<p>Rent control will over time decrease the supply of housing while increasing demand causing a housing shortage. Moreover, there are also studies that show that under rent control there are not just shortages of houses but also misallocation, that is the houses are no longer allocated to people who have highest utility/consumer surplus from having them <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/000282803769206188" rel="noreferrer">(Glaeser and Luttmer, 2003</a>).</p>

<p>A recent literature review on rent control concluded (<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3708315089495227508&amp;hl=nl&amp;as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&amp;u=%23p%3DN0R-BInmatYJ" rel="noreferrer">Jerkins, 2009)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I find that the preponderance of the literature points toward the conclusion that rent control introduces inefficiencies in housing markets. Moreover, the literature on the whole does not sustain any plausible redemption in terms of redistribution.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Furthermore, the IGM forum, a platform that surveys the top policy economists, shows that virtually all of them think that rent control (at least as applied in US) had a negative effect on availability and quality of housing (see <a href="http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/rent-control" rel="noreferrer">here</a>).</p>

<p>However, note an important caveat is that as any policy also rent control is not always homogeneously applied. I saw some studies showing net positive redistributional effects of rent control but it’s only small minority of all studies and usually the positive results come from rent controls that were applied only to special subsection of housing market for example government owned social housing. Those studies to my best knowledge do not really apply to the Berlin case, which is going more or less the similar route as San Francisco or New York where the effects are shown to be significantly negative.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T07:36:08.240Z
Non-rent controls on the renter are much stricter in Berlin than the USA, and there are good reasons why USA lessons are not transferable. Furthermore, there are externalities in play, so a superficial analysis may miss important pieces of the puzzle.
410 gone
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T07:46:55.420Z
@EnergyNumbers: What externalities are in play? And what are the reasons USA lessons are not transferable? Please consider expanding your comment in an answer.
FreeMarketUnicorn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-08T00:22:24.243Z
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/105319/discussion-on-answer-by-1muflon1-what-is-the-likely-result-of-rent-control-in-be).
EconJohn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T06:57:03.187Z
2020-02-28T07:07:14.333Z
2020-02-28T07:07:14.333Z
1muflon1
<p>As someone asked in a comment why would this lead fewer new houses being built; the logic of the developers is rather simple, e.g.:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Wohnen" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Deutsche Wohnen</a> CFO Philip Grosse said in an interview with Bloomberg that the firm is holding off on construction in Berlin, and instead will look to other cities to make new investments. The company said earlier this month that limits on raising rents and potential mandated rent cuts put cash flow at risk. The damage done to its bottom line, the landlord calculated, could be to the tune of 330 million euros ($363 million) over five years.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Basically, why invest in Berlin if their local government has given indication they are [now more] likely to "screw you" (as property developer) in the future? The problem, like always in such matters (of capital flight), is one of signalling.</p>

<p>Yes, the local government could pick up the shovel/tab and build more social housing compensating for the likely lower private investment. The question is: will they (raise enough taxes etc. to do it)? Also, a local government has basically zero powers to impose <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_control" rel="nofollow noreferrer">capital controls</a>.</p>

<hr>

<p>Regarding Simon's comment that Deutsche Wohnen is not actually a house builder: that is fair criticism of their statement, but not so much of my argument. Keep in mind that they've acquired over 100K apartments in Berlin presumably by offering higher prices than the competition to the former owners (most of which appear to have been large-scale realtors as well.) Ultimately a developer has to sell his product, unless he plans to rent it out himself.</p>

<p>To give you a parallel here: many [tech] startups don't make it big by going the IPO route but manage to recoup the investment by selling to a larger (and usually fairly monopolistic) firm/competitor. If the latter route did not exist at all, it would leave only one route to startup investors to make a profit. For housing, the exit of big buyers from a market basically leaves the developers with fewer routes to recovering their investment: sell to some small owner (who might need credit to buy in the first place) or become a rental company to some extent. </p>

