The old rent vs buy debate. I rented for a long time and it served me very well during the bachelor days. However I am reminded of an ex-boss who made a cool $2M tax free on 2 separate PPORs within 6 or 7 years only. Enough for him to leave his $250k pa job (+ hefty bonuses) and move the family up to Byron Bay where he was up to his old tricks again, did up a run down and pulled in another $500k tax free. He surfs everyday and walks his kids to school while we battle with the stresses of modern day city living. Food for thought...
declining property prices?
- Thread starter momo
- Start date
And here in lies the essence of why most property investors do what they do- to buy back some time while they have family/friends they can spend time with. That is why I do what I do,HG. You sound young(under 30 at least), possibly haven't been knocked around financially, probably no kids. Hell, I know you, you were me when I was in my 20s.
I'll give you some advice, free this time, you WILL see things differently, what with a wife, kids, more expenses than you can poke a stick at, jobhassles, financial insecuurity, and the biggest one of all-your mortality.
It isn't all black and white, I assure you my friend.
Superannuation isn't going to be enough. I am in the health profession, people are living longer(not necessarily healthier). try having financial hassles while you are ill ,it isn't a laughing matter.
These forumites are teaching you(and me) a thing or two about what you should consider doing to plan for your future.
Peace.
I AGREE THAT RENTING CAN AFFORD YOU A BETTER LIFESTYLE AS IT IS USUALLY CHEAPER THAN OWNING A HOUSE. BUT SADLY, MOST PEOPLE WHO RENT DON'T INVEST THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEIR RENT AND WHAT THEIR MORTGAGE PAYMENT WOULD BE. THEY JUST BLOW IT ON DOODADS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FINANCIALLY EDUCATED AND HAVE A CONSUMER MINDSET. FINANCIALLY EDUCATED PEOPLE RENT, AND BUY AN I.P WHICH HAS LOTS OF FACTORS TO DRIVE THEIR WEALTH BUILDING; RENTAL YEILD, LEVERAGE FOR FINANCE, ON-PAPER DEDUCTIONS, TAX DEDUCTIONS, CAP GAINS.So what you are saying here is that you can't lose even if you buy at any price?
WELL, YOU ARE TWISTING THE WORDS; I SAID PAY FAIR MARKET VALUE AT ANY POINT IN THE MARKET AND YOU WILL BE OK IF YOU NEVER HAVE TO SELL. I ONLY BUY PROPERTIES SUCH THAT MY FINANCIAL POSITION IS NEVER COMPROMISED, THUS I NEVER HAVE TO SELL.
BUT ANYWAY; FOR EXAMPLE TO ILLUSTRATE MY POINT; I PAID JUST UNDER ASKING PRICE FOR 2 PROPERTIES AT THE TOP OF THE "BOOM" IN LATE 2003. CRAZY DECISION BASED ON THE TIMING OF THE MARKET IF YOU LOOK BACK. BUT I DID SOME VERY EXTENSIVE D.D BEFORE THE PURCHASES AND MADE AN INFORMED DECISION AND TOOK ACTION (UNLIKE YOU).
THE TWO PROPERTIES WERE:
$105K (ASKING $110K) RENT: $180 P/W
$151K (ASKING $155K) RENT: $265 P/W
NOW, THEY ARE WORTH $200K AND $225K RESPECTIVELY AND CONSERVATIVELY.
RESPECTIVE RENTS NOW ARE:
$220 P/W AND
$280 P/W (WITH A 3 X 2 LEASE ABOUT TO START).
BOTH PROPERTIES WERE BOUGHT WITH EQUITY IN PPOR AND FURTHER FINANCE - 100+% FINANCE. (LVR AT THE TIME BEFORE THE PURCHASE WAS 60%; NOW IN THE MID 50'S).
AS WELL AS THIS, THEY ARE BOTH BUILT IN EARLY 1990'S, SO "ON-PAPER" DEDUCTIONS ARE LOVELY. THESE 2 PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN A PHENOMINAL SUCCESS AS INVESTMENTS BASED ON CASH INPUT (NONE), BUT PHENOMINAL ANYWAY. THANK GOD I DIDN'T SIT ON MY CHEQUE BOOK.
-A house provides a yield of shelter, which you can work out the value of by comparing equivalent market rents.
