Why I'm taking my rental off the market

GreeBo

listermint wrote: »

I hope the government insure that Airbnb laws are pushed like Toronto's.

There's a raft of people on here who think nothing of going the air BnB route and think nothing of the neighbours that live next door to your short term let. You don't pay business rates like equivalent hotels or bnbs . You think it's fine and dandy to run rough shod over it just because Airbnb is a massive organisation.

The sooner the government sorts this out the better. I'd put money down you'd go nuts if your neighbours had 3 different sets of people coming into their house each week .

Bet you wouldn't be a big fan of that carry on.


As for the OP it seems your not really Interested in renting at all your words. Why are you even keeping the place . It makes no sense

My neighbours were recently away for a month and had 3 different rentals and it was a nightmare to live beside.
The first was 3 couples who were out the back until all hours 4 days in a row having parties.

Next were 2 families who seemed to think it was grand to be up running around at 2am banging on walls and playing video games.

I get that these people are on holiday, but I wasnt, I was minding an 8 week old baby in a mid terrace house

davo10

GingerLily wrote: »

I don't agree that the rental sector should be a free market.

If you can't accept it then sell - it's really that simple.

That is what rental property owners are doing, or going to Airbnb in large numbers.

A service/commodity is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, that is the way a free market works. When a government tries to interfere, then the risk is that the service is no longer attractive to the provider and availability decreases, driving up costs even further. Pretty much what is happening in the rental market, landlords fleeing leaving supply low and corporates to hoover up supply.

GingerLily

davo10 wrote: »

That is what rental property owners are doing, or going to Airbnb in large numbers.

A service/commodity is worth what someone is willing to pay for it, that is the way a free market works. When a government tries to interfere, then the risk is that the service is no longer attractive to the provider and availability decreases, driving up costs even further. Pretty much what is happening in the rental market, landlords fleeing leaving supply low and corporates to hoover up supply.

I hope the government step in and restrict Airbnb propery rentals because its a real issue.

I don't expect you to care about the overall social good of rent control and Airbnb restrictions, but your opinion is bias and self serving.

davo10

GingerLily wrote: »

I hope the government step in and restrict Airbnb propery rentals because its a real issue.

I don't expect you to care about the overall social good of rent control and Airbnb restrictions, but your opinion is bias and self serving.

I'm sorry, but it is not the responsibility of property owners to provide social housing or to operate for the benefit of society in general. Property owners who rent are there to provide a service for payment, that is it.

Graham

Deleted User wrote: »

Landlords do not build houses. They do not create accommodation. They are not a solution to any problem.

What a daft statement.

If you are unable or unwilling to buy your own house, landlords most certainly are the solution to a problem.

Trasna1

davo10 wrote: »

Dear God, you could actually be the only person on the planet who sees a €75k loss as a €25k "healthy return". Leaving aside you have ignored interest on the mortgage, have you forgotten that tax is due on rental income.

When massive swathes of properties are owned by REITS, their properties will be the market, REITS will set the rent. And instead, you will be boosting the Gaurds pension fund.

How could it be a 75% loss when the capital fronted by the investor was 100k and the return was 125k. For the sake of simplification I omitted calculation on tax and interest but they don't matter to the point I'm making - that the underlying asset has a capital value.

Say the same person buys a property for 200k and the rent covers the whole 100% mortgage and interest after tax as well as maintenance. Property values in the area fall by 2.5% between the beginning and the end of the term. Has the landlord made a loss? Or an outsized profit? Has his net wealth increased or decreased?

Seemingly landlords here think they're making a loss unless they essentially acquire a property/asset for free

Sleeper12

victor8600 wrote: »

Really? Is this how it works? I find it hard to believe that somebody can rent a house, trash it and just walk away. Why does not a landlord sue the tenant for damages? Was there a contract? Did the tenant put a fake name on it? If not, then what are you talking about by saying "tenant has vanished"?

Tenant left in the dead of the night so to speak as far as I can tell. How do you plan on tracking down this tenant? No forwarding address left behind. Should OP go door to door around Dublin city looking for the tenant? Hire a private investigator?


I question the soundness of OPs business plan but there's no doubt in my mind that OP would attempt to recoup losses from him if he could find him or take him to the RTB.


