this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
1165 points (90.5% liked)
Memes
45565 readers
1629 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the main money maker isn't rent. It's owning (or at least having a mortgage on) property that doubles in value every ten years.
The rent often just pays for the mortgage and upkeep. The main payday comes when they sell it all off to the next parasite.
Whenever I do the math on buying a multi-family, I find you’d either not be breaking even or barely breaking even with the mortgage, insurance, and taxes by charging market rent. The current landlord is basically claiming future rents as his own when he sets the asking price at level that takes all of the current market rent price for himself.
If you buy the property and want to have enough to do repairs / renovations and cover unexpected risks like tenants that can’t pay and won’t leave, you HAVE to go up on rent, otherwise you will go broke and lose the property.
Maybe there was a golden age when being a landlord meant instant cash flow and money making opportunities, but I find most of the stuff on the market today are just people looking to cash out all future value in the property and assuming the next landlord will basically just jack up rent to cope with the high cost of that cash out.
Being a landlord is pretty risky. You could end up with a bad tenant that ruins your property or won’t pay and won’t leave. You also are responsible for costly repairs and renovations that can have long breakeven timelines. You have to cover that cost some how, and that is by charging rent. Who would assume that risk without a reward?
It would be a dangerous game if the politicians and their donors weren't also playing it and rigging it in their favour.
That's risk
Would you like to look up a graph of home prices over the last century?
That's how it should work, but home hoarders want an income from rent and so the system doesn't work.
I disagree. Property prices should not be spiralling out of all sanity at the rate it's doing, especially in city areas.
That's what's causing people to buy them, because it earns more than stocks and shares.
Bricks and mortar should never have been viewed as an investment.
Real Estate long-term ROI - 4% per year
NASDAQ long-term ROI - 11% per year
It's about diversity, and the various tax advantages to owning the property/business/etc.
Good luck getting 11% a year in the stock market. I think your stats include the pandemic and I don't think we'll see increases like that again, at least we can't count on it.
11% has been a financial planning standard since time immemorial (ok, well, since after the great depression). If a hedge fund or other investment isn't hitting 11%, you should be in S&P or NDQ which flattens to 10% over time... or "only" 6-7% after adjusting for inflation.
The last 30 years are considered "below average". The market only grew 9.9%/year on average. Which apparently that 0.1% is a big deal for investors.
Here's a fairly good breakdown on SOFI. Obviously, we'll never know what the future holds, but 10% over time is the "bad return" that rich people talk about.
It really depends on the nature of the rental and your area. If instead of building a house you build 4 closely stacked duplexes and charged each one double what the mortgage would be you'd definitely make money, but you'd also be an extortionate leech. In my area someone built 4 nice duplexes on a double lot (probably around 1.5 acres) and is now renting them at $1800 each. The land was probably less than $55k and the cost of construction was likely less than $1 mil. At 5% interest on a 30 year loan their monthly payment would be $5,600, but they're bringing in $14,400 per month.
$1800 for rent is an extortionate price in my area (it's big city apartment rental prices, with a pool and gym), even after interest rates went up.
On the other hand, I knew a couple who were landlords for nearly 20 years. They rarely raised the rents and even in 2022 they were still charging <$1000 per month for a full house because that paid the costs and for them it was an investment, not a source of income.
They finally sold their rental homes and made about $70k over what they originally paid on each house. Doing the math that comes out to be a roughly 8.5% annual percentage return without counting the rent gained each month. That's a fairly solid investment without being a sucky person.
My former landlord avoided increasing rent for as long as he could but eventually he was just in red and had to do it.
Needs a small loan of a million dollars
It literally is no problem if you already have assets to use as collateral. The problem is that most people don't.
This is the answer, literally this is what millionaires have been doing for ages. It's just unique that the COVID era interest rates were so low that it made it so that 100-thousand-aires could do what millionaires had already been doing.
Well for a couple reasons.
For a while between 2020 and 2022, if you had your home paid for, you could take a mortgage out on that property and invest that money and make more money on the return on investment than the payment for the mortgage and the taxes owed on your profits. That's how low the interest rates were for a while. I have a coworker who refinanced his house for 2% on a 30 year fixed rate, inflation is generally higher than his interest rate. Doing that sort of thing, taking a loan out on one house to invest with, is stupidly speculative but I wouldn't be surprised if people did it.
"Landlords are rich leeches" is still true because the vast majority of property in the US is not owned by hard working people who are investing their earnings owning a handful of properties at most, but by property companies and hedge funds.
It's hard to get a good return on your investment in residential real estate without using leverage.
For instance: You don't buy one place outright. You buy 5 with 20% down. You may not have positive cash flow, but at long as it isn't negative not only do you get all the increase in value, you also get more equity every month as the tenants pay your mortgages.
If you bought it outright and over some period of time the tenants have paid your entire investment and the price of the property doubles, you doubled your money. If you buy 5 and over some period of time the tenants pay your mortgage and initial investment and the properties have doubled in value you have increased your initial investment 10X. And before the big expensive renovations come in, you can sell and buy something else if you're not equipped to deal with that.