-You can thus work out a "fair price" to pay for a property, using Present Value:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_Value
If you pay more than this, you are relying on a "greater fool" paying more than it is really worth. This HAS worked to provide capital gains over many years, but I am confident that fundamental values will again be reached one day. It is only then that I will buy.
A FAIR PRICE TO PAY FOR ANY PROPERTY IS WHAT THE RECENT COMPARABLE SALES ARE FOR THAT IMMEDIATE AREA, FACTORING THE AVERAGE INCOME FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA AS WELL. FOR EXAMPLE; A $1 MILL HOME IN DANDENONG WOULD BE A BAD MOVE. ON TOP OF THIS, I GET A PROPERTY VALUATION DONE AS PART OF THE D.D. IT'S A COST OF DOING BUSINESS. THE CAP GAIN IS SIMPLY NATURAL PROGRESSION OF MARKET AND ECONOMICAL FORCES AT WORK.
I live in a 3bdr house 5km from the CBD. If the rent doubled I wouldn't be in housing stress (30% gross wages) I can easily afford for my wife to take time off work.
I could *NOT* afford this if I bought the house I live in. If I paid the same amount in interest only as I do in rent, I'd have to live significantly further away from town and in a much smaller, crappier place. I could also not save anywhere near as much and have a diversified investment portfolio.
MY FIRST HOUSE WAS CRAPPY. IT WAS ALL I COULD AFFORD, 1 HOUR FROM WORK FOR BOTH ME AND PARTNER.
IF YOU KNOW YOUR INVESTMENT VEHICLE WELL, WHY THE NEED TO DIVERSIFY? WARREN BUFFET SAID: "PUT ALL YOUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET AND WATCH THAT BASKET VERY CAREFULLY." MY IDEA OF DIVERSIFYING IS TO BUY PROPERTIES IN DIFFERENT AREAS. BUT THEY ARE STILL ALL PROPERTIES; SOME UNITS, SOME HOUSES.
I rent because I can get a better life for the same money.
Other people buy because they think prices are going to go up.
But why would prices keep going up if you can have a better life renting?
OH YEAH; AND THEY PROVIDE HOUSING FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY, OR WHO WANT TO LIVE CLOSE TO WORK AND SAVE MONEY LIKE YOU. YOUR LANDLORD IS PROVIDING YOU WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET AHEAD AND BECOME WEALTHY THROUGH YOUR CHEAP ACCOMODATION, SO DON'T KNOCK HIM/HER/US.
I DISAGREE THAT PEOPLE BUY HOPING THE PRICE GOES UP. MOST PEOPLE ONLY EVER BUY ONE HOUSE; THEIR PPOR. THEIR SOLE PURPOSE IS TO BUY A PIECE OF AUSTRALIA THAT IS THEIRS.
SO, H.G; KEEP RENTING AND BUY A CUTE LITTLE UNIT OR HOUSE OUT IN THE BURBS, WHACK A TENANT IN, GET SOME TAX DEDUCTIONS AND SIT BACK FOR 5 OR SO YEARS AND SEE YOUR NETT WORTH INCREASE IN QUANTUM LEAPS. YOUR FAMILY WILL THANK YOU.
WITH A BIT OF LUCK YOU MAY BE RETIRED AT 46 LIKE ME. (6 YEARS LATE BY MY PLAN) IT'S NOT HARD AT ALL.
Last edited:
But the trouble with this is that if everyone uses this formula, then prices can get very far away from fundamental values.
Say a house is worth 100k. Someone likes it, it is better than average or they're just a bit silly and pays $120k for it. Everyone looks at suburb data and sees that prices rose by 20% in a year. They think the area is on the up and up, and prices in the whole suburb rise by this amount.
Pets.com shares traded for $11 in February 2000 but $0.19 when it was liquidated. The price *WAS* $11, you could have sold it for $11 but was it really worth $11 or was it just overvalued?
If nobody pays attention to fundamental values, and just assumes that everyone else is pricing the market correctly and that's how much you can pay, then prices can completely disconnect from fundamentals, which I believe has happened in Australia (seeing as it is significantly cheaper to rent than to buy)
I agree. So my question is, why should I provide a cheaper option to someone else? Why not just take and not give?
Agree 100% if you don't do this you are going to fall behind.
but the only use for pets.com shares is the financial benefits it offers. It is apples and oranges, actually apples and lamb.