<p>As an interesting, perhaps, aside here: Deutsche Wohnen appears to be largely owned by Deutsche Bank, so in some sense people are "renting the house form the bank", one way or another. (There is some difference as to whom carries the risk of default and who gets the long-term benefits [but also risks] of holding an asset in the [US-style] "ownership society" vs [German] "rental society".) But if we use this blurring analogy, Deutsche Wohnen exiting the [Berlin] market is roughly similar to a large bank exiting the mortgage market in a city, i.e. there's an implicit statement here that "it's not worth it", i.e. a form of lowering the "credit score" of the city as far housing development goes.</p>

<p>As one <a href="https://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=231E76BE-FF4A-471B-958C-46FBF063A797" rel="nofollow noreferrer">article</a> notes</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Less obvious advantages of [large] scale [residential portfolio companies] are comfortable loan conditions. According to Standard &amp; Poor’s, Vonovia has a long-term corporate credit rating of BBB+, with a stable outlook. Unimaginable for a homeowner or private real estate investors, this allows for loans not secured by mortgages.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It's also interesting perhaps that an even bigger fish, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vonovia" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vonovia</a> tried to buy out Deutsche Wohnen, but this [2016] bid was rebuffed. The history of bank mega-mergers seems to have parallel in Germany with the merger [attempts] of mega-residential-property companies.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T13:01:14.777Z
By the way, a bit more searching on this found out that rent freeze was the political compromise. There were serious calls to outright expropriate Deutsche Wohnen https://taz.de/Berliner-Mietmarkt/!5583189/
fantastic peace and prosperity
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T13:17:35.077Z
Because everyone else is running away from it and therefore costs are lower and therefore returns are back to normal? That is generally how free market investment works.
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T13:18:25.893Z
Also, the Berlin cap of 9.80 euros/sq.m. (if I got that correctly) seems  low compared to quite a few cities in Europe, even further East. Deutche Vohnene could probably turn more profit building houses [in Prague](https://www.radio.cz/en/section/news/average-prague-residential-rental-price-hits-czk-340-per-sqm), where the *average* rent price is 13.something euros per sq.m. (by a simple conversion).
fantastic peace and prosperity
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T13:20:17.633Z
Cap should be relative to local incomes, not other cities' incomes. Berlin is lower than average. (This is a bit hypocritical for me to say, as someone living in Berlin with higher-than-average income, but it seems sensible enough)
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T13:21:57.573Z
"serious calls to outright expropriate" - heh, didn't know that. I would bet that the theoretical ability for the government to do that is something that will keep profit-seeking to reasonable levels, but as we all know, your threats are only threatening if you follow through occasionally, otherwise they're empty threats.
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T13:26:18.103Z
Also, the most recent data I could [find](https://dailynewshungary.com/comparing-budapest-rental-prices-to-metropolises-of-the-world/) for Budapest (from 2017) put the average rental price there at 11 euros/sq.m...
fantastic peace and prosperity
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T13:27:07.850Z
oh and I just thought of this: since wages are slightly below average in Berlin, construction costs should be slightly below average as well as rent being slightly below average, right?
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T13:27:56.013Z
@user253751: yes, compared to the rest of Germany. Very doubtful they are lower than in the Czech Republic or Hungary!
fantastic peace and prosperity
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T22:52:24.197Z
Developers could be "playing chicken" with the lawmakers. Rent control lowers their profit and therefore they want it removed. They could make these threats to leave the market, even if they could still operate profitably under the rules.
stannius
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-29T00:20:53.053Z
"Deutsche Wohnen" has never built a house. Their threat to leave a market they have never entered is kind of hollow.
Simon Richter
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-01T16:39:04.177Z
@SimonRichter Pretty standard tactic, these days.
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-03T10:42:02.853Z
@Frank theoretically, those builders should only work for the highest bidder. If you paid a million euros I bet you could find one in a heartbeat. That's the mechanism by which the market theory says the demand pushes up the price. The price is not what you want to pay for the service, but what you could pay to get the service right now. If you would have to pay a million euros to get the service right now, that's the price.
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T12:23:34.610Z
2020-03-01T10:12:51.147Z
2020-03-01T10:12:51.147Z
fantastic peace and prosperity
<p>This answer is based on Mowzer's comments.</p>

