How do we actually fix the rental market?

beauf

brisan wrote: »

If the rental is at below market rate who is to blame
The tenant or the landlord

Blame implies its undesirable. Which is ironic.

I would guess that for many rent lags behind market rent until tenancies change. Some won't for sure. But in general.

The The RPZ changes that paradigm. Now the LL is penalized for keeping rent below market rate. It also encourages new LL to max out the rent with their first tenancies. is that really what we want?

Fol20

brisan wrote: »

Solutions professional landlords who know wht they are doing ,know and go by the rules
landlords who accept its a long term investment and not a quick handy way to make money
Gt them into the market and it will fix itself over time
Professional landlords will not have to be as heavily regulated and bad tenants can then be evicted quickly and effectively ,which seems to be the main gripe

Its easy to say "get professional ll" but how do you get them as you said yourself there was better investment opportunities out there.

Where in this thread have you seen ll say its a short term investment. Being a ll has always been a long term investment but we do expect all bills to be covered through the service we provide. Please provide a working example in any country where what you propose for ll to continue to over pay monthly has actually worked.

So you want to decrease legislation after we get out rogue ll?

I agree legal proceeding hurt both tenants and ll for different reasons.

brisan

The new LL will get the max the market ill bear
It is a free market and he is entitled to get the max return
What he should not be looking for is more than market rate
Plenty of examples of that on DAFT

Fol20

brisan wrote: »

Why would you spend 350k on a 2 bed apartment when you can buy a 3 bed house for the same money and get better returns
Or buy a 2 bed for 250k and get slightly smaller returns

2 bed properties be it houses or apt offer the best returns.

housetypeb

brisan wrote: »

Solutions professional landlords who know wht they are doing ,know and go by the rules
landlords who accept its a long term investment and not a quick handy way to make money
Gt them into the market and it will fix itself over time
Professional landlords will not have to be as heavily regulated and bad tenants can then be evicted quickly and effectively ,which seems to be the main gripe

Must all landlords be professionals in your world? Any room for the gifted amateur
hoping to improve?
Why would having professional landlords suddenly lead to less regulations while at the same time allowing for quick eviction of bad tenants?

beauf

brisan wrote: »

Solutions professional landlords who know wht they are doing ,know and go by the rules
landlords who accept its a long term investment and not a quick handy way to make money
Gt them into the market and it will fix itself over time
Professional landlords will not have to be as heavily regulated and bad tenants can then be evicted quickly and effectively ,which seems to be the main gripe

None of that is true.

For example they had to bring in the Tyrrelstown’ amendmen specifically for large Landlords.

There is no connection between regulation of LLs and Timely evictions.

Fol20

brisan wrote: »

The new LL will get the max the market ill bear
It is a free market and he is entitled to get the max return
What he should not be looking for is more than market rate
Plenty of examples of that on DAFT

Why cant he seek more than market rent? If its more than market rent, no tenant will take it so he will just be left with an empty property until he sets it at market rent.

beauf

housetypeb wrote: »

Must all landlords be professionals in your world? Any room for the gifted amateur
hoping to improve?
Why would having professional landlords suddenly lead to less regulations while at the same time allowing for quick eviction of bad tenants?

"Professional" means a LL where their sole income is from their rentals. This could be true of a large or small LL. So its a meaningless title. Likewise if people imply it related to being professional in your business dealings. Could equally apply to small or large landlords.

brisan

Fol20 wrote: »

Its easy to say "get professional ll" but how do you get them as you said yourself there was better investment opportunities out there.

Where in this thread have you seen ll say its a short term investment. Being a ll has always been a long term investment but we do expect all bills to be covered through the service we provide. Please provide a working example in any country where what you propose for ll to continue to over pay monthly has actually worked.

So you want to decrease legislation after we get out rogue ll?

I agree legal proceeding hurt both tenants and ll for different reasons.

The regulations were brought in for a reason
Remove the reasons for those regs (rouge landlords ) and the regs can be removed and then concentrate on bad tenants
If you are putting down 30% of an asset and expecting the tenants to pay the rest of the capital cost plus interest plus bills leaving you with an asset that may have at least doubled over 20 years ,is that no a bit delusional
Show me an investment that will give those returns
So say aa 200k investment
60K down no other outlays during the lifetime of the investment and after 20 years its worth 400k
Thats not a bad return ,IF you can get it

housetypeb

beauf wrote: »

"Professional" means a LL where their sole income is from their rentals. This could be true of a large or small LL. So its a meaningless title. Likewise if people imply it related to being professional in your business dealings. Could equally apply to small or large landlords.

I understood that but the poster I responded to doesn't seem to.

beauf

brisan wrote: »

The regulations were brought in for a reason
Remove the reasons for those regs (rouge landlords ) and the regs can be removed and then concentrate on bad tenants
If you are putting down 30% of an asset and expecting the tenants to pay the rest of the capital cost plus interest plus bills leaving you with an asset that may have at least doubled over 20 years ,is that no a bit delusional
Show me an investment that will give those returns
So say aa 200k investment
60K down no other outlays during the lifetime of the investment and after 20 years its worth 400k
Thats not a bad return ,IF you can get it

The regulations were brought in to improve tenant experiences, but also as a political sop to defect criticism, so the Govt could make the pretense of doing something about the crisis while actually doing nothing.

housetypeb

beauf wrote: »

"Professional" means a LL where their sole income is from their rentals. This could be true of a large or small LL. So its a meaningless title. Likewise if people imply it related to being professional in your business dealings. Could equally apply to small or large landlords.