True. So I guess you are saying that there is an "ownership premium" that Australians are willing to pay over rent? How do you calculate that?
Why is it cheaper to buy than rent in most other countries and through most of history (eg it was cheaper for my parents to buy than rent in the 70s)?
Is it because of Austrailan culture and values of home ownership? How have they changed since the 70s?
would be curious to see the data on the ownership in the 70's. i have always taken it as a given that rent was cheaper in Oz than buy due to our distorted tax system.
there is absolutely no doubt that there is an ownership premium... don't waste money on rent, go waste even more on interest and rates and repairs and depreciation!
there is absolutely no doubt that there is an ownership premium... don't waste money on rent, go waste even more on interest and rates and repairs and depreciation!
So how exactly do you determine the fundamental value of a property? Even with shares the fundamental value is effectively the relationship between what the market, on average, is willing to pay for a share and the expected value of it's future earnings.
The relationship between the buy and rent prices for property is really no different to the price to earning relationship of shares. The difficulty is that majority of property in Australia is owner occupied, and thus has NO earning component.
When markets run high, they generally do so because of emotion. But in a shares trading market, shares tend to get dumped if they don't perform as expected. The problem is that with property, the majority of Australians aspire to either:
a) owning their own home; or
b) owning a bigger/better/nicer/better-located home than they already have.
I would agree that there is a theoretical maximum that the market, in general, can bear. The problem (although not really bad from my perspective), is that there are too many real indicators that show that the market is nowhere near that point yet. The most important of these is that luxury spending is at an all time high. There is also the fact that many other western countries have comparatively higher prices (in the major cities at least) than Australia.
Of course there is the counter argument that the amount of household income required to buy a house is growing (it's what? 5.5 times average household income for median house now?), but consider that in parts of Los Angeles median housing costs 11 times household income! I stumbled across that the other day, and I haven't tried to find other places where it's higher, but that in itself is a lesson. Imagine if that happened in Australia - the median house price would be double what it is now with NO CHANGE in income!
Hired Goon's idea of a 'fundamental value' is something that I don't think exists, as much as he'd like.
Ever since I can remember, the value of anything was what someone was willing to pay for that item; be it a car, a painting (how the hell do you value that crap? You think Rembrandt is great; I don't. I hate abstact, you don't etc), a pair of jeans, a property.
Prices of houses are never far away from fundamental values in my view as there is always someone needing to live in them. Sometimes there is less demand for that item due to economic factors, so the value drops a bit for a short time, but until the population disappears of the face of the earth, they will be fairly valued.
Hired Goon, you've got paralysis by over-analysis I believe.
Just get out there and buy something for God's sake and leave us converted disciples alone.
Ever since I can remember, the value of anything was what someone was willing to pay for that item; be it a car, a painting (how the hell do you value that crap? You think Rembrandt is great; I don't. I hate abstact, you don't etc), a pair of jeans, a property.
Prices of houses are never far away from fundamental values in my view as there is always someone needing to live in them. Sometimes there is less demand for that item due to economic factors, so the value drops a bit for a short time, but until the population disappears of the face of the earth, they will be fairly valued.
Hired Goon, you've got paralysis by over-analysis I believe.
Just get out there and buy something for God's sake and leave us converted disciples alone.
One of HG's traits, it seems, is to try to apply macro theory, when it really isn't relevant. 'Fundamental value' is an example of this. Ultimately, the price of a property is made up of three components, I think:
1) Value of the land it's on;
2) Cost of building; and
3) The arbitrary value placed by the market on location and layout.
You can cost (1) and (2) quite easily. You can't cost (3) accurately, without a bunch of assumptions and guesswork, and comparison to other similar sales achieved. (3) can even be a negative value in some cases!
As I've said before, I'm profoundly unconvinced of HG's theories, especially after she spoke about "wanting" to live in a given location. The reality of the matter is that property investors have made money for centuries in all market conditions, by knowing what to buy and how much to pay. Those are the real fundamentals!
1) Value of the land it's on;
2) Cost of building; and
3) The arbitrary value placed by the market on location and layout.
You can cost (1) and (2) quite easily. You can't cost (3) accurately, without a bunch of assumptions and guesswork, and comparison to other similar sales achieved. (3) can even be a negative value in some cases!