<p>Property development companies will not invest in existing apartments in Berlin, because they can achieve a higher return in other cities.</p>

<p>Property development companies will not invest in new apartments in Berlin, because they think the city government will apply rent control to new apartments - something they explicitly decided not to do - and if that happens they will be able to achieve a higher return in other cities.</p>

<p>This will lower the price of land substantially, which will increase the return which property development companies can achieve, until a new equilibrium is reached where the return for property development is similar to other cities, but with lower absolute prices.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T14:57:20.413Z
"something they explicitly decided not to do" yet
towe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T15:09:01.680Z
@towe Were there indications that they plan to do it? Of course new apartments become old apartments *eventually*, but in the reasonably near future?
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T16:54:25.837Z
No-one would have considered something like the current rent control even possible a few years ago; with its rent control, the government of Berlin clearly signaled to development countries it will screw them over whenever it seems convenient. Housing is a long-term investment; it's just too risky to invest in a market where government action could blow up your business plan in 1, 5, or 10 years in ways you absolutely can't conceive now.
Guntram Blohm
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T16:59:05.083Z
@GuntramBlohmsupportsMonica I guess we shall see whether Berlin needs development companies more than development companies need Berlin. Capital strikes are a thing ("we won't invest here unless you are a good place to invest"). Is this a reverse capital strike? ("we won't let you invest here unless you are a responsible investor") Remembering that a new development company could be started at any time, for example by annoyed residents of Berlin who now have no competition.
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T17:00:02.397Z
Also, land is not a resource that can easily be generated, more and more people are moving from rural parts of Germany to cities (which affects most bigger cities, not just Berlin, but doesn't help in reducing land cost), land is just one part of building new housing, and other cost factors, like energy efficiency, are sharply rising. So, no, no matter what happens, building new housing won't ever be cheaper in Berlin than it is now.
Guntram Blohm
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T17:02:36.323Z
@GuntramBlohmsupportsMonica Land cost is basically an artificial cost. There is plenty of space in Berlin to build new housing and plenty of existing housing that could be much taller. (Some people were talking about redeveloping the biggest park as housing, but how about you develop housing in all the extra space between existing housing first?)
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T17:03:46.590Z
Where I came from, there was a discussion about whether the public library, in the middle of a low-density housing area, should be demolished and replaced by an apartment block. Uh, no it shouldn't. Demolish one of the low density houses to make way for an apartment block. Only an idiot, or the free market, would consider the public library to be less valuable than the least valuable detached house in the area. The only reason to use the public library site would be that the council already owns the land. That's an entirely artificial barrier.
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T17:06:04.747Z
(and no, the library wasn't an old decrepit building. It was renovated just a few years prior to this)
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-28T13:59:26.540Z
2020-02-28T13:59:26.540Z
Criticize SE actions means ban
<p>West Berlin had a very restrictive rent control policy in effect until 1988. The result was an exceptionally low price level of rental apartments, while modernization was decades behind other cities. That benefited students, artists and musicians who created a unique cultural scene. In 2003, the city was still "poor but sexy", as mayor Wowereit famously said.</p>

<p>Rent control, like all market interventions, can play a net positive role when it is a counter measure against excessive market oscillations, for example real estate speculation. It dampens such oscillations. </p>

<p>The direct benefit is two-fold: It prevents speculative bubbles and prevents unreasonable and unsocial price hikes for the tenants.</p>

<p>There are currently signs for such a bubble; real estate prices are driven by the current extraordinarily low returns of other investments and therefore are only sustainable as long as the interest rate stays at the current extraordinarily low level. On the demand side, the quickly rising rents impose social hardships on tenants, which form a large part of the constituency in Berlin.</p>