I understood that but the poster I responded to doesn't seem to.
I'm more interested in how he expects less regulation and more evictions for bad tenants at the same time.

Fol20

brisan wrote: »

The regulations were brought in for a reason
Remove the reasons for those regs (rouge landlords ) and the regs can be removed and then concentrate on bad tenants
If you are putting down 30% of an asset and expecting the tenants to pay the rest of the capital cost plus interest plus bills leaving you with an asset that may have at least doubled over 20 years ,is that no a bit delusional
Show me an investment that will give those returns
So say aa 200k investment
60K down no other outlays during the lifetime of the investment and after 20 years its worth 400k
Thats not a bad return ,IF you can get it

Which reg specifically?
In your eyes was RPZ brought in for rogue ll or the maybe it was the government trying to cover up their own lack of innovation in this sector.

If i put in 60000 into the s&p500 back in 2000. it would now be worth circa 168,0000. The above is not highly concentrated, requires no work,very liquid,requires no up front lump sum of capital and to top it off it has a dividend of between 3-5pc. This requires no leverage cash to purchase either so less risky when considered.

Again please tell me one working real word example where rent does not cover all bills and it has a functioning market - i assume you are not answering this question as there isnt one out there as its an expectation that investors have if they want to get into the market.

JimmyVik

brisan wrote: »

I never said a rental property should wash its face
I said if you wanted it to wash its face you have to put a large deposit down and lower the mortgage
That's the problem
A lot of landlords are under the impression that a BTL bought with a minimum deposit should pay for itself ,and that is not the way a long term investment should work

Do you think perhaps you might have lost the run of yourself in this thread?

Read what you have been saying in it. then read the responses.
Sometimes you need to step back and look at the bigger picture.

JimmyVik

beauf wrote: »

The regulations were brought in to improve tenant experiences, but also as a political sop to defect criticism, so the Govt could make the pretense of doing something about the crisis while actually doing nothing.

Thats not true. They did something. They made it worse. And they repeated that feat several times.

brisan

Fol20 wrote: »

Which reg specifically?
In your eyes was RPZ brought in for rogue ll or the maybe it was the government trying to cover up their own lack of innovation in this sector.

If i put in 60000 into the s&p500 back in 2000. it would now be worth circa 168,0000. The above is not highly concentrated, requires no work,very liquid,requires no up front lump sum of capital and to top it off it has a dividend of between 3-5pc. This requires no leverage cash to purchase either so less risky when considered.

Again please tell me one working real word example where rent does not cover all bills and it has a functioning market - i assume you are not answering this question as there isnt one out there as its an expectation that investors have if they want to get into the market.

?????????

beauf

At this point the rental market is really only for those who are happy that if the infrequent problems occur. That they have deep pockets and resources to weather a long 2-3yr eviction process and write off any expenses and damages incurred. We have no accurate idea of high or low risk this is.

housetypeb

brisan wrote: »

What he should not be looking for is more than market rate
Plenty of examples of that on DAFT

Why shouldn't he look to squeeze as much profit from his investment as is possible?
That's the first rule of investing, and he is a professional after all.

Fol20

brisan wrote: »

?????????

Not sure how you dont understand it. Buying stocks can be continuous by buying slowly and steadily. Buying a property, you need to hold a lump sum by saving up the cash over a period of time...

How else do you want me to compare it other that doing two lump sums of money in one go but it isnt a requirement for you to put in so much in one go with stocks.

brisan

The average price of a 3 bed semi in Dublin was about 25,000 punts about 31750 euro
The same property now costs an average of 310,000 euro
That's a 1000% increase in the value of the asset
If you only put up 30% of the capital that's a 3000% return
That is more than wage inflation
That's the return

brisan

Fol20 wrote: »

Not sure how you dont understand it. Buying stocks can be continuous by buying slowly and steadily. Buying a property, you need to hold a lump sum by saving up the cash over a period of time...

How else do you want me to compare it other that doing two lump sums of money in one go but it isnt a requirement for you to put in so much in one go with stocks.

Buying a property can be continuously by buying slowly and steadily ,its called a mortgage ,difference is you want someone else to pay it

Fol20

brisan wrote: »

The average price of a 3 bed semi in Dublin was about 25,000 punts about 31750 euro
The same property now costs an average of 310,000 euro
That's a 1000% increase in the value of the asset
If you only put up 30% of the capital that's a 3000% return
That is more than wage inflation
That's the return

I dont have information around property back 20-30 years ago. What year was your example and do you have a link so i can take a look. The s&p is readily available if you want to take a look.