As I've said before, I'm profoundly unconvinced of HG's theories, especially after she spoke about "wanting" to live in a given location. The reality of the matter is that property investors have made money for centuries in all market conditions, by knowing what to buy and how much to pay. Those are the real fundamentals!
HG has a great grasp of the theory. What he doesn't understand is the human element. He assumes market will work logically, in which case the market should crash. A system that is essentially built on a government's empty promise to honour currency shouldn't work, but it does because people believe in it.
Alex
Alex
Is this true? Cheaper to buy than rent in the 70's??? I doubt it, but I was just a kid and teenager in the 70's. I do know it was a time of higher interest rates than now.
I have some figures from the 80's onwards. Interest rates were mostly above 10%, and at times much higher. But rental yields ranged from about 8% in the early 80's, to 6% by 1990. Dropped steadily down to the ridiculous less than 3% in 03, with a steady rise since. There may have been a very small period of time in about 97 to 99 when it was possible to buy cheaper than rent, however I regard this as an anomoly caused by peoples memories of high interest rates just a decade earlier.
For it to be cheaper to buy than to rent, rental yields have to be higher than interest rates. Much higher really with the costs involved. When has this been the case? Any ideas? As I said, maybe a short period about 1997 or so. 1997 was when the smarties got in like Brenda and Steve Mcknight and made a killing.
See ya's.
one reason is so that you don't get kicked out of your "home" within 30 minutes because of a bank repossession your landlord didn't tell you about ...
in many aspects, you cannot put a value on security and stability - especially when you have a family.
declining property prices
back to the original question
declining property prices ?
not today.
source http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22353393-12377,00.html
House prices race ahead
Nicki Bourlioufas | September 03, 2007
RESIDENTIAL property prices have surged this year, growing by nearly 7 per cent during the first six months of 2007, led by strong gains in Adelaide Brisbane and Melbourne.
Strong demand ... despite recent interest rate rises, Australians are piling money into property / AAP
The latest RP Data-Rismark Hedonic Index results show that the Australian residential property market has experienced strong growth this year, with overall property prices growing by an impressive 6.6 per cent.
The growth in property prices during the first half of 2007 is made up of a 6 per cent rise in the price of houses and an 8.5 per cent increase in the price of units.
These rates of growth are significantly higher than the historical averages registered for the
Australian market over the last 25 years, RP Data said today.
"The median house price in Australia is now $459,402 while the median unit price is $365,322," said RP Data CEO, Graham Mirabito.
But the strong rise is "pushing the great Australian dream beyond the grasp of a growing number of families," he said.
“The fact is that home ownership remains incredibly important to many Australian households and the evidence indicates that despite the recent interest rate rises, families are still willing to commit a growing share of their income to purchasing new properties and servicing debt” Mr Mirabito said.
Property up across Australia
In the first half of 2007, house prices jumped in Adelaide (up 11.6 per cent), Brisbane (10.6 per cent), Melbourne (7.9 per cent), and Darwin (9.0 per cent).
Sydney houses have also experienced their strongest growth in years, with a 3.4 per cent increase during the six months to 30 June 2007.
The Perth housing market has slowed dramatically, with growth of just 1.5 per cent.
Sydney and Perth remain Australia's two most expensive markets, with median house prices of $559,770 and $505,115, respectively.
They are followed by the comparatively less expensive cities of Brisbane ($411,491), Melbourne ($402,817) and Adelaide ($359.504).
Unit values jump
The value of units has experienced even stronger growth than houses with a spectacular 8.5 per cent rise
during the first half of 2007.
The growth in unit prices has been propelled by substantial increases in the major capital cities during the year-to-date, including Adelaide (21.9 per cent), Brisbane (15.7 per cent), Melbourne (10.2 per cent), Darwin (14.2 per cent), Perth (8.6 per cent) and Sydney (4.7 per cent).
Perth is far and away the most costly unit market, with a median unit value of $460,549, followed by Sydney ($407,181), Melbourne ($322,470), Brisbane ($301,264) Adelaide ($280,908) and Darwin ($278,538).
Nicki Bourlioufas is the business editor of NEWS.com.au
back to the original question
declining property prices ?
not today.
source http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22353393-12377,00.html
House prices race ahead
Nicki Bourlioufas | September 03, 2007
RESIDENTIAL property prices have surged this year, growing by nearly 7 per cent during the first six months of 2007, led by strong gains in Adelaide Brisbane and Melbourne.