If he has vanished then there is nothing more to do but lick your wounds & move on

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

No point in chasing. A lot of them have nothing. Stop wasting your time and money. That's the problem, no punishment. You can put anything you like into the agreement. The agreement between landlord and tenant is actually worthless, when one side can break it at any time and there is no punishment.

DubCount

Trasna1 wrote: »

Seemingly landlords here think they're making a loss unless they essentially acquire a property/asset for free

Thats really at the heart of this. Landlords do not acquire property/assets for free. It costs real money to buy a property. Investors with money dont have to become landlords. They can invest in the stock market, put the money in the bank, invest in Holiday Property in Spain - whatever they want.

There are many people here who seem happy to see landlords move their real money elsewhere. Sure doesn't that give ordinary people the chance to own property in stead of paying money to the greedy fat cats. Unfortunately Ireland needs a private rental sector. That means we need landlords. Those greedy fat cats are more than happy to take their large bags of real money and invest them somewhere else - somewhere that makes more money for less hastle and less risk.

Be careful what you wish for ........

Trasna1

DubCount wrote: »

Thats really at the heart of this. Landlords do not acquire property/assets for free. It costs real money to buy a property. Investors with money dont have to become landlords. They can invest in the stock market, put the money in the bank, invest in Holiday Property in Spain - whatever they want.

There are many people here who seem happy to see landlords move their real money elsewhere. Sure doesn't that give ordinary people the chance to own property in stead of paying money to the greedy fat cats. Unfortunately Ireland needs a private rental sector. That means we need landlords. Those greedy fat cats are more than happy to take their large bags of real money and invest them somewhere else - somewhere that makes more money for less hastle and less risk.

Be careful what you wish for ........

You see, for all their whinging, small time landlords are not willing to move to a different asset class, since there is no other asset in Ireland that can consistently return in 8 to 10% annually, whilst holding it's value.

A few will go sure, and make a song and dance about it on the way. And there's a few vocal ones here...

And often it's not their own large bags of money, it's mostly the banks, leveraged against the rented property.

Graham

Trasna1 wrote: »

You see, for all their whinging, small time landlords are not willing to move to a different asset class, since there is no other asset in Ireland that can consistently return in 8 to 10% annually, whilst holding it's value.

Your hypothesis isn't supported by the reducing number of residential landlords in the market.

Trasna1

Graham wrote: »

Your hypothesis isn't supported by the reducing number of residential landlords in the market.

There was always churn in the BTL market. The difference now that credit is much harder to come by for BTL loans with a large up front deposit required. This limits the size of the outsize return and rebalances risk back on the landlord. It means fewer people are entering the BTL space.

People always cash in, but are these landlords reinvesting in a different asset class. Nope. They are sitting on a cash pile

CruelCoin

Trasna1 wrote: »

Healthy 25% return.

25% isn't anything approaching a healthy return over a 25-35 year period.

I would suggest you find an alternative financial advisor if you're being told 25% if fine.

Fol20

Trasna1 wrote: »

By that logic you'd be saying that anyone with a spare room is contributing to the housing crisis - which is of course nonsense.

This forum can be totally tiresome - you have a landlord grouping who seem to think they're hard done by if the rent doesn't cover the mortgage and maintenance happily omitting that the asset itself has value and is appreciating (at the moment - and is the long term trend). Seemingly it's their right to have an €xxxk asset after 15-20 years that they effectively only acted as a middleman passing cash from tenant to bank and invested little or no money generated outside of that property into it. The people in the property of course are an inconvenience to be merely tolerated with, and the state criminal for taxing the rental income. We now are treated to these same landlords, who are only interested in profit - acting like they are martyrs keeping the rental crisis from getting worse but it's government/regulation mowing down landlords one soldier at a time. Total nonsense.

To the OP, if you want to do Airbnb, off you go. Nothing stopping you. Not sure why you posted here tbh apart from having a rant perhaps? We're not going to change your mind that's for sure. Airbnb can return more cash at the cost of more time inputted. Only you can decide if it's worth it.

If I have an asset that is worth several hundred k and it's generating enough income which has to be a large proportion of the cost of finance and I'm landed with a 10k bill, I'll probably be upset... for like 5mins. Because I'll remember realising this risk has only dented my outsize return by a couple of percent.

