Leasing it all

MollyRo

I'm strongly thinking of renting out my entire farm after the year I've had. 40 acres, 2 bed house and good yard with slatted sheds, crush etc.
I just want a break from it all, maybe return to it in years to come but I want to explore some other options at the moment. I'm selling my cows and keeping the weanlings to start weaning myself off it !

Problem is, I have no idea how to put a value on it. Rent out the land, yard and house separately, or just let the whole lot out to a young prospective farmer.

Anyone have any experience of this or advice even?

TIA

Mooooo

Depends on area etc but rent the land and yard together on long term lease and the house separately, if the layout suits would be my thinking.

MollyRo

Mooooo wrote: »

Depends on area etc but rent the land and yard together on long term lease and the house separately, if the layout suits would be my thinking.

Could be ok, the traffic up and down by the house to the yard would have to be acceptable to a tenant I guess.

Trying to figure out the most tax efficient way of doing it too.

_Brian

Guy that works with me leased it all in the spring, boy was he glad over the summer. He feeds for the guy who leased it and even has a few heifers running in her mans herd

MollyRo

_Brian wrote: »

Guy that works weigh me leased it all in the spring, boy was he glad over the summer.

I bet!

MollyRo

What prices would you look for for slatted sheds/ regular sheds per bay

Mooooo

Dunno about sheds per bay etc, but part of my reasoning for putting the whole fsrn together is that more may be interested in the whole lot rather than sheds being separate. Personally I would prefer to lease where only my stock would be. A long term lease would be tax free at that acreage as well.
I guess you could rent the house with the farm as well but if there is any breakdown in relations getting someone out of a house can be difficult.

MollyRo

Mooooo wrote: »

Dunno about sheds per bay etc, but part of my reasoning for putting the whole fsrn together is that more may be interested in the whole lot rather than sheds being separate. Personally I would prefer to lease where only my stock would be. A long term lease would be tax free at that acreage as well.
I guess you could rent the house with the farm as well but if there is any breakdown in relations getting someone out of a house can be difficult.

very true...

wiggy123

if leasing-do a 5 year one, + maybe 2 payments during course of the year!
depends where your based-sure if its good land, make 200 an acre!, then add 1000k for the sheds-or more, if more than 1..
re house--let it out separately, depending again where your based, get from 700 -1000 a month easily!
or else-1 person might lease all...

make ya more money than farming it anyway

Loves_lorries

wiggy123 wrote: »

if leasing-do a 5 year one, + maybe 2 payments during course of the year!
depends where your based-sure if its good land, make 200 an acre!, then add 1000k for the sheds-or more, if more than 1..
re house--let it out separately, depending again where your based, get from 700 -1000 a month easily!
or else-1 person might lease all...

make ya more money than farming it anyway

would 200 per acre not be enough including the sheds ?

MollyRo

Loves_lorries wrote: »

would 200 per acre not be enough including the sheds ?

Average is 250 an acre where we are and its good land, fenced etc, own water wells etc. sheds can hold over 200 animals

Loves_lorries

MollyRo wrote: »

Average is 250 an acre where we are and its good land, fenced etc, own water wells etc. sheds can hold over 200 animals

oh well thats a lot of sheds .

wrangler

MollyRo wrote: »

Average is 250 an acre where we are and its good land, fenced etc, own water wells etc. sheds can hold over 200 animals

It's worth over 250/acre if you've sheds, get a long term lease and it's tax free which leaves it worth 30% more to you.......sheds also means that there'll be dung/slurry from the sheds going back on the land if you specify it

memorystick

Loves_lorries wrote: »

would 200 per acre not be enough including the sheds ?

There's no one making money at €200 per acre. €150 is plenty over a 5 year average and get paid every year. Too many lads paying high money for the first few years and not paying in the last few. Less is more.

Nekarsulm

Most farms have the same ESB supply to the sheds and tbe house.
Think about how you are going to handle this if letting the house to a different client.
New meter for the yards might be best bet.
Also think about water supply, how are you going to divide it up?
Rights of way need to be very clearly marked on maps in the contract.
Person renting house must agree in writing to facilitatefarm traffic if seperate entrances are not available.
Imagine the grief if a militant vegetarian/vegan rented the house ....
Insurance. It must be clearly understood by all parties who is responsible for what.
If you have multi-farm policies, you must make sure the company understands that the lands are rented.

