experimental variation in
the assignment of rent control in San Francisco to study its impacts
on tenants and landlords. Leveraging new data tracking individuals’
migration, we find rent control limits renters’ mobility by 20 percent
and lowers displacement from San Francisco. Landlords treated by
rent control reduce rental housing supplies by 15 percent by selling to
owner-occupants and redeveloping buildings. Thus, while rent control prevents displacement of incumbent renters in the short run, the
lost rental housing supply likely drove up market rents in the long run,
ultimately undermining the goals of the law.

We desperately need to forbid companies owning personal homes. Thus simply should not be possible for a business to own homes.

Good? Where did I leave the "Well, anyway" meme...

That's an interesting comparison, thanks! I'll think about this.

Cheers

This appears to be a consolidation rather than a capitulation sadly.

Nothing new. Consolidation of property has been happening in England since the Enclosure Acts.

The Renter's Rights legislation is purely a scapegoat. Unless someone can explain how renter rights won't apply to property management firms, it remains an improvement overall.

Could somebody post a high-information content version of this?

They’re being sold to large corporations. Not normal people.

No they’re just selling to bigger middlemen in property management corporations.

Good, bye bye. Don't let the door hitcha ass on the way out. If you can't obey regulations then you shouldn't be in business.
There will still be tons of demand for housing, which means plenty of landlords will see that $$$$ and make it work.

It should but it wont.

" quitting in droves" Selling their properties to people who want to live there

I think you mean a lot of landlords are scum, and yeah I get it. There are people who switch jobs every 2-5 years to seek out the best raises. For them I think it makes perfect sense to rent. The fees to buy a house aren't cheap and not being tied down makes a lot of sense early in your career. I suppose you can buy a property, then move out and rent it to someone else, but that feels like circular problem if we're discussing putting an end to renting out single family homes.