Do landlords in Ireland have it as tough as they think?

KyussB

The only valid arguments about landlords finances, are those that completely exclude any mention of mortgages in the calculation of profits or losses. End of story.

In fact, given how frequently and consistently mortgages are used as a point of propaganda, they should never be mentioned at all, tbh.

runawaybishop

KyussB wrote: »

The only valid arguments about landlords finances, are those that completely exclude any mention of mortgages in the calculation of profits or losses. End of story.

In fact, given how frequently and consistently mortgages are used as a point of propaganda, they should never be mentioned at all, tbh.

What businesses do not count expenditure or loans as part of profit and loss? In fact businesses could write off far more debt than landlords

Sultan_of_Ping

runawaybishop wrote: »

What businesses do not count expenditure or loans as part of profit and loss? In fact businesses could write off far more debt than landlords

Quite true.

A mortgage is just a debt secured on a nominated piece of real property (usually realty) - businesses mortgage assets all the time. Only in Ireland do people seem to get exercised by mortgages secured on properties that are houses.

Zulu

KyussB wrote: »

The only valid arguments about landlords finances...

You can attempt to dictate the terms of your argument, but sadly that neither makes it true, or has any impact in the real world - it's the equivalent to pressing your fingers in your ears and shouting "na na nana na".

Electric Sheep

Irish landlords learned the lesson of the Poor Mouth from Irish farmers.

pwurple

You know, just under 70% of calls to the RTB last year were landlords with problem tenants, and the majority of awards were to landlords also?

Interesting isn’t it.

Because reading this thread, you’d think tenants were all angels, and never threw tv’s through windows, or smashed through plasterwork and doors. Never absconded owing bills, never had ex girlfriends trying to burn them out, or anything like that.

I’ve been providing rentals for residential and commercial for nearly two decades. there’s risk to any business but dealing with joe public, you get some choice fruitcakes sometimes. Surely almost every adult has had some job dealing with the public and knows this to be true. Now, teeter your life savings on that potential fruitcake.

Fol20

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yet people call it a business and are claiming profits are done like other businesses when they are not.


You are completely ignoring reality and making false claims. There are next to no individual landlords who have bought buy to lets in the last 10 years. That means the landlords have been operating at a massive lost for a decade.

Tenants not paying rent at the cost of providing the service for a decade didn't bother people and they enjoyed the extra expenses added to landlords. It was always going to come back to the tenants to pay for these expenses. Due to the revenue rules in require more than double the expense in a rent increase to return to a basic profit or in most cases just a sustainable top up they can afford. That is without recouping earlier losses.

You haven't been paying attention if you think people have only brought up non-payment by tenants as people have repeatedly brought up tax.

You must tell all the people involved in property management that they are doing nothing as it is all passive income requiring no effort according to you.

Landlords are leaving the market in droves making rentals property more scarce . Anybody with any intelligence can figure out that isn't going to make rents cheaper. By all means desire more punishment for landlord providing a service and ignore how that makes things worse for supply. I am sure the government will run in and provide property with less tax income as landlords leave the market.

Imagine all the landlords not wanting to subsidise tenants for the huge pay day where they are taxed again for capital gains. Makes so much business sense to take a risk on the property market and run the risk of non-payment of rent that could mean they lose their own home. Sure they can take all that risk with no expectation of making money because people wan cheaper rent. Seems completely reasonable to whom?

The reality is people are blinded by their desires for cheap rent and don't care who else pays for it once it isn't them. People claim rents are unsustainable but they don't care it is unsustainable for landlords to do so at a loss. They are not rolling in it and propped up the states lack of building.

You couldn’t have said it any better. Here here

KyussB

A reminder to readers, in among all the wagon circling:
Landlords here are quite literally saying, that if a rented property generates just enough income to pay for a properties mortgage + interest, causing the property to become fully owned by the landlord over the course of e.g. 10-15 years, when he did not own it before - that the landlord has not generated any profits in that time period, if the rent was just breaking even with the mortgage + interest.