<p>It is also not entirely true that rent control deters investors, not least because it is intentionally excluding new buildings. But even if that possibility is a concern regarding future policies: There is still a lot of money to be made. I have not heard of a dearth of investors &mdash; the issue is rather a shortage of suitable real estate and approval processes which are slow compared to the quickly rising demand, mostly through immigration. Last not least, if really no investor can be found &mdash; poor investors! &mdash; the city can build on its own. Berlin has a long tradition of city-owned housing companies, and as I said, it's not that no profits can be made at the current levels.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-01T23:19:37.483Z
2020-03-01T23:19:37.483Z
Peter - Reinstate Monica
<p>With rent controls and the resulting excess of demand over supply, middle-class white people with stable jobs do very well, and other people find it impossible to find housing. Where landlords can’t use the amount of rent that potential tenants are willing to pay in order to choose between them, they are forced to use use other criteria. Some of those will be rational, such as who seems most likely to pay the rent on time with no problems, and some will be irrational, such as racism and other prejudices. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-29T09:46:40.773Z
2020-02-29T09:46:40.773Z
Mike Scott
<p>Well one obvious prediction is that a smaller percentage of the Berlin population and economy will be involved in speculating on rent prices.</p>

<p>Less of the overall activity will be directly or indirectly related to purchase, development, redevelopment and sale of property.</p>

<p>Lending will be more available to other areas of the economy.</p>

<p>Industry will be more diverse in areas of activity. Because Berlin is a startup hub and focus of innovation, imponderables and rare moonshot triumphs will be made more frequent. For this reason alone classic economic supply/demand analysis hardly applies.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-03-01T22:53:56.010Z
2020-03-01T22:53:56.010Z
Frank
<p>What predictions does economics make about the likely result of <a href="https://www.euronews.com/2020/02/23/berlin-starts-controversial-rent-freeze-on-1-5-million-homes" rel="noreferrer">this policy in Berlin of capping rent prices</a>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Berlin is freezing the rents of 1.5 million apartments for the next five years starting this Sunday in a controversial move to control the exploding costs that have forced many to move outside Germany's capital city.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-29T00:42:27.673Z
By the way, there is [another question](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/50465/why-did-berlin-freeze-the-rent-prices-as-opposed-to-letting-the-market-set-the-p) on this topic, with a slightly different slant.
Simon Richter
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-29T23:19:46.997Z
None of the answers so far address the question than **Berlin already has rent control today**.  They're making rent control stricter, but limits already exist today; a landlord cannot arbitrarily increase the rent.
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-29T23:35:42.110Z
Related: [*If rent control “doesn't work” and supply induces demand, how can cities improve affordability?*](https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/34249/332)
gerrit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-29T23:37:56.833Z
For details on how previous rent control worked in Berlin, see [this answer on Politics.SE](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/50508/130).
gerrit
<pricing><rent-control><price-control>
What is the likely result of rent control in Berlin?
FreeMarketUnicorn
# What is the likely result of rent control in Berlin?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-02-28)

What predictions does economics make about the likely result of [this policy in Berlin of capping rent prices](https://www.euronews.com/2020/02/23/berlin-starts-controversial-rent-freeze-on-1-5-million-homes).

> Berlin is freezing the rents of 1.5 million apartments for the next five years starting this Sunday in a controversial move to control the exploding costs that have forced many to move outside Germany's capital city.

**Tags:** pricing, rent-control, price-control
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: By the way, there is [another question](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/50465/why-did-berlin-freeze-the-rent-prices-as-opposed-to-letting-the-market-set-the-p) on this topic, with a slightly different slant.  
> **username_2**: None of the answers so far address the question than **Berlin already has rent control today**.  They're making rent control stricter, but limits already exist today; a landlord cannot arbitrarily increase the rent.  
> **username_2**: Related: [*If rent control “doesn't work” and supply induces demand, how can cities improve affordability?*](https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/34249/332)  
> **username_2**: For details on how previous rent control worked in Berlin, see [this answer on Politics.SE](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/50508/130).  

