|
Bloody Queef posted:Listed for 130, seller is in a nursing home and running out of money, dropped to 98 for a quick sale and accepted my offer of 80! I mean, great deal, but you basically just robbed a desperate old lady.
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:Do owners value 'good' tenants enough that I'm safe from a sharp increase? Do I have room to negotiate? What should I do to potentially get a lower rent if the increase is indeed quite high? Echoing the calls to get in front of it. You're not safe, but you have some small amount of leverage as a good tenant. Contact your landlord asking for a 1 year lease extension/renewal. Perhaps consider a multi-year lease, paying several months up-front, taking on maintenance duties in writing, Until you know what your landlord really wants, it's a bit of a guessing game, and you can still lose if your rent is substantially below market (though I've heard Cali fucks over landlords pretty hard so maybe you're OK).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Deviant posted:Edit: someone reread something because I just got this unprovoked: Grats, you have a non lovely landlord, or at least one who listens to reasonable advice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Ixian posted:House flippers don't care who they sell to and "turnkey" is just a marketing gimmick term to widen the scope of buyers. Why do you think realty mogul will give you better returns than a REIT? Aren't they basically a choose your own adventure REIT?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Is this reasonable? $240k property, 25% down ($60k). 4 units at $900/mo giving NOI around $20k and ROI at 18% using fairly conservative numbers. I would supply $35k down, partner supplies $25k. Partner does most legwork, gets inspections/handles property management/etc. and they have been doing this for a while as I am just starting out and they are showing me how to arrange things and get some contacts. Equity and P/L split 50/50 going forward. Obviously, this hurts my cash on cash while juicing my partners. First year I'd be looking at ~16% while partner is at ~22%, with the gap closing as equity build evenly.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:Where the hell do you get a 4 plex for $240K that produces $3600/mo rent In a place where property taxes are 7.5k on a 240k house. Overall return seems solid but not crazy. There are other similarly priced properties on the market.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 10:31
|
|
|
So what, thread thinks this deal is good?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:I guess it seems fine to me assuming no other serious issues like the property doesn't need a roof for the next couple years. Cash on cash turn key rental returns like that are difficult if not impossible where I live. Thanks, but yeah - it's turnkey, new roof and new appliances as of 2014. Will get a full inspection contingency too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
Would taking tenants out for lunch be tax deductible at 50%? Trying to create a direct positive relationship with them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:I dunno, but it seems like a bad idea to me. Create a direct relationship where they are better about letting me know when things are wrong and can think of a friendly person when it comes to how they take care of the place. Probably need new leases with all the tenants too, can explain things in person and avoid stress for everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:New tenant's pretty hot, huh? Married, but also no. Am I crazy thinking spending 20 bucks and some time can lead to better relationships?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Well, I see your collective points. I still want to do something nice, because when I was a renter those little touches did have an effect, but I'll take it down a notch.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
About to close on my first rental. Guessing I probably have a month or two before all the tenants skip rent, wreck the place, sue me, and invite their family over to slip on the common ground and horribly injure themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:Know your state eviction and landlord-tenant laws like the back your hand, have an attorney's number on hand if you've never done it before, screen your tenants and verify income, and for the love of god buy umbrella insurance so you don't have to worry about the last one. 5 million in umbrella coverage, it's going to take some serious negligence to break that I'm hoping.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Housing authority is cancelling section 8 on a unit with total rent $300 below market because of a $20 requested increase in rent. Since the tenant signed a lease renewal to trigger the rent review by the HA, does this mean it's eviction time if they can't pay? Seems like a long term win since the unit is so far under market, but wow that tenant is getting hosed hard by the HA.