This is the shit they are trying to pull, here.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

A reminder to readers, in among all the wagon circling:
Landlords here are quite literally saying, that if a rented property generates just enough income to pay for a properties mortgage + interest, causing the property to become fully owned by the landlord over the course of e.g. 10-15 years, when he did not own it before - that the landlord has not generated any profits in that time period, if the rent was just breaking even with the mortgage + interest.

This is the shit they are trying to pull, here.

Do you talk sh1t for fun or is it a career?

The aim of a rental is to completely cover the mortgage and to make addition income on top of this every month (after tax profit). It may not work out like this all the time but that’s the aim for anyone getting into the running a rental business and if the business is succeeding this is what happens so stop talking absolute and utter gutter.

Being a LL is hard work, it’s completely over taxed and LL have no rights (tenants had far too many) which is why people are getting out of the business despite you sticking your head in the sand and pretending it’s not happening.

You have serious begrudgery issues and serious issues with people who succeed in having a good income and you aren’t happy unless they are dragged down and have everything taken off them. Are you Margaret Cash by any chance?

KyussB

It's quite simple: If you cover the mortgage + interest on a rental property, with the rental payments (and only manage to cover that), on a consistent basis over the term of the mortgage, then excluding exceptional circumstances, you gain from that: You own a property worth several hundred thousand at the end of it.

Virtually all of the landlords here, are very carefully trying to frame that situation, as one where a landlord does not benefit whatsoever - despite ending up with an asset worth hundreds of thousands, at the end.

10pennymixup

KyussB wrote: »

It's quite simple: If you cover the mortgage + interest on a rental property, with the rental payments (and only manage to cover that), on a consistent basis over the term of the mortgage, then excluding exceptional circumstances, you gain from that: You own a property worth several hundred thousand at the end of it.

Virtually all of the landlords here, are very carefully trying to frame that situation, as one where a landlord does not benefit whatsoever - despite ending up with an asset worth hundreds of thousands, at the end.

Again, seriously now, you're spewing the same ****e you've being spewing the last c.20 posts.

We got it, everyone here gets it. We can tell from all your posts............... you believe all landlords (licencors included) can't do simple accounts.

Now please come up with something else, an answer to everything else put to you, not the same auld ***te, and try harder this time, really push yourself....perhaps something original, not some regurgitated speech you heard whilst stoned/pissed/ over medicated/ psychotic break (delete which is non applicable) at some free the city/ down with wall street/ Apollo house (delete which is non applicable) event.

KyussB

This simple point really triggers the fuck out of the landlords in this thread...

Oh I know the landlords here can do accounts - my contention, is that the landlords circling the wagon here, try to muddy the fact that they are constantly building equity on the property through the rent payments - are trying to use selective focus on accounts to state their is no gain, when there is a consistent gain over time.

This sleight of hand, is (thus far) best distilled - and it will keep being put forward consistently - through the example of a mortgaged rental, where the rent covers just the mortgage + interest, over the term of the mortgage - providing the landlord with complete ownership of several hundred grands worth of property over time - this is a situation, where landlords here are claiming no gain.

This is a total bullshit claim, which will keep on being contested in all its forms on the thread.

Sultan_of_Ping

KyussB wrote: »

This simple point really triggers the fuck out of the landlords in this thread...

Oh I know the landlords here can do accounts - my contention, is that the landlords circling the wagon here, try to muddy the fact that they are constantly building equity on the property through the rent payments - are trying to use selective focus on accounts to state their is no gain, when there is a consistent gain over time.

This sleight of hand, is (thus far) best distilled - and it will keep being put forward consistently - through the example of a mortgaged rental, where the rent covers just the mortgage + interest, over the term of the mortgage - providing the landlord with complete ownership of several hundred grands worth of property over time - this is a situation, where landlords here are claiming no gain.

