A question for landlords, if I may

daltonmd

BostonB wrote: »

If money was that easily made people would do it instead of talking about it.

Well it was in the boom and now that it's not? If I was in the property game and not making money then I'd sell up and move on. Problem is that many who are now landlords are either those who thought it was easy money or those who couldn't sell - either way they can't sell and repay the mortgage and that is what is warping the market.

In regards to where you say that no tenant has ever asked you for non furnished - you don't advertise as with or without furniture - so people doing advanced searches would not pick up your property.

You can't say what the demand is if you are not in that market.

Snakeblood

daltonmd wrote: »

Well it was in the boom and now that it's not? If I was in the property game and not making money then I'd sell up and move on. Problem is that many who are now landlords are either those who thought it was easy money or those who couldn't sell - either way they can't sell and repay the mortgage and that is what is warping the market.

In regards to where you say that no tenant has ever asked you for non furnished - you don't advertise as with or without furniture - so people doing advanced searches would not pick up your property.

You can't say what the demand is if you are not in that market.

I was looking up the CSO statistics, as of 2006, it was about 1 for every 7 furnished are listed as privately rented as unfurnished. I presume that's gone up a bit since people have downsized and taken furniture.

daltonmd

Ray Palmer wrote: »

In fairness you have called them a "class" many times and many statements you made clearly show anger towards LL and parctices in Ireland.

Where? That's the second time you have alluded to this? Where did I say that landlords were a "class" of people?

daltonmd

BostonB wrote: »

I expect many don't have the means to move and store furniture. Tenants won't pay for that either.

Well they wouldn't have to if they had the choice of unfurnished - why is is ol for tenants to be expected to store their furniture at their expense when a LL won't do it - because of the same expense?

antoinolachtnai

You are either in the furnished renting business or the unfurnished. It is not really practical to offer an option. I tried this for a while and it's not workable in practice, because there is no economic way to more and store the furniture as has been mentioned. There is very little market for unfurnished in Ireland, except maybe at the high end. And there is very little high end left.

daltonmd

Snakeblood wrote: »

I was looking up the CSO statistics, as of 2006, it was about 1 for every 7 furnished are listed as privately rented as unfurnished. I presume that's gone up a bit since people have downsized and taken furniture.

i would agree and that is my point, the tenant is changing, his needs are but some landlords are still stuck in a timewarp and cannot see the benefits (BB does in fairness) of renting out an unfurnished property or at least giving the choice.

daltonmd

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You are either in the furnished renting business or the unfurnished. It is not really practical to offer an option. I tried this for a while and it's not workable in practice, because there is no economic way to more and store the furniture as has been mentioned. There is very little market for unfurnished in Ireland, except maybe at the high end. And there is very little high end left.

Well, what you appear to be saying here is that there was demand but the cost of storing the property defeated the purpose. What you also seem to be saying that if someone did ask for unfurnished that you would refuse them on that basis. As an aside, if you were looking to rent out a property and you had no other interest except from someone who wanted unfurnished would you continue looking or would you rent it out, considering that the risk of a vacant period could be more costly than the storage?

Again, it's about changing attitudes to changing tenants - just because there wasn't demand in the boom, when people chose to buy instead of rent, doesn't mean it's the same now.

mikeyboy

Dunno what experience others have had but when I was looking for an unfurnished apartment one of the landlords I spoke to said that he would never let unfurnished as "..... no harm to yourself, but it's wild hard to get rid of man has he's own stuff if I get a better offer for the place"

BostonB

daltonmd wrote: »

Well it was in the boom and now that it's not? If I was in the property game and not making money then I'd sell up and move on. Problem is that many who are now landlords are either those who thought it was easy money or those who couldn't sell - either way they can't sell and repay the mortgage and that is what is warping the market.

Then the "big" money in the boom was property speculation. Unless they got out, that big money is now big debt,

daltonmd wrote: »

In regards to where you say that no tenant has ever asked you for non furnished - you don't advertise as with or without furniture - so people doing advanced searches would not pick up your property.