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Mourne posted:Hey guys. This probably isn't the correct thread, but I wanted to get your input. I'm renting a 3 bedroom 1200 sqft townhome in PA for 1065/mo. This is expensive and I can find nicer options for about 100$-150 less per month. The entire property (~100 units) was sold last November to a new owner and property management company. Since then, everything has gone downhill. They refuse to mow and maintenance requests are ignored. They refuse to clean gutters and we are in a semi-wooded area and I've got black streaks coming down the outside of my unit from the decay in the gutters. I've been doing most of my own maintenance since then, replacing furnace/AC filters, fixing the garbage disposal, etc. Maintenance literally never comes by. Whatever. Are you asking whether you can legally just not renew a lease? Yes, that's why it's a lease and not a permanent agreement. You may need to provide notice of your election to not renew subject to the terms specified in your lease to avoid certain penalties or additional rent due, and should provide this anyways as a courtesy, but the lease is over when the lease is over. Are you asking whether you are forced to sign a new lease when the property changes hands or management? This requirement is unlikely to appear in a previous lease agreement and (IANAL) unlikely to hold up in court if it came down to it. It's hard to say what response you might get from the new management company, but unless they have some explicit ability assigned to them by your current lease, they shouldn't be able to alter the lease at a whim.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 02:38
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Just curious, on this topic, once another party is doing the management, what's the moral justification for rent extraction? You're helping the management company employees make a living, effectively creating jobs and stimulating the local economy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2018 11:16
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:To be more clear: what service is the landlord providing in this situation that the renter is paying for? They are responsible for the liability, tax, and maintenance risk on the property and bear the ultimate costs for each.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
Personally, it's just another investment, and landlording carries no more moral weight than buying an index fund. Emotions don't typically belong in business decisions and are probably the single biggest factor how people lose money by e.g. panic selling stocks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 10:59
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:The more distance and separation between you and the person working and paying rent, the easier it is to be fine with immoralities that arise (assuming you even hear about them 3 states over). You do you, but this is precisely why it's better not to be personally involved. The entire point to owning rental properties for me is to make money off of them, and if I'm personally involved in tenants' lives, it would be more difficult to do so with the increased emotional involvement. It is ideally a business relationship, nothing more and nothing less.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:I treat it like a business too, and we make money off our investments while remembering that human lives are involved and treating our renters as human beings rather than faceless money cows to milk. I only wish I could get one of these for renters: https://www.gea.com/en/products/milkingcluster-apollo-milksystem.jsp But seriously, unless you're taking advantage of mentally vulnerable segments of the population, everyone involved in a rental agreement is an adult that is able to be held to the terms of the contract. If there are no legal or contractual obligations being violated, there is no problem.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 15:49
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Imo those of us in the extremely privileged position of owning more than one residence have an obligation, even if it isn't a legal one, to ensure we are not harming our renters or our societies through our choices, just as I want those with more privilege and power than myself to do the same. That's awesome that you're doing this sort of charity work and trying to maximize societal good, I really respect that! For me though, it's just asset diversification and and cash flow, and I don't think there's anything wrong with embracing honorable and contractual capitalism. For what it's worth, I do see my properties in-person on a yearly basis and talk to the tenants, but this is not for moral reasons but to more directly evaluate the property management company's ability to manage tenant retention and avoid unnecessary turnover.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Charity work is a really weird term for making a good profit while treating your "customers" with basic human dignity. If that's charity, can I call remote landlording misanthropy? We objectively have a problem with our current system not pricing in externalities, from climate change to racism to misogyny. It's really worrying how much objections are being thrown up to the idea of "treat your renters with basic respect, and being unable to meet them in person makes that harder to do". I'm not suggesting inviting them to thanksgiving dinner or letting them live rent free, just that you know what their faces look like while making decisions about their place of residence where they are building their lives. (and that proximity and respect will lesson the chances of exploitation, because we are social creatures and most people have functional empathy). Not sure how treating tenants as being fully capable of making their own business decisions and not needing their hands held is taking away their human dignity. When I was renting a few years ago, I wanted to see as little of my landlord as possible and was fully capable of sending them code violation notices to make them fulfill their end of the bargain, so maybe there's not a single right solution for everyone. The beautiful thing about capitalism is you get to run your business your way and I get to run mine my way. You apparently want to take direct personal care of your tenants, and maybe the market will reward you for that. I want to run things remotely using a collection of contractual business agreements to fulfill my legal obligations and manage risk, and maybe the market will reward me for that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
