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?
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.
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?
Sounds like a dangerous game, it assumes that property always appreciates value faster than inflation progresses.
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.