Loves_lorries

memorystick wrote: »

There's no one making money at €200 per acre. €150 is plenty over a 5 year average and get paid every year. Too many lads paying high money for the first few years and not paying in the last few. Less is more.

personally i would not pay more than a hundred per acre but you cannot get it at that so i dont rent any .

hempel

Often thought bout renting myself what wud a 6 unit parlour be worth to rent good set up feeders tank etc

Panch18

wrangler wrote: »

It's worth over 250/acre if you've sheds, get a long term lease and it's tax free which leaves it worth 30% more to you.......sheds also means that there'll be dung/slurry from the sheds going back on the land if you specify it

Easy knowing your the man leasing land out and not the one paying for it

No need to keep talking it up though, there’s plenty of fools to pay it anyway

Panch18

Loves_lorries wrote: »

would 200 per acre not be enough including the sheds ?

It would be plenty

Plenty of fellas are going to be in serious trouble next year to pay rent

Panch18

MollyRo wrote: »

Average is 250 an acre where we are and its good land, fenced etc, own water wells etc. sheds can hold over 200 animals

Why are you asking us then??

If you know what’s its making locally then that’s what it’s worth

_Brian

Panch18 wrote: »

Why are you asking us then??

If you know what’s its making locally then that’s what it’s worth

I’d say because like allot of lads, while it's more sense on paper, it would take serious convincing to rent the place out.

Icelandicseige

Rent it to a young progressive farmer, on long term lease, dont over charge, but charge id 150-200 be fair for each side. You will see the place kept right, and He/she would love the opportunity.

Grueller

Panch18 wrote: »

Easy knowing your the man leasing land out and not the one paying for it

No need to keep talking it up though, there’s plenty of fools to pay it anyway

Often hear statements like this.
I know two brothers who take up on 300 acres every year. They take dear and cheap land with no discrimination. I alaways thought they were busy fools but they have bought 212 acres in the last couple of years.
I have very good off farm income and couldn't afford to buy the 12 never mind 200.

Panch18

Grueller wrote: »

Often hear statements like this.
I know two brothers who take up on 300 acres every year. They take dear and cheap land with no discrimination. I alaways thought they were busy fools but they have bought 212 acres in the last couple of years.
I have very good off farm income and couldn't afford to buy the 12 never mind 200.

Do you honestly think that by renting 300 acres you’d be in a position to buy 212 acres just like that??

There money could have come from anywhere, but what’s sure is the rented land didn’t do it

Grueller

Panch18 wrote: »

Do you honestly think that by renting 300 acres you’d be in a position to buy 212 acres just like that??

There money could have come from anywhere, but what’s sure is the rented land didn’t do it

Nope. I don't. But I always hear can't yet lads still do. Not a personal swipe lad.

Icelandicseige

Panch18 wrote: »

Do you honestly think that by renting 300 acres you’d be in a position to buy 212 acres just like that??

There money could have come from anywhere, but what’s sure is the rented land didn’t do it

There is people renting land and making money, there is no doubt about that..!

Loves_lorries

Panch18 wrote: »

Why are you asking us then??

If you know what’s its making locally then that’s what it’s worth

can understand the OP wanting to put it out there , feedback etc .

Loves_lorries

Grueller wrote: »

Often hear statements like this.
I know two brothers who take up on 300 acres every year. They take dear and cheap land with no discrimination. I alaways thought they were busy fools but they have bought 212 acres in the last couple of years.
I have very good off farm income and couldn't afford to buy the 12 never mind 200.

some people are just very smart and can make money whatever they turn their hands to , more power to them , the older i get the more i realize im not especially smart but thats ok too .

Nekarsulm

Entitlements need to be factored in too. You dont want them vanishing into the National Reserve....

Mooooo

For all the talk of big rents, a lot if it is that, talk. Was in the rag last week or before, only something like 3% actually breach the 300 mark, with majority betweem 100 and 200. By all means look for as much as you can and if you get it fair play to you bit don't be surprised if nobody bites either at higher rates., depending on where you are. Fert may be circa 300 an acre on fert every year depending on sr and indices etc

L1985

Slightly off topic but I just want to say how brave I think the OP is. Plenty fall out of love with farming and keep struggling on making themselves miserable and prob doing a bad job at it as well. I think it's great that you have the courage to take stock and make some changes. Esp when the door is left open for you to go back to it. This year will have a lot of people doing similar but not doing too much about it but struggling on.