You can't say what the demand is if you are not in that market.

Actually it was. But got no interest till furnished.

That said I do know people who rent, and have their own furniture. Most of them approached builders with vacant new builds directly, offering to rent them.

Spiritofthekop

My LL has not stepped foot in his house in 5 years since I first moved in & rented it.

He knows I take care of it & anything that needs to be fixed I find the cheapest and best way to do it and take it out of the rent.

He knows I treat the house like my own so he has dropped the rent 3 times since i first moved in.

He will probably drop it again soon too.

I told him dont worry about your investment i'll take care of it & he trusts me to do that, which in return I do.

When I move on ill give him at least 2 months notice.

We are both very happy with the arrangement.

miller50841

I have a huge problem where we are renting and Landlord says sure leave and get something more modern(very smart) We have a huge Damp & Mould problem then some windows are single 3 are double then front door has draft and 1 window does'nt even close proper also draft also need help
We were also told if we go we pay for the remainder 5 months and lose deposit. I would'nt live in my own house like this and sure as hell would not rent if I could afford to own property to let out it is really upsetting to be treated so badly and paying such hi rent also.

daltonmd

BostonB wrote: »

Then the "big" money in the boom was property speculation. Unless they got out, that big money is now big debt,

But it's their debt - not the tenants and as with an other business if u cannot meet ur outgoings then u are bust.

BostonB

daltonmd wrote: »

But it's their debt - not the tenants and as with an other business if u cannot meet ur outgoings then u are bust.

I dunno what your point is. You were making the point originally that being a LL means huge profits especially in the boom. Enough to cover any losses a LL is exposed to. I was simply saying you're taking about huge profits from property speculation.

If you are talking about, rent, on its own there isn't huge profits in rent alone. Not enough to cover the huge losses a LL is exposed to if some decided to overstay a few months, and cause a lot of damage. That can wipe out a couple of years profit. Even if you don't have that, there's a lot of costs, in maintaining a property and replacing windows, boilers, kitchens, cookers, fridges and furniture. Etc.

Its not all sunshine and piles of gold.

antoinolachtnai

Rents are pretty cheap in comparison to the cost of property. The only reason it made sense to get involved in residential property is because of the tax advantages. This had nothing to do with speculation. It was just a way of investing money. Now that the tax advantages of the business are being taken away, standards will go down and prices will increase. There will be a severe shortage of good quality rentals in the in-demand areas in a few years because there will be no incentive to build new units.

daltonmd

BostonB wrote: »

I dunno what your point is. You were making the point originally that being a LL means huge profits especially in the boom. Enough to cover any losses a LL is exposed to. I was simply saying you're taking about huge profits from property speculation.

If you are talking about, rent, on its own there isn't huge profits in rent alone. Not enough to cover the huge losses a LL is exposed to if some decided to overstay a few months, and cause a lot of damage. That can wipe out a couple of years profit. Even if you don't have that, there's a lot of costs, in maintaining a property and replacing windows, boilers, kitchens, cookers, fridges and furniture. Etc.

Its not all sunshine and piles of gold.

No I wasn't BB - my point was very clear. you said that the landlord is exposed to huge losses, I said he's also exposed to huge profits - if he won't share the profits then why should he pass on his losses - or try to?

And that's why a good businessman takes all that into account before he goes into the business. Like any other businessman in any other business.

Look in town and see all the closing shops, hundreds of them - their rents were too high and footfall to low.


If the solution was to pass on these higher costs of doing business, to their customers, don't you think the would have tried it? Maybe some did - but the still closed.

BostonB

I said, "The LL is exposed to vastly greater losses than the tenant. The LL could lose 20k and do relatively little about it. Its very naive to think otherwise."

daltonmd wrote: »

But he's also exposed to huge profits BB. During the boom this was the case ...