---

## 6 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-02-28. Score: 17

Rent control will over time decrease the supply of housing while increasing demand causing a housing shortage. Moreover, there are also studies that show that under rent control there are not just shortages of houses but also misallocation, that is the houses are no longer allocated to people who have highest utility/consumer surplus from having them [(Glaeser and Luttmer, 2003](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/000282803769206188)).

A recent literature review on rent control concluded ([Jerkins, 2009)](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3708315089495227508&hl=nl&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DN0R-BInmatYJ):

> I find that the preponderance of the literature points toward the conclusion that rent control introduces inefficiencies in housing markets. Moreover, the literature on the whole does not sustain any plausible redemption in terms of redistribution.

Furthermore, the IGM forum, a platform that surveys the top policy economists, shows that virtually all of them think that rent control (at least as applied in US) had a negative effect on availability and quality of housing (see [here](http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/rent-control)).

However, note an important caveat is that as any policy also rent control is not always homogeneously applied. I saw some studies showing net positive redistributional effects of rent control but it’s only small minority of all studies and usually the positive results come from rent controls that were applied only to special subsection of housing market for example government owned social housing. Those studies to my best knowledge do not really apply to the Berlin case, which is going more or less the similar route as San Francisco or New York where the effects are shown to be significantly negative.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Non-rent controls on the renter are much stricter in Berlin than the USA, and there are good reasons why USA lessons are not transferable. Furthermore, there are externalities in play, so a superficial analysis may miss important pieces of the puzzle.  
> **username_0**: @EnergyNumbers: What externalities are in play? And what are the reasons USA lessons are not transferable? Please consider expanding your comment in an answer.  
> **username_5**: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/105319/discussion-on-answer-by-1muflon1-what-is-the-likely-result-of-rent-control-in-be).  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2020-02-28. Score: 10

This answer is based on Mowzer's comments.

Property development companies will not invest in existing apartments in Berlin, because they can achieve a higher return in other cities.

Property development companies will not invest in new apartments in Berlin, because they think the city government will apply rent control to new apartments - something they explicitly decided not to do - and if that happens they will be able to achieve a higher return in other cities.

This will lower the price of land substantially, which will increase the return which property development companies can achieve, until a new equilibrium is reached where the return for property development is similar to other cities, but with lower absolute prices.

> **Comments:**
> **username_9**: "something they explicitly decided not to do" yet  
> **username_7**: @towe Were there indications that they plan to do it? Of course new apartments become old apartments *eventually*, but in the reasonably near future?  
> **username_10**: No-one would have considered something like the current rent control even possible a few years ago; with its rent control, the government of Berlin clearly signaled to development countries it will screw them over whenever it seems convenient. Housing is a long-term investment; it's just too risky to invest in a market where government action could blow up your business plan in 1, 5, or 10 years in ways you absolutely can't conceive now.  
> **username_7**: @GuntramBlohmsupportsMonica I guess we shall see whether Berlin needs development companies more than development companies need Berlin. Capital strikes are a thing ("we won't invest here unless you are a good place to invest"). Is this a reverse capital strike? ("we won't let you invest here unless you are a responsible investor") Remembering that a new development company could be started at any time, for example by annoyed residents of Berlin who now have no competition.  
> **username_10**: Also, land is not a resource that can easily be generated, more and more people are moving from rural parts of Germany to cities (which affects most bigger cities, not just Berlin, but doesn't help in reducing land cost), land is just one part of building new housing, and other cost factors, like energy efficiency, are sharply rising. So, no, no matter what happens, building new housing won't ever be cheaper in Berlin than it is now.  
> **username_7**: @GuntramBlohmsupportsMonica Land cost is basically an artificial cost. There is plenty of space in Berlin to build new housing and plenty of existing housing that could be much taller. (Some people were talking about redeveloping the biggest park as housing, but how about you develop housing in all the extra space between existing housing first?)  
> **username_7**: Where I came from, there was a discussion about whether the public library, in the middle of a low-density housing area, should be demolished and replaced by an apartment block. Uh, no it shouldn't. Demolish one of the low density houses to make way for an apartment block. Only an idiot, or the free market, would consider the public library to be less valuable than the least valuable detached house in the area. The only reason to use the public library site would be that the council already owns the land. That's an entirely artificial barrier.  
> **username_7**: (and no, the library wasn't an old decrepit building. It was renovated just a few years prior to this)  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2020-02-28. Score: 8