Panch18

Grueller wrote: »

Nope. I don't. But I always hear can't yet lads still do. Not a personal swipe lad.

Sorry wasn’t having a go, didn’t mean to come across that way

I just find this whole leasing thing crazy

A fella can sit on his arse and get up to 40k a year tax free while the feeling renting it is busting his balls and if he does very well he’ll make as much as the guy he’s taking it from, but shur then he has to pay tax on it

Grueller

Panch18 wrote: »

Sorry wasn’t having a go, didn’t mean to come across that way

I just find this whole leasing thing crazy

A fella can sit on his arse and get up to 40k a year tax free while the feeling renting it is busting his balls and if he does very well he’ll make as much as the guy he’s taking it from, but shur then he has to pay tax on it

Ya. The leasing thing puzzles me too. It was meant to promote land mobility etc. but has done nothing to make it easier for the young farmer.
Ah to be fair I was probably reading your post wrong. Long day and feeling a bit like a princess.

K.G.

Most impotant thing is finding the right client.no money will pay for a toublesome prick are there are plenty of them.look at the places other fellas are renting and see what they are doing to them.the opem market might achive the highest rent but may not give the best return.land in theory is worth 10k an acre so think carefully who you give 400k to to mind

Keepgrowing

K.G. wrote: »

Most impotant thing is finding the right client.no money will pay for a toublesome prick are there are plenty of them.look at the places other fellas are renting and see what they are doing to them.the opem market might achive the highest rent but may not give the best return.land in theory is worth 10k an acre so think carefully who you give 400k to to mind

Nut shell

wrangler

Grueller wrote: »

Ya. The leasing thing puzzles me too. It was meant to promote land mobility etc. but has done nothing to make it easier for the young farmer.
Ah to be fair I was probably reading your post wrong. Long day and feeling a bit like a princess.

Surely we can't be too far from supply of land exceeding demand, Thousands of extra acres are coming on line every year both for lease and sale, prices will turn soon, I have to say that's the reason that I went for ten year lease.
The fact that it's taxfree was a game changer with me and a lease is much better for the farmer too, more money in his pocket while he's farming than land purchase,

finbarrk

I don't think you would get €200 an acre in our area. West Clare.

Loves_lorries

wrangler wrote: »

Surely we can't be too far from supply of land exceeding demand, Thousands of extra acres are coming on line every year both for lease and sale, prices will turn soon, I have to say that's the reason that I went for ten year lease.
The fact that it's taxfree was a game changer with me and a lease is much better for the farmer too, more money in his pocket while he's farming than land purchase,

200 seems a good price, I've never met anyone getting more or paying more, the golden Vale isn't typical of market.

Dakota Dan

Loves_lorries wrote: »

personally i would not pay more than a hundred per acre but you cannot get it at that so i dont rent any .

Sure, why not rent for nothing altogether.

Dakota Dan

Panch18 wrote: »

Sorry wasn’t having a go, didn’t mean to come across that way

I just find this whole leasing thing crazy

A fella can sit on his arse and get up to 40k a year tax free while the feeling renting it is busting his balls and if he does very well he’ll make as much as the guy he’s taking it from, but shur then he has to pay tax on it

If you think renting out is such an easy ride why aren’t you doing it then?

TheBoyConor

lease the land and the yard/shed facilities all together as one.

But for the life of you, don't become a landlord with that house. You'll regret it because it's practically impossible to get a tenant out if they turn rogue. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of posts on boards warning people who have been ridden rock solid by tenants and advising against becoming landlords at all costs.

Air BnB the house if possible.

Another option is to be "owner occupier" and let out the rooms. Even if you intend living elsewhere day to day, retain one room in the house as your bedroom, even if it's the sitting room and stay there, say, at least one day a week and get your post delivered there.

Even let the house be idle.

Just do not become a landlord and at the mercy of the RTA and a tenant.