Strong demand ... despite recent interest rate rises, Australians are piling money into property / AAP
The latest RP Data-Rismark Hedonic Index results show that the Australian residential property market has experienced strong growth this year, with overall property prices growing by an impressive 6.6 per cent.
The growth in property prices during the first half of 2007 is made up of a 6 per cent rise in the price of houses and an 8.5 per cent increase in the price of units.
These rates of growth are significantly higher than the historical averages registered for the
Australian market over the last 25 years, RP Data said today.
"The median house price in Australia is now $459,402 while the median unit price is $365,322," said RP Data CEO, Graham Mirabito.
But the strong rise is "pushing the great Australian dream beyond the grasp of a growing number of families," he said.
“The fact is that home ownership remains incredibly important to many Australian households and the evidence indicates that despite the recent interest rate rises, families are still willing to commit a growing share of their income to purchasing new properties and servicing debt” Mr Mirabito said.
Property up across Australia
In the first half of 2007, house prices jumped in Adelaide (up 11.6 per cent), Brisbane (10.6 per cent), Melbourne (7.9 per cent), and Darwin (9.0 per cent).
Sydney houses have also experienced their strongest growth in years, with a 3.4 per cent increase during the six months to 30 June 2007.
The Perth housing market has slowed dramatically, with growth of just 1.5 per cent.
Sydney and Perth remain Australia's two most expensive markets, with median house prices of $559,770 and $505,115, respectively.
They are followed by the comparatively less expensive cities of Brisbane ($411,491), Melbourne ($402,817) and Adelaide ($359.504).
Unit values jump
The value of units has experienced even stronger growth than houses with a spectacular 8.5 per cent rise
during the first half of 2007.
The growth in unit prices has been propelled by substantial increases in the major capital cities during the year-to-date, including Adelaide (21.9 per cent), Brisbane (15.7 per cent), Melbourne (10.2 per cent), Darwin (14.2 per cent), Perth (8.6 per cent) and Sydney (4.7 per cent).
Perth is far and away the most costly unit market, with a median unit value of $460,549, followed by Sydney ($407,181), Melbourne ($322,470), Brisbane ($301,264) Adelaide ($280,908) and Darwin ($278,538).
Nicki Bourlioufas is the business editor of NEWS.com.au
No mention of Canberra, but it seems to me prices have surged a bit in the last few months. Clearly, people still have money to spend!
Lizzie, I have checked my landlord out and asked how long they had been there (to work out their equity) and how long they intend to keep it. I'm not going to be kicked out.
If I have the choice of having to move because of my landlord's financial problems due to high house prices or my own financial problems from the same reason - well, forgive me but I'm going to choose the former.
I've analysed the situation, made my choice and taken action.
If I think prices are too high, my action is to not buy. And I haven't.
Of course, some of you think that isn't a valid option and everyone should just always buy, at whatever price. I've even been told that I can't judge whether prices are too high because I don't own property.
So if I thought prices were too high, just buy anyway... but what happens if I find out I was right? Wow I find out I was right all along but now I'm stuffed!
I'm worked out what I think is going to happen:
-Reduction in international liquidity (credit crunch)
-Flee to safety away from high yielding currencies and unwinding of carry trade (Au shares & currency fall)
-Interest rates rise as dollar no longer hides inflation by reducing imports
-RBA raises interest rates again
-Reduced international appetite for western mortgages
-Lenders finding it harder to find buyers for debt, must raise interest rates to compensate (first low-doc lenders like Rams, then the dodgy riskier banks (ANZ and Adelaide bank))
-So those with the least ability to handle it are going to see at least 1/2 percentage point interest rate rise within 6-12 months.
-Capital gains fizzles out. It takes 12 months for this to not be able to be hidden in statistics and be widely agreed upon that median prices have peaked in retrospect.
-With increased holding costs and no more capital gains landlords realise that their business model is fundamentally broken.
-Those with debt struggle to pay it back. Forclosures up. People suffer greatly to pay back debt on assets which are losing value.
-Consumer spending decreases as "wealth effect" of ever rising house prices and equity withdrawal becomes reduced as people start paying off debt again instead of taking it out.