As someone asked in a comment why would this lead fewer new houses being built; the logic of the developers is rather simple, e.g.:

> [Deutsche Wohnen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Wohnen) CFO Philip Grosse said in an interview with Bloomberg that the firm is holding off on construction in Berlin, and instead will look to other cities to make new investments. The company said earlier this month that limits on raising rents and potential mandated rent cuts put cash flow at risk. The damage done to its bottom line, the landlord calculated, could be to the tune of 330 million euros ($363 million) over five years.

Basically, why invest in Berlin if their local government has given indication they are [now more] likely to "screw you" (as property developer) in the future? The problem, like always in such matters (of capital flight), is one of signalling.

Yes, the local government could pick up the shovel/tab and build more social housing compensating for the likely lower private investment. The question is: will they (raise enough taxes etc. to do it)? Also, a local government has basically zero powers to impose [capital controls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_control).

---

Regarding Simon's comment that Deutsche Wohnen is not actually a house builder: that is fair criticism of their statement, but not so much of my argument. Keep in mind that they've acquired over 100K apartments in Berlin presumably by offering higher prices than the competition to the former owners (most of which appear to have been large-scale realtors as well.) Ultimately a developer has to sell his product, unless he plans to rent it out himself.

To give you a parallel here: many [tech] startups don't make it big by going the IPO route but manage to recoup the investment by selling to a larger (and usually fairly monopolistic) firm/competitor. If the latter route did not exist at all, it would leave only one route to startup investors to make a profit. For housing, the exit of big buyers from a market basically leaves the developers with fewer routes to recovering their investment: sell to some small owner (who might need credit to buy in the first place) or become a rental company to some extent.

As an interesting, perhaps, aside here: Deutsche Wohnen appears to be largely owned by Deutsche Bank, so in some sense people are "renting the house form the bank", one way or another. (There is some difference as to whom carries the risk of default and who gets the long-term benefits [but also risks] of holding an asset in the [US-style] "ownership society" vs [German] "rental society".) But if we use this blurring analogy, Deutsche Wohnen exiting the [Berlin] market is roughly similar to a large bank exiting the mortgage market in a city, i.e. there's an implicit statement here that "it's not worth it", i.e. a form of lowering the "credit score" of the city as far housing development goes.

As one [article](https://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=231E76BE-FF4A-471B-958C-46FBF063A797) notes

> Less obvious advantages of [large] scale [residential portfolio companies] are comfortable loan conditions. According to Standard & Poor’s, Vonovia has a long-term corporate credit rating of BBB+, with a stable outlook. Unimaginable for a homeowner or private real estate investors, this allows for loans not secured by mortgages.

It's also interesting perhaps that an even bigger fish, [Vonovia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vonovia) tried to buy out Deutsche Wohnen, but this [2016] bid was rebuffed. The history of bank mega-mergers seems to have parallel in Germany with the merger [attempts] of mega-residential-property companies.