The boom was the property boom. If you're not talking about the property boom, then explain how the LL can make 20k+ profits in a year on rent. Thats more than the annual gross rent you take on the average rental.

daltonmd

BostonB wrote: »

I said, "The LL is exposed to vastly greater losses than the tenant. The LL could lose 20k and do relatively little about it. Its very naive to think otherwise."



The boom was the property boom. If you're not talking about the property boom, then explain how the LL can make 20k+ profits in a year on rent. Thats more than the gross rent you take on the average rental.

BB - the landlord owns the property- not the tenant. Rents are not based on his losses, no more than the were based on his profits during the boom, if a businessman was making such losses then he would have to get out of the business.

If a businessman was making such high losses then I'd have to ask what he was doing in the business in the first place?

BostonB

Just explain the huge profits....

daltonmd

BostonB wrote: »

Just explain the huge profits....

That he got during the boom? Where he didn't lower his rents because the market dictated high rents? Those profits? Because that is what I am talking about.

BostonB

daltonmd wrote: »

That he got during the boom? Where he didn't lower his rents because the market dictated high rents? Those profits? Because that is what I am talking about.

Give an example of a property that would give you 20k+ in profit in rent pa.

Cedrus

daltonmd wrote: »

That he got during the boom? Where he didn't lower his rents because the market dictated high rents? Those profits? Because that is what I am talking about.

Sounds like you studied economics with Bbbbertie Ahern.

Profit = Expenditure < Income
Loss = Expenditure > Income

Monthly Mortgage €1000 > Monthly Rent €750
Now I'm not a qualified accountant but I'd put that in the loss column.

What would be even more interesting is your explanation of a previous comment to the effect that landlords should just get out of the "business". HOW? Believe me you could SELL that brainstorm to a LOT of landlords, I have my chequebook ready.

BostonB

A mortgage is a different issue. The issue was making huge profits from rent alone.

Cedrus

BostonB wrote: »

A mortgage is a different issue. The issue was making huge profits from rent alone.

I felt that a gross oversimplification was required seeing that reasoned argument was failing.

antoinolachtnai

Cedrus wrote: »

daltonmd wrote: »

That he got during the boom? Where he didn't lower his rents because the market dictated high rents? Those profits? Because that is what I am talking about.

Sounds like you studied economics with Bbbbertie Ahern.

Profit = Expenditure < Income
Loss = Expenditure > Income

Monthly Mortgage €1000 > Monthly Rent €750
Now I'm not a qualified accountant but I'd put that in the loss column.

A mortgage payment is not 'expenditure' in the financial sense. It is a cash outflow for sure, but it it is not expenditure.

daltonmd

Cedrus wrote: »

Sounds like you studied economics with Bbbbertie Ahern.

Profit = Expenditure < Income
Loss = Expenditure > Income

Monthly Mortgage €1000 > Monthly Rent €750
Now I'm not a qualified accountant but I'd put that in the loss column.

What would be even more interesting is your explanation of a previous comment to the effect that landlords should just get out of the "business". HOW? Believe me you could SELL that brainstorm to a LOT of landlords, I have my chequebook ready.

Sounds like you didn't study it at all.

You can put your mortgage into whatever column you like because as with property prices, rents are NOT dictated by what the landlord (or seller) owes the bank. A fact that seems lost on many.

Using your 750 in the example, and for the purpose of this exercise we will call it "market rent" - are you suggesting that a canny investor who paid cash for a BTL would reduce the rent below the market price? of course he wouldn't - why would he?

As to an explanation of how landlords could get out ot the business?
Go bankrupt - that's how investments go, sometimes the value can go down as well as up, in a lot of cases landlords made bad investments, people who couldn't sell rented their homes and now the "Market rent" isn't meeting what they owe. If they cannot pay their debts then they are for all sense and purposes bankrupt. They can restructure, take a break - but all this is doing is piling on more debt - kicking the can down the road.