I think it will take at least 1 year to see the effects of the credit crunch and a minimum of 5 years for prices to bottom out.
What would make me realise I've gotten it wrong and have to change my plans? By mid 2008 (when subprime resets peak - they're only STARTING now the worse is yet to come)
-ASX > 6500 (ie we're not in a bear market)
-Australia starts to reduce foreign borrowing & debt but house prices remain strong. Maybe we even run a trade surplus!
-Foreclosure rates are not growing quickly.
-Prices in countries similar to us - Ireland, USA, UK, NZ continue to go up.
-There is no further credit contraction and tightening of lending standards.
-There are no low-doc lending company collapses
I have 11 months left on my lease so come mid 2008 we'll see what's happening. In the meantime I will work hard on increasing my savings and investments so that I have the most money to pick the right path then.
If I have the choice of having to move because of my landlord's financial problems due to high house prices or my own financial problems from the same reason - well, forgive me but I'm going to choose the former.
I've analysed the situation, made my choice and taken action.
If I think prices are too high, my action is to not buy. And I haven't.
Of course, some of you think that isn't a valid option and everyone should just always buy, at whatever price. I've even been told that I can't judge whether prices are too high because I don't own property.
So if I thought prices were too high, just buy anyway... but what happens if I find out I was right? Wow I find out I was right all along but now I'm stuffed!
I'm worked out what I think is going to happen:
-Reduction in international liquidity (credit crunch)
-Flee to safety away from high yielding currencies and unwinding of carry trade (Au shares & currency fall)
-Interest rates rise as dollar no longer hides inflation by reducing imports
-RBA raises interest rates again
-Reduced international appetite for western mortgages
-Lenders finding it harder to find buyers for debt, must raise interest rates to compensate (first low-doc lenders like Rams, then the dodgy riskier banks (ANZ and Adelaide bank))
-So those with the least ability to handle it are going to see at least 1/2 percentage point interest rate rise within 6-12 months.
-Capital gains fizzles out. It takes 12 months for this to not be able to be hidden in statistics and be widely agreed upon that median prices have peaked in retrospect.
-With increased holding costs and no more capital gains landlords realise that their business model is fundamentally broken.
-Those with debt struggle to pay it back. Forclosures up. People suffer greatly to pay back debt on assets which are losing value.
-Consumer spending decreases as "wealth effect" of ever rising house prices and equity withdrawal becomes reduced as people start paying off debt again instead of taking it out.
I think it will take at least 1 year to see the effects of the credit crunch and a minimum of 5 years for prices to bottom out.
What would make me realise I've gotten it wrong and have to change my plans? By mid 2008 (when subprime resets peak - they're only STARTING now the worse is yet to come)
-ASX > 6500 (ie we're not in a bear market)
-Australia starts to reduce foreign borrowing & debt but house prices remain strong. Maybe we even run a trade surplus!
-Foreclosure rates are not growing quickly.
-Prices in countries similar to us - Ireland, USA, UK, NZ continue to go up.
-There is no further credit contraction and tightening of lending standards.
-There are no low-doc lending company collapses
I have 11 months left on my lease so come mid 2008 we'll see what's happening. In the meantime I will work hard on increasing my savings and investments so that I have the most money to pick the right path then.
Only comment HG is that your idea of checking your landlord out may be way off the mark. How do you know how much equity he has in the house you are renting? How do you know what other assets he has? How do you know he will not decide to sell? I am sure he would play his cards close to his chest and only give you what information he wants you to know, if any.
I have to say there are times when we have changed direction for one reason or another. What your landlord tells you right now may be vastly different to what he actually does. Even if he decides he may sell, he is hardly going to tell his tenant and risk you leaving before he is good and ready to sell. His circumstances may change overnight.
We have told tenants we have no intention of ever selling (and meaning it at the time) and then our circumstances change. It is a risk of renting which must be hard, but nothing can be done about it.
Wylie
I have to say there are times when we have changed direction for one reason or another. What your landlord tells you right now may be vastly different to what he actually does. Even if he decides he may sell, he is hardly going to tell his tenant and risk you leaving before he is good and ready to sell. His circumstances may change overnight.
We have told tenants we have no intention of ever selling (and meaning it at the time) and then our circumstances change. It is a risk of renting which must be hard, but nothing can be done about it.
Wylie
Similar threads