Mortgages are normally for longer than 20 years and if you look back at 30 years which i would consider normal, the s&p is more pronounced at 1000pc not including dividends that would be paid over 30 years which i would expect to be extremely substantial as well.

Your example also does not account for the fact that if you take out debt the growth isnt as large. Borrowing is part of property investment however if you were able to do the same for stocks. If you put 200k in 1990, that would now be worth circa 2,100,000.

You also fail to account for all the pros and cons of both stocks and property as you cant completely compare one asset class to another as they are both inherently different.

Again please provide an example of where what you want where the property doesnt cover its own costs works. I think i have asked for you to provide this multiple times.

I would expect most investments to be much larger than wage inflation. Wage inflation has no risk it while investing has a myriad of different risks depending on what it is in.

JimmyVik

Fol20 wrote: »

I dont have information around property back 20-30 years ago. What year was your example and do you have a link so i can take a look. The s&p is readily available if you want to take a look.

Mortgages are normally for longer than 20 years and if you look back at 30 years which i would consider normal, the s&p is more pronounced at 1000pc not including dividends that would be paid over 30 years which i would expect to be extremely substantial as well.

Your example also does not account for the fact that if you take out debt the growth isnt as large. Borrowing is part of property investment however if you were able to do the same for stocks. If you put 200k in 1990, that would now be worth circa 2,100,000.

You also fail to account for all the pros and cons of both stocks and property as you cant completely compare one asset class to another as they are both inherently different.

Again please provide an example of where what you want where the property doesnt cover its own costs works. I think i have asked for you to provide this multiple times.

I would expect most investments to be much larger than wage inflation. Wage inflation has no risk it while investing has a myriad of different risks depending on what it is in.

Im dying to see that too.

brisan

Fol20 wrote: »

I dont have information around property back 20-30 years ago. What year was your example and do you have a link so i can take a look. The s&p is readily available if you want to take a look.

Mortgages are normally for longer than 20 years and if you look back at 30 years which i would consider normal, the s&p is more pronounced at 1000pc not including dividends that would be paid over 30 years which i would expect to be extremely substantial as well.

Your example also does not account for the fact that if you take out debt the growth isnt as large. Borrowing is part of property investment however if you were able to do the same for stocks. If you put 200k in 1990, that would now be worth circa 2,100,000.

You also fail to account for all the pros and cons of both stocks and property as you cant completely compare one asset class to another as they are both inherently different.

Again please provide an example of where what you want where the property doesnt cover its own costs works. I think i have asked for you to provide this multiple times.

I would expect most investments to be much larger than wage inflation. Wage inflation has no risk it while investing has a myriad of different risks depending on what it is in.

Sorry the year was 1982 .the year I purchased my first home , a 3 bed semi in Dublin
Its only recently mortgages were 30 years
In the 80s and 90s and even the 00s the normal mortgage was 20years
As I have said numerous times property investment for rental is end loaded for returns

Fol20

brisan wrote: »

Buying a property can be continuously by buying slowly and steadily ,its called a mortgage ,difference is you want someone else to pay it

This makes no sense.

You dont buy a property continuously.

Every month, you can keep adding stocks to your portfolio with whatever money you have at your disposal.

With property, you first need to save up money which could take anywhere from 1month to multiple years depending on your cashflow. you then need to talk to the bank to confirm they are willing to give you a loan. There is already other threads discussing the fact that some people cannot afford to buy a property as they dont meet the affordability thresholds for even the most basic property.

I gave an example earlier where you would need 105k deposit to buy a property. This takes time to build up. Even if you had 5k net left after all other bills are paid, this takes 21 months to save up so no, buying a property is not continuous until you have a mortgage.

Your sentence makes no sense.

Fol20

brisan wrote: »

Sorry the year was 1982 .the year I purchased my first home , a 3 bed semi in Dublin
Its only recently mortgages were 30 years
In the 80s and 90s and even the 00s the normal mortgage was 20years
As I have said numerous times property investment for rental is end loaded for returns

Power to you but thats a single house and may not be median price. if you bought the s&p in 1982, your initial investment would have grown 2850pc without any need for a loan.

brisan

Fol20 wrote: »

Power to you but thats a single house and may not be median price. if you bought the s&p in 1982, your initial investment would have grown 2850pc without any need for a loan.

I doubt the S&P would have let me live there

Fol20

brisan wrote: »

I doubt the S&P would have let me live there

It’s not an investment if you are talking about your PPR.

The Student

brisan wrote: »

I doubt the S&P would have let me live there

With your house you benefited twice. Once with the increase in the value of the property and also you got to live there without the need to pay rent.

So you could argue you benefited to the tune of the capital gain you made along with living rent free.

Greentopia

Fol20 wrote: »

Would you be happy to pay circa 17pc more in tax per year to have this benefit? (This includes home owners and renters btw) so if you own your own home, you still need to pay for the mortgage and pay that extra amount in tax.

Why 17%? But yes I would if I got here what I did for my taxes in Sweden, but I paid 36% income taxes when I worked there for many years on a middle income job so high taxes are not a given to create high quality reasonable cost rental accommodation.