If it’s still a good business to be in why is more people leaving rather than entering the market. If you purchase a btl you need to invest a large chunk of money. It’s a minimum of 30pc

Graham

Trasna1 wrote: »

There was always churn in the BTL market. The difference now that credit is much harder to come by for BTL loans with a large up front deposit required. This limits the size of the outsize return and rebalances risk back on the landlord. It means fewer people are entering the BTL space.

People always cash in, but are these landlords reinvesting in a different asset class. Nope. They are sitting on a cash pile

They must be the landlords that aren't aware of the 10% returns and endless capital appreciation you mentioned earlier.

Fol20

GingerLily wrote: »

I hope the government step in and restrict Airbnb propery rentals because its a real issue.

I don't expect you to care about the overall social good of rent control and Airbnb restrictions, but your opinion is bias and self serving.

And do you think your opinion is equally not self serving?

Fol20

Trasna1 wrote: »

How could it be a 75% loss when the capital fronted by the investor was 100k and the return was 125k. For the sake of simplification I omitted calculation on tax and interest but they don't matter to the point I'm making - that the underlying asset has a capital value.

Say the same person buys a property for 200k and the rent covers the whole 100% mortgage and interest after tax as well as maintenance. Property values in the area fall by 2.5% between the beginning and the end of the term. Has the landlord made a loss? Or an outsized profit? Has his net wealth increased or decreased?

Seemingly landlords here think they're making a loss unless they essentially acquire a property/asset for free

I presume your in the market as a ll based on your comments. It’s easy money where it’s classified as unearned income even though you can put in countless hours of admin,hard labour and or massive amounts of stress

Fol20

Trasna1 wrote: »

There was always churn in the BTL market. The difference now that credit is much harder to come by for BTL loans with a large up front deposit required. This limits the size of the outsize return and rebalances risk back on the landlord. It means fewer people are entering the BTL space.

People always cash in, but are these landlords reinvesting in a different asset class. Nope. They are sitting on a cash pile

Tell that to the vast amount of ll that went bankrupt as aparently the risk wasn’t rebalanced back then.

I would love it if we had a net gain of 8pc. Please link me to those types of gains as I’d be delighted.

Fol20

I keep seeing and underlying tone from several posters here that ll are making a fortune and “lying on cash”. Clearly they don’t have real world experience as if they did, their opinion would be completely different

Sleeper12

Fol20 wrote: »

I keep seeing and underlying tone from several posters here that ll are making a fortune and “lying on cash”. Clearly they don’t have real world experience as if they did, their opinion would be completely different

I think the general thought from non landlords posting is with the highest rents ever in the history of the state then landlords have to be making money.

K.Flyer

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Tenant left in the dead of the night so to speak as far as I can tell. How do you plan on tracking down this tenant? No forwarding address left behind. Should OP go door to door around Dublin city looking for the tenant? Hire a private investigator?


I question the soundness of OPs business plan but there's no doubt in my mind that OP would attempt to recoup losses from him if he could find him or take him to the RTB.


If he has vanished then there is nothing more to do but lick your wounds & move on

Even if you did find him, what really will prtb do?
Tell him he owes you money, that's about it, not much else.
And, say unlike airbnb where both hosts and guests are "rated" , you can't do something similar as a warning to other prospective landlords, leaving them free to screw someone else over.

Fol20

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I think the general thought from non landlords posting is with the highest rents ever in the history of the state then landlords have to be making money.

Ill give an example
Rent 1500
Mortgage(interest only part) 700
Maintenance +misc @20pc =300
That leaves you with 1500-(700+300)=500
Tax &50pc =250

After all is said and done, your left with 250 in your pocket to pay towards the principle and if you have a boiler that breaks down or a dodgy tenant, you may as well knock out a few years worth of your “profit”. And that’s at peak rent. Everything is cyclical so you get the picture. Most small time ll aren’t in to make a quick buck or to have wadd of cash from it. It’s a slow burner where you can make a steady gain but nothing like what people think notwithstanding all the risks and stress from it.

Sleeper12

K.Flyer wrote:

Even if you did find him, what really will prtb do? Tell him he owes you money, that's about it, not much else. And, say unlike airbnb where both hosts and guests are "rated" , you can't do something similar as a warning to other prospective landlords, leaving them free to screw someone else over.