Also if you are just breaking even to get free property but you want to start getting passive income, after a few years you can refi to a longer term and lower your mortgage payments to get in the black every month.
This isn't advice, fuck anybody buying up single family homes to rent, just showing one way they can generate both wealth and passive income for nothing. Literally nothing if they're using a property management company.
Fuck anybody buying up single family homes to rent. I know I already said that, but it bears repeating.
Fuck anybody buying up single family homes to rent.
It was worth one more.
Guidelines for buying rental properties say they should pay off in 10 years.
Buying here is cheaper (1600 per sq meter in the commie blocks part of the city) and rent is about the same. Outside of those blocks you'd usually get copper and no real insulation, with street parking. A brand new apartment in a nice place might net you 15-20 eur per square meter.
Of course, I live in the ass end of Europe where wages are half of what they are in the west so it makes sense our rents, food costs, etc are higher. The peasants shouldn't have too much to their names.
Tenants also pay any loans associated with the apartment building repairs, or the repair fund collection, not by law but because apartments are in demand and tenants are not. The law actually says it's the responsiblity of the owner, but there's literally nothing saying that responsibility can't be shifted.
Sure, but I think this example also commingles labor with ownership (as is often the case).
Like you said, your plan involves building a four-family home. That's labor and worth fair remuneration. It's just that, in order to get that remuneration you'd be taking payment from tenants who build no equity for their money. Yeah, you'll have to renovate in 30 years, but you'd still have property and the money paid in rent while they don't.
A landlord can also simultaneously do valuable work supervising and managing a property. That's not mutually exclusive with profiting from ownership, and we can separate how we evaluate the two. It even comes up with billionaires: Bill Gates obviously did work worth payment as CEO of Microsoft, it's just not where he got most of his fortune. It can simultaneously be true that he's a talented guy who deserved to be paid, but most of his fortune came from exploitative business practices and profiting off of the labor of others.
Also, to be clear, there's a difference between structural and individual criticism. Obviously slumlords are pieces of shit, but there's a difference between that and someone who really does work as a property manager doing right by their tenants, or a family renting out a part of their home to make ends meet. I can think that landlords should be judged on an individual basis, while landlording as a thing shouldn't exist.
I'm not sure what you used to calculate it, but it definitely isn't only "expensive cities with inherited properties"... I did the math on the last house I rented: lived there for 8 years. It was a duplex in a city in a very cheap cost of living state. Just my rent alone for those 8 years more than covered what the entire duplex was purchased for 3 years prior to me moving in. That means if both sides were occupied, which it was for all but 1 month in the 8 years I was there, it's paid for in full in 4 years. Even if you "have to renovate" in 30 years, hell even 15 years, you have 10 years of pure profit even after considering insurance and property taxes and probably even maintenence costs...
Maybe your area doesn't have high demand for rentals or you under-valued your rent price, but there wouldn't be so many people doing it if it wasn't profitable.
That’s how a mortgage works. But the point is that after those 30 years you have a million dollar asset. That you had your tenants pay for.
For a regular plebs like us that’s not a winning proposition because we can’t have our money tied up for 30 years but for people who don’t need their money liquid, it’s free real estate
The big money's isn't in the rent, the rent is just to pay the mortgage and upkeep. It's that you're getting in debt that someone else is paying for you while they gaurd your asset which is only gaining in value, you then sell that somewhere in the futute.
On average, the same amount of money dropped into the NASDAQ will have much better overall returns. Real estate ROI is about 4% per year, where the stock market has held close to 11% over the long haul nearly a century.
For small-time landlords, it's often about "I have a place for me or a family member to live if things go bad". For bigger ones, it's the tax-shelter and the low volitility of real estate, as well as diversity in case you need to sell when their stock is down.
I'm on your side mostly but the property prices going up in those 30 years would net you a fortune alone. You could likely sell it as is and triple your money
Wouldn't that depend a lot on the area?
Well yes it would but not entirely.
The old saying 'buy land because they aren't making anymore of it' is true. As the world population grows, owning large amounts of land will be scarcer and scarcer. Most young people can't afford a home in any western nation across the world and it'll only get worse the world over as time goes on and the population continues to grow.
Some areas are losing a lot of their value. Waiting for population growth to fix that is playing the really long game
If it's a poor investment, why do it?
Being a landlord isn't a way for someone who doesn't have wealth to acquire it. It's a way to park your existing wealth in quickly appreciating assets preferably purchased from other losers when they lose their asses and collect monthly rent too.
If on day one you have 700k and you purchase an existing property and in 30 days after you rent it out your property is still worth 700k and you are now ahead of the game in 30 days not 30 years.
If you purchased at a reasonable time a year later its worth 750 and you've collected 84k 1% of property value per month.
Most owners are in the top 10% to start with.
I wouldn't say quickly appreciating, though. It's a fairly slow growth rate for someone with that kind of money. They diversify into real estate because it creates some tax protections (your costs) and it's fairly stable. Like buying into a terrible small business, but one that magically won't fail. The things that could cause total loss to real estate are usually handled in standard insurance, unlike a business that can just tank.
The thing is, as you and the other person said, it's all about the big companies who own tons of real estate AND the big companies that manage rental properties.