This is a total bullshit claim, which will keep on being contested in all its forms on the thread.

Well I think the only one feeling "triggered" ( what a stupid word) is you.

I doubt many built equity from about 2008 to 2015/6 if they bought before then.......if they were then no one would be in negative equity.

It's like any business. Some people bought/invested wisely or were lucky and are doing well, others were less discerning or were undone by circumstances and are not doing as well.

And plenty of businesses acquire or invest in assets that appreciate.

pwurple

KyussB wrote: »

It's quite simple: If you cover the mortgage + interest on a rental property, with the rental payments (and only manage to cover that), on a consistent basis over the term of the mortgage, then excluding exceptional circumstances, you gain from that: You own a property worth several hundred thousand at the end of it.

Virtually all of the landlords here, are very carefully trying to frame that situation, as one where a landlord does not benefit whatsoever - despite ending up with an asset worth hundreds of thousands, at the end.

Where are you getting this?

Or, they just have debt, amounting to hundreds of thousands at the end.

A heck of a lot of them buy something, it gets devalued by tenants, and they sell it for less.

If you hire a car for a weekend, you have a hold on your credit card in case you write it off. Do massive damage as a tenant to a house and it’s wah wah wah if the owner tries to recoup even the measly deposit.

runawaybishop

KyussB wrote: »

A reminder to readers, in among all the wagon circling:
Landlords here are quite literally saying, that if a rented property generates just enough income to pay for a properties mortgage + interest, causing the property to become fully owned by the landlord over the course of e.g. 10-15 years, when he did not own it before - that the landlord has not generated any profits in that time period, if the rent was just breaking even with the mortgage + interest.

This is the shit they are trying to pull, here.

Landlords here? I am not a landlord and have no intention of ever becoming one. I do, however, understand basic business economics.

Being a landlord involves more than charging rent. There are several other costs involved along with the mortgage. There is a hefty tax system. We now have rent caps on the back of a period of very low demand and hence low rents. We have a strong bias towards the tenant with no way for a landlord to expedite the removal of a tenant who does not pay.

You seem to think a business will survive if it cannot write off a loan as a debt, operates at a loss every month, has to wait 15-25 years to see a profit and on top of that a bad tenant can frustrate the system and remain not paying rent for 1-2 year with no possibility of recompense.

No one is trying to pull anything, these are the challenges landlords face and the reason so many private landlords are exiting the long term rental market. They all leave and all you will have left are REITs, and those lads will maximize their profit every single opportunity.

Ray Palmer

KyussB wrote: »

A reminder to readers, in among all the wagon circling:
Landlords here are quite literally saying, that if a rented property generates just enough income to pay for a properties mortgage + interest, causing the property to become fully owned by the landlord over the course of e.g. 10-15 years, when he did not own it before - that the landlord has not generated any profits in that time period, if the rent was just breaking even with the mortgage + interest.

This is the shit they are trying to pull, here.

We already went through this and it isn't 10-15 years it is closer to 30 years as I explained exactly what happens.

You claim the people below don't exist

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/its-not-worth-the-hassle-woman-on-nightmare-experience-of-being-a-dublin-landlord-37435400.html

Explain what margins you think are acceptable and how your model of property investment works. Never heard other businesses talk about putting money continually into a business expecting a pay off in 30 years with the hope prices rise enough on the premises. While doing so to have continual risk that time period can increase by 10+ years.

Just try and explain it because so far you haven't been able.

KyussB

Again, posters are trying to avoid the primary point, with the minutiae of landlord finances and by trying to pull-in the situation of problem tenants again.

There are multiple posters presenting the impression, that if a landlord gets their mortgage paid off by tenant rents, with little in the way of cash flow to spare after the mortgage payment - that there is no gain until the mortgage is over - even though at the time the mortgage is over, the landlord ends up with an asset worth several hundred grand.