lampey posted:It is a relatively low bar to become a license real estate agent in most states. Yeah, it's a bit less than community college associate's degree level, you just need the time and minimal amount of money to be an agent unless you have mental deficiencies. The cartel then requires servitude before you can get to the fully autonomous level though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
Anyone dealt with tenants getting locked up? One just hit with a couple first degree murder charges so I don't think they're making rent.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
Lawyer saying formal eviction via door posting and storage unit for 3 months for all their junk before it can be disposed if not legally claimed. Police won't let people in yet though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:How are you in BFC yet possess so little knowledge of the actual market? If you think that small time individuals are what move the market and not massive conglomerates then idk what to tell you fam. Wait a second, are you saying real estate conglomerates (and in fact almost every business on the planet) aren't using leverage? Do tell!  Thermopyle posted:interestingly, some quick googlin leads me to believe that the amount of empty housing is many, many times the number of homeless people. These empty houses still pay their property taxes, providing for the local community to an extent. While not a "good" outcome, it's perfectly reasonable to not try to tell people that they have to rent out their real property if they're not using it. It's certainly much better than letting homeless people into the houses to wreck the housing's value. That would be like telling exotic car owners they have to rent out their cars to randoms since they don't drive them very much and with much the same result.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Ehh except housing is a basic necessity and an exotic car has almost no utility. Not a great comparison. Housing is a basic necessity, but specific housing is not. I also have no problems with expanded funding for housing programs or disincentivizing leaving houses open. My argument is that putting some random homeless people in a free 3bed/2bath in a nice neighborhood is probably going to end with the home value turned to poo poo the same way giving some random free access to a supercar is probably going to end in an expensive repair bill. They don't have any experience dealing with the maintenance, care, and handling of the responsibility being given to them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Well, we should have less 3/2 2500sqft homes in general but that’s a larger issue, and one I don’t exactly live up to. We should be building much higher density housing. The funny bit about this is that in California, where this is an especially egregious problem in some places like San Francisco, the "predatory" multi-national conglomerates are the ones who want this more than anyone while it's the private homeowners preventing this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:what if instead we gave everyone an electric supercar and a giant house built out of solar panels How about a super van, but put solar panels on that instead of doing a house? two birds one stone babyyyyyy 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
Somewhat pertinent video on the cost of rent versus wages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsFB1tEC1ts Karl Barks posted:I guess I don't see how this makes any sense in a market system. either housing stock is expropriated, profits are taxed to fund programs, more housing stock is built to drop rents which reduces profits, etc. all of these things impact landlords negatively. unless this is like a fox business "we'll just grow ourselves out of the problem!" type argument, I don't know If you can relax zoning restrictions and other bureaucratic red tape to allow for proper and largely unrestricted development of housing, the amount of housing units available will naturally grow in number and reduce in price in accordance with what the land and buildings cost to develop. Since having a 100 unit rental complex is much more efficient than 10 duplexes, the 100 unit rental complexes will naturally result if there is enough demand and the municipality doesn't make it artificially difficult to build. For example, I have a 4-plex and an 8-plex and a lot of the maintenance costs don't go up by 2x even though I have twice the units of comparable quality. I am incentivized to build and own larger and more dense units if I believe I can fill enough of the building to make it profitable. Oh, but wait, it takes a rubber stamp to build a couple of duplexes in adjacent lots, but approval from the town council and 2 years of planning to make a 16 unit building on the same lots. This is one of those cases where the free market just needs to be more free to make room for lower income housing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:So we currently have more houses than homeless now, why would *even more* houses somehow reverse the trend of only allocating housing by income again? Is this like libertarianism where it only starts to work when you get it exactly perfect and 100% but up until then the opposite effect occurs? Isn't there a word for that... wishful thinking? denial? No true scotsman? The homeless aren't typically the ones I'm trying to attract in this situation. A lot of places that could benefit the most from denser housing have tons of people commuting multiple hours because they've been priced out of the market in areas with shorter commutes. I bring these people back in by building denser housing, which is relatively cheaper for me to maintain and for them to rent. As a side effect, some people who might be near-homeless can now afford housing as a result of the overall increase in housing affordability.