Panch18

Dakota Dan wrote: »

If you think renting out is such an easy ride why aren’t you doing it then?

Perhaps you might explain to me why it’s not an easy ride or where my thinking is so wrong

wrangler

Loves_lorries wrote: »

200 seems a good price, I've never met anyone getting more or paying more, the golden Vale isn't typical of market.

I actually meant that land will get cheaper with the amount that's coming on the market, that's why I leased out for ten years

Getting a lot more than 200 here, there's a slatted shed on the dearest part but it needs a lot of work, 40 years old

J.O. Farmer

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Loves_lorries wrote: »

personally i would not pay more than a hundred per acre but you cannot get it at that so i dont rent any .

Sure, why not rent for nothing altogether.

If he's made a decision that rent above €100 an acre does not make economic sense for him there's nothing wrong with that.

Just because others may have decided to pay 200-300 to rent because it suits their system doesn't mean everyone else should do it and lose money.

The market will dictate what land rent is. Asking a price is one thing but you then need a tenant willing to pay it. Just because Johnny down the road is getting it doesn't mean you will unless there's another tenant willing to pay it.

Dakota Dan

Panch18 wrote: »

Perhaps you might explain to me why it’s not an easy ride or where my thinking is so wrong

No guarentee of payment, delayed payment, some tenant could wreck the place. It’s not all plain sailing.

K.G.

We are in the land lord game and its nit money for jam.you have to have thick skin but letting a house is just throwing money down the drain as a house not used is going to detiorate.the common mistake is looking at the rent as income-its only income after costs are deducted and spending a few bob every year keeps the house good and helps to keep tennant happy

Panch18

K.G. wrote: »

We are in the land lord game and its nit money for jam.you have to have thick skin but letting a house is just throwing money down the drain as a house not used is going to detiorate.the common mistake is looking at the rent as income-its only income after costs are deducted and spending a few bob every year keeps the house good and helps to keep tennant happy

Massive difference between renting a house and leasing land though KG

The rules and regulations have the landlords bet on the houses, none of that with the land

K.G.

Panch18 wrote: »

Massive difference between renting a house and leasing land though KG

The rules and regulations have the landlords bet on the houses, none of that with the land

We are in the house game.yeah if the tennant has 34 months in situ
and you issue notice they can stay there for 8 months and if they dont pay you cant really do f all about it because most of them have nothing.but a house idle will probaly slip half rent in value unoccupied each year.

kk.man

K.G. wrote: »

Panch18 wrote: »

Massive difference between renting a house and leasing land though KG

The rules and regulations have the landlords bet on the houses, none of that with the land

We are in the house game.yeah if the tennant has 34 months in situ
and you issue notice they can stay there for 8 months and if they dont pay you cant really do f all about it because most of them have nothing.but a house idle will probaly slip half rent in value unoccupied each year.

I was at that game too, sold up and moved on. People think landlords are creaming it but far from it.
The biggest mistake the Government made was the very high tax and this crippled the one or two rented house owner. These people represented the majority of the rental market. Now these are gone and it's left a huge vacuum now called the housing crisis.
The landlord has to put up with a prtb who are very lobsided and tenants rights are gone too far. This side is never seen in the media.

coolshannagh28

kk.man wrote: »

I was at that game too, sold up and moved on. People think landlords are creaming it but far from it.
The biggest mistake the Government made was the very high tax and this crippled the one or two rented house owner. These people represented the majority of the rental market. Now these are gone and it's left a huge vacuum now called the housing crisis.
The landlord has to put up with a prtb who are very lobsided and tenants rights are gone too far. This side is never seen in the media.

Government wanted small landlords out of the system , they feel they have moved the risk in it offshore to REITS and Vulture funds , time will tell ....

K.G.

kk.man wrote: »

I was at that game too, sold up and moved on. People think landlords are creaming it but far from it.
The biggest mistake the Government made was the very high tax and this crippled the one or two rented house owner. These people represented the majority of the rental market. Now these are gone and it's left a huge vacuum now called the housing crisis.
The landlord has to put up with a prtb who are very lobsided and tenants rights are gone too far. This side is never seen in the media.

Absolutely.they brought in populist measures to be seen to be doing things but all they have done is make it less attractive therefore less houses available.