We definitely need a rating system here in Ireland for landlords and tenants. It's nuts that the guy who damaged OPs property can go on to another property and the new landlord can't check his past history.

davo10

Sleeper12 wrote: »

We definitely need a rating system here in Ireland for landlords and tenants. It's nuts that the guy who damaged OPs property can go on to another property and the new landlord can't check his past history.

We do have a rating system of sorts, the RTB website. The op should make a complaint to RTB, put it on record, all LLs/tenants should check RTB site to see if tenants/LLs name comes up.

Sleeper12

Fol20 wrote:

Ill give an example Rent 1500 Mortgage(interest only part) 700 Maintenance +misc @20pc =300 That leaves you with 1500-(700+300)=500 Tax &50pc =250

Mortgage interest should not be in your calculations. This interest is to buy the property & has nothing to do with the rental. It's part of buying your investment. You are totally distorting the figures. This is not how you value a business.

Buying your property is totally separate to the running of the business. Interest is for capital & not the running of the business.

If I borrow 500,000 to buy shares I don't subtract my interest payments from my dividends from the shares. The dividend & the cost of buying the shares are totally different things.

If you have to borrow money to run your business, fixtures & fittings the interest from this is included in the business but never for the capital investment.

Fol20

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Mortgage interest should not be in your calculations. This interest is to buy the property & has nothing to do with the rental. It's part of buying your investment. You are totally distorting the figures. This is not how you value a business.

Buying your property is totally separate to the running of the business. Interest is for capital & not the running of the business.

If I borrow 500,000 to buy shares I don't subtract my interest payments from my dividends from the shares. The dividend & the cost of buying the shares are totally different things.

If you have to borrow money to run your business, fixtures & fittings the interest from this is included in the business but never for the capital investment.

It’s about the bottom line. It’s as simple as that. So your saying businesses shouldn’t include loans they take out on investments be in a tractor for a farmer or equipment for a contractor or tradesman?

The interest you pay on a loan is a valid expense as part of your business.

Sleeper12

Fol20 wrote:

It’s about the bottom line. It’s as simple as that. So your saying businesses shouldn’t include loans they take out on investments be in a tractor for a farmer or equipment for a contractor or tradesman?

You are 100 percent wrong. You can never include the capital or interest on the capital when valuing a business. The reason for this is that you might have borrowed 500,000 but I only need to borrow 100,000 for the same business. Its impossible to get a real value when it's different for d people. Even if we borrow 500,000 each I'm AAA rated so so my interest is less than yours. Its impossible to value your business by including the cost of buying the business itself or the interest for the purchase.

Ask in the accountancy forum if you really don't know this. They will explain it to you better than I can. This really backs up my point that many landlords shouldn't be in the business at all. Knowing how to value a business is very basic stuff.

In accounting terms you pay the cost of buying the property and the interest for buying the property out of the profits from the business. It's not an expensive of the business. It's an expense for buying the business. Two totally different things

An_Toirpin

Is there is any published data on how many rented properties are owned outright?

Fol20

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You are 100 percent wrong. You can never include the capital or interest on the capital when valuing a business. The reason for this is that you might have borrowed 500,000 but I only need to borrow 100,000 for the same business. Its impossible to get a real value when it's different for d people. Even if we borrow 500,000 each I'm AAA rated so so my interest is less than yours. Its impossible to value your business by including the cost of buying the business itself or the interest for the purchase.

Ask in the accountancy forum if you really don't know this. They will explain it to you better than I can. This really backs up my point that many landlords shouldn't be in the business at all. Knowing how to value a business is very basic stuff.

In accounting terms you pay the cost of buying the property and the interest for buying the property out of the profits from the business. It's not an expensive of the business. It's an expense for buying the business. Two totally different things

I only included interest in the sample. I am talking about cash flow per month. Your also playing with words, I don’t care if it’s expense toward buying the business or whatever else it might be. From a pragmatic approach, this is a cost burden for the owner which they are also entitled to use to deduct their taxable bill from.

The_Conductor

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Is there is any published data on how many rented properties are owned outright?

No is the short and simple- there is some data on the number of buy-to-let mortgages- but I don't think any landlord has ever been asked about whether or not there is any financial leverage associated with their property.........

So- no, there is no published data. If anyone disagrees- I'd be overjoyed if they can point at some published data on this area- but I'm fairly sure it doesn't exist.