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:I too think we should fix this issue caused by developers and speculators by giving them a free hand to continue their depravations completely unabated. You want to really gently caress over developers of multi-million dollar condos and speculators with empty houses in the highest priced real estate markets in the country? Let the developers that want to make dense and relatively affordable apartment buildings just build before engaging in fomenting societal revolution and anarcho-socialism. Worst case, you've got more housing to take over in the revolution.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:wasn't it still an illuminating answer how he just discarded homeless as inconsequential? It's been real educational seeing how policies of treating the homeless really well in SF and LA have worked out. https://reason.com/reasontv/2019/02/05/stossel-bad-laws-cause-homeless-crisis There's obviously a huge problem there, but I don't see how giving them housing is going to solve any of it. Giving them proper housing is like end game level poo poo compared to the hurdles they need to jump over to get integrated into society in general.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Like I said, it's been educational. I didn't realize you guys were so knowledgeable about how to extract work and effort out of the thoroughly downtrodden.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:That might be. But I think there's a difference between abandoned homes and homes that MegaCorp is purposely keeping empty and I don't know how the percentage of those categories break down. "Abandoned" homes are going to break into a few main categories: 1. Houses that aren't worth the refurbishing cost to get into a salable condition due to taxes and valuations, or houses that are insalable in general (see Detroit) 2. Vacation houses that aren't typically used. 3. Investment houses that are held by foreign nationals who aren't interested and/or able to act as landlords as a diversification or asset-transfer/hiding effort 4. Houses owned by MegaCorp that doesn't want to get into the rental business or sell at the current market rate 5. Investment houses owned by people who don't care about money or who have decided that renting it out will hurt long term profits 6. Actual abandoned houses I also don't know of the percentage breakdown, but when you look at this, actual abandoned houses are going to not only be a tiny minority, but be sold at tax auction because abandoned means not paying taxes in my mind.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:Also, what if we had one big land lord which by virtue of it's size would bring the profit per unit to an absolute minimum and increase overall profit while providing a house for every person? is this a crazy idea? I think you're confusing the economies of scale that come with building denser housing and the competitive forces that actually reduce rents. You can go full socialism and try to give everyone affordable rent, but then you start down the road of having to pay for that poo poo when there is no incentive for anyone to work harder just to pay more and extensive corruption where those who "know" the "land lord" in this case get extremely preferential treatment. That way lies actual socialism and societal collapse, as compared to capitalist countries that have strong social safety nets. That way is why monopolies are illegal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:perhaps make it a regulated industry with an ombudsman for complaints and have transparency down to average rent/unit size all viewable online It's the classic problem with any giant bureaucracy - who watches the watchers and how much does it cost? Either you get corruption or massive inefficiencies and cost overruns. Sometimes both! If you think rent is bad now, wait until you need to also pay the salaries of 4 overseers to audit the poo poo out of everything that's going on between you and your landlord, and if it's not you specifically paying, someone is. Regulations need to be in the housing market, but over-regulation can be just as damaging as under-regulating.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:Yet there are monopolies, whether they're regional or national, everywhere. I did get a good laugh out of "That way lies actual socialism ... strong social safety nets", I can see who I'm talking to now. Monopolies certainly exist and need to be broken by the government (especially in telecom). I'd like to go further down this line of conversation, but it's not relevant to rental property as near as I can tell.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:i'm talking about an existing system in reality and i'm willing to bet this thread's combined stock has far bigger overhead What existing system would that be? Judakel posted:Socialism is the answer. Out of the many possible ways to kill the US economy and precipitate the mass exodus of business and wealth to other nations, why socialism?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2019 00:21
|
|