So apparently buying a house, furnishing it, maintaining it, complying with various codes and regulations, and making the house available for someone to live in for a period of time for a sum of money is “parasitic”. Not sure why, or why the same logic wouldn’t apply to anything of value someone makes available to others for a fee.
You wouldn’t do this if it weren’t profitable. The tenant will end up paying for the furnishings and maintenance many times over in rent, and you will get an appreciating asset that you are gradually paying off the debt for. You’re not getting paid for management, you’re profiting from holding capital in a system designed to benefit those that have capital, and seeking rent for the ownership of that capital.
I wouldn’t hold it against someone in this system we have if they end up buying a property to safeguard their money, but let’s not pretend that landlords are not a parasitic relationship that reduce the amount of housing stock available for people to buy and act as a middle man between a tenant and a property management company.
Why on earth do you think anyone would rent out a house, or pay for all the ancillaries - furnishings, repairs, insurance, legal etc. if they didn’t get a return on their investment, time and effort? Do you also accuse Marriott of being parasites for renting rooms? Or Hertz for renting cars? They do these things because they spent a lot of money to provide something of value that people can utilize for a period of time but they still expect to make money.
Renting is a business. It’s as “parasitic” as any other business were a person pays for something with money and receives something in return. If you are not prepared to rent then don’t. There are other options to having a roof over your head. Buying a house would be one option but there are others.
I’ve calculated if it would pay off to build a house with four units on a piece of land that I already have. It would barely pay for itself after 30 years but let’s be honest, 30 years is when the first big renovations are in order. I’m not sure if the “landlords are rich leeches” - trope holds up outside expensive cities with inherited properties.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
quickly appreciating assets preferably purchased from other losers when they lose their asses and collect monthly rent too.
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.
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.
Shelter is a need, owning women as property is not. It is disgusting to compare people complaining about landlords and people complaining women won’t be their possessions.
ITT: Poor, downtrodden leeches landlords talking about how hard it is to be a landlord, when the easiest way to end their suffering is to just sell their extra fucking house(s).
Where I live landlords (if they’re renting directly at least) are in a big legal responsibility over all kinds of stuff. The easier way is to rent through some company that deals with the renter.
sadly if you try to be a good landlord and make a slim margin, you’ll get dumped a huge repair bill/tax increase/other expense and now you’re running the appartment at a loss. At that point you either sell it to a company willing to exploit it or you have to be less nice to your tenants and ignore repairs or charge more. Most people choose the first which is why we end up with terrible landlords.
aside: heard someone in that exact situation running low income housing, on a phone call with an expert talking to the government. The expert said “any prudent management would raise the rents the maximum allowed amount”
My landlord’s two brothers who inherited a bunch of properties from Daddy. One of them lives in Scottsdale and the other in Hawaii. It really gets my goat knowing that 1 out of every 3 dollars I make goes to some overprivileged daddy’s removed boy. I probably pay their golf membership or marina docking fees.
Add comment