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: By the way, a bit more searching on this found out that rent freeze was the political compromise. There were serious calls to outright expropriate Deutsche Wohnen https://taz.de/Berliner-Mietmarkt/!5583189/  
> **username_7**: Because everyone else is running away from it and therefore costs are lower and therefore returns are back to normal? That is generally how free market investment works.  
> **username_6**: Also, the Berlin cap of 9.80 euros/sq.m. (if I got that correctly) seems  low compared to quite a few cities in Europe, even further East. Deutche Vohnene could probably turn more profit building houses [in Prague](https://www.radio.cz/en/section/news/average-prague-residential-rental-price-hits-czk-340-per-sqm), where the *average* rent price is 13.something euros per sq.m. (by a simple conversion).  
> **username_7**: Cap should be relative to local incomes, not other cities' incomes. Berlin is lower than average. (This is a bit hypocritical for me to say, as someone living in Berlin with higher-than-average income, but it seems sensible enough)  
> **username_7**: "serious calls to outright expropriate" - heh, didn't know that. I would bet that the theoretical ability for the government to do that is something that will keep profit-seeking to reasonable levels, but as we all know, your threats are only threatening if you follow through occasionally, otherwise they're empty threats.  
> **username_6**: Also, the most recent data I could [find](https://dailynewshungary.com/comparing-budapest-rental-prices-to-metropolises-of-the-world/) for Budapest (from 2017) put the average rental price there at 11 euros/sq.m...  
> **username_7**: oh and I just thought of this: since wages are slightly below average in Berlin, construction costs should be slightly below average as well as rent being slightly below average, right?  
> **username_6**: @user253751: yes, compared to the rest of Germany. Very doubtful they are lower than in the Czech Republic or Hungary!  
> **username_8**: Developers could be "playing chicken" with the lawmakers. Rent control lowers their profit and therefore they want it removed. They could make these threats to leave the market, even if they could still operate profitably under the rules.  
> **username_1**: "Deutsche Wohnen" has never built a house. Their threat to leave a market they have never entered is kind of hollow.  
> **username_7**: @SimonRichter Pretty standard tactic, these days.  
> **username_7**: @Frank theoretically, those builders should only work for the highest bidder. If you paid a million euros I bet you could find one in a heartbeat. That's the mechanism by which the market theory says the demand pushes up the price. The price is not what you want to pay for the service, but what you could pay to get the service right now. If you would have to pay a million euros to get the service right now, that's the price.  

---

### Answer by username_11 on 2020-03-01. Score: 4

West Berlin had a very restrictive rent control policy in effect until 1988. The result was an exceptionally low price level of rental apartments, while modernization was decades behind other cities. That benefited students, artists and musicians who created a unique cultural scene. In 2003, the city was still "poor but sexy", as mayor Wowereit famously said.

Rent control, like all market interventions, can play a net positive role when it is a counter measure against excessive market oscillations, for example real estate speculation. It dampens such oscillations.

The direct benefit is two-fold: It prevents speculative bubbles and prevents unreasonable and unsocial price hikes for the tenants.

There are currently signs for such a bubble; real estate prices are driven by the current extraordinarily low returns of other investments and therefore are only sustainable as long as the interest rate stays at the current extraordinarily low level. On the demand side, the quickly rising rents impose social hardships on tenants, which form a large part of the constituency in Berlin.

It is also not entirely true that rent control deters investors, not least because it is intentionally excluding new buildings. But even if that possibility is a concern regarding future policies: There is still a lot of money to be made. I have not heard of a dearth of investors — the issue is rather a shortage of suitable real estate and approval processes which are slow compared to the quickly rising demand, mostly through immigration. Last not least, if really no investor can be found — poor investors! — the city can build on its own. Berlin has a long tradition of city-owned housing companies, and as I said, it's not that no profits can be made at the current levels.


---

### Answer by username_12 on 2020-02-29. Score: 3

With rent controls and the resulting excess of demand over supply, middle-class white people with stable jobs do very well, and other people find it impossible to find housing. Where landlords can’t use the amount of rent that potential tenants are willing to pay in order to choose between them, they are forced to use use other criteria. Some of those will be rational, such as who seems most likely to pay the rent on time with no problems, and some will be irrational, such as racism and other prejudices.


---

### Answer by username_13 on 2020-03-01. Score: 2

Well one obvious prediction is that a smaller percentage of the Berlin population and economy will be involved in speculating on rent prices.

Less of the overall activity will be directly or indirectly related to purchase, development, redevelopment and sale of property.

Lending will be more available to other areas of the economy.

Industry will be more diverse in areas of activity. Because Berlin is a startup hub and focus of innovation, imponderables and rare moonshot triumphs will be made more frequent. For this reason alone classic economic supply/demand analysis hardly applies.


---