In the commercial sector we have UORR's - these are putting businesses to the wall on a daily basis - yet some landlords here think that they can simply apply that logic to the residential sector - get an extra tax, simple pass it to the tenant = rents rising?? It's crippling the commercial market - why won't it do the same to the residential market?

daltonmd

BostonB wrote: »

A mortgage is a different issue. The issue was making huge profits from rent alone.

Which I never said, what I said was that when landlords made huge profits they did not reduce their rents accordingly, they charged market rents, this was during the boom.

Now that they are making losses they still think that they can increase rents, in a falling market - it doesn't work that way.

borderlinemeath

daltonmd wrote: »

Which I never said, what I said was that when landlords made huge profits they did not reduce their rents accordingly, they charged market rents, this was during the boom.

Now that they are making losses they still think that they can increase rents, in a falling market - it doesn't work that way.

I think you are expecting rents to fall at the same degree as property prices but that won't happen in this current climate.

Problem is there is always a property market, there are people that still want to buy but can't. The prices have fallen but the bank criteria for mortgages has swung from far too easy to get a mortage to almost impossible to get even the smallest mortgage or loan. The renters that want to buy are stuck renting because they can't get mortgage approval so rents have been staying far steadier than asking prices.

It's certainly not as black and white as you think.

daltonmd

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I think you are expecting rents to fall at the same degree as property prices but that won't happen in this current climate.

Problem is there is always a property market, there are people that still want to buy but can't. The prices have fallen but the bank criteria for mortgages has swung from far too easy to get a mortage to almost impossible to get even the smallest mortgage or loan. The renters that want to buy are stuck renting because they can't get mortgage approval so rents have been staying far steadier than asking prices.

It's certainly not as black and white as you think.

Oh I agree with you, rents won't fall to the same degree, or indeed any further. But they will not rise significantly in the near future. I think that where there is demand in major cities, with good infrastructure, amenities, etc, that these will always command their asking rents - no doubt about it.

I think though for a lot of peopole even if the banks were giving out money that given the cost of ownership V the cost of renting - it would not make financial sense at the moment.

BostonB

daltonmd wrote: »

Which I never said, what I said was that when landlords made huge profits they did not reduce their rents accordingly, they charged market rents, this was during the boom.

Now that they are making losses they still think that they can increase rents, in a falling market - it doesn't work that way.

Except that wasn't the question. The question was how do LL make huge profits from rent. And you didn't answer the question. You can't explain how these "huge profits" are made from rent. Because you've no concept of the sums/costs involved. Business charge market rates. That how business works All the LL I know are talking about rents increasing slightly. Maybe its a blip have no idea. Probably because people can't get mortgages. You've a fixated opinion of LL thats not based on any experience or reality of that side of the rental market. As such this thread is just going around in circles. I hope that it moves to something similar to the German model. But with better legal solutions for both tenant and LL's.

borderlinemeath

daltonmd wrote: »

Oh I agree with you, rents won't fall to the same degree, or indeed any further. But they will not rise significantly in the near future. I think that where there is demand in major cities, with good infrastructure, amenities, etc, that these will always command their asking rents - no doubt about it.

I think though for a lot of peopole even if the banks were giving out money that given the cost of ownership V the cost of renting - it would not make financial sense at the moment.

If the banks were giving out money there would be a queue of people waiting to get mortgage approval. While the costs may be far greater in home ownership than renting, there is a cultural thing in Ireland that to own ones property is far better than renting due to the insecurity of perhaps having to move due to matters outside of your control, ie the landlord sells up, or wants it for themselves or family etc.

I know for me when I bought my house 10 years ago, it was like a burden off my back. My family home had been sold 10 years previously and I moved from rental to rental, gathering stuff as I went along. As soon as I bought my house I finally had somewhere to put all of my possessions that I could call my own. It does give a sense of security (once you're able to keep up the mortgage payments!)