There's a very careful narrative at play, which tries to obfuscate and hide this fact, through appeals to the complexities of landlord finances, problem tenants, negative equity, and all manner of other issues - which attempt to gloss over this principal, massive gain, that landlords achieve.

Hiding this, seems to be at the core of the 'poor landlords' narrative.

10pennymixup

KyussB wrote: »

Again, posters are trying to avoid the primary point, with the minu.........................................................................

Yawn, unfollow thread, click.

runawaybishop

KyussB wrote: »

Again, posters are trying to avoid the primary point, with the minutiae of landlord finances and by trying to pull-in the situation of problem tenants again.

There are multiple posters presenting the impression, that if a landlord gets their mortgage paid off by tenant rents, with little in the way of cash flow to spare after the mortgage payment - that there is no gain until the mortgage is over - even though at the time the mortgage is over, the landlord ends up with an asset worth several hundred grand.

There's a very careful narrative at play, which tries to obfuscate and hide this fact, through appeals to the complexities of landlord finances, problem tenants, negative equity, and all manner of other issues - which attempt to gloss over this principal, massive gain, that landlords achieve.

Hiding this, seems to be at the core of the 'poor landlords' narrative.

Only one I see avoiding points is yourself. Maybe you don't understand them.

I will make it real simple.

People cannot afford to make a loss for 25 years.

steddyeddy

Dwayne Petite Kangaroo wrote: »

Do you talk sh1t for fun or is it a career?

The aim of a rental is to completely cover the mortgage and to make addition income on top of this every month (after tax profit). It may not work out like this all the time but that’s the aim for anyone getting into the running a rental business and if the business is succeeding this is what happens so stop talking absolute and utter gutter.

Being a LL is hard work, it’s completely over taxed and LL have no rights (tenants had far too many) which is why people are getting out of the business despite you sticking your head in the sand and pretending it’s not happening.

You have serious begrudgery issues and serious issues with people who succeed in having a good income and you aren’t happy unless they are dragged down and have everything taken off them. Are you Margaret Cash by any chance?

Ah Nox, you're exhibit A, B and C here. You brag on several threads about renting houses you inherit, complain about tenants having too much rights, talk about wanting to walk into tenants houses whenever because it's your house, get your mother to wash your clothes when you return home, complain about working hard from inherited assets and then say landlords have it hard!

People who work decent jobs, don't inherit assets and pay most of their wages for rent Nox have it hard man. I don't mean to be harsh man but a good dose of reality is needed for some people.

steddyeddy

runawaybishop wrote: »

Only one I see avoiding points is yourself. Maybe you don't understand them.

I will make it real simple.

People cannot afford to make a loss for 25 years.

Wait, what loss are you talking about. Say you have two houses, one your residence and one for renting. You rent out the second house and lets say the rent generated nearly pays the mortgage leaving you to make up the rest with your work wages. At the end of that you get an asset. An asset you secure for a renter subsidised mortgage.

Geuze

Dwayne Petite Kangaroo wrote: »

The aim of a rental is to completely cover the mortgage and to make addition income on top of this every month (after tax profit). It may not work out like this all the time but that’s the aim for anyone getting into the running a rental business and if the business is succeeding this is what happens so stop talking absolute and utter gutter.

That is not the definition of profit.

Net rental profit is after the deduction of mortgage interest, not the mortgage capital repayment.

Many landlords are making large net rental profits, while also being cashflow negative, as they are building up an asset, repaying the debt.

By the way, I have 100% sympathy for landlords dealing with bad tenants.

I also agree the interest deduction should always have been 100%, as it is with all other businesses.

It was unfair to reduce it for landlords.

Samuel T. Cogley

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah Nox, you're exhibit A, B and C here. You brag on several threads about renting houses you inherit, complain about tenants having too much rights, talk about wanting to walk into tenants houses whenever because it's your house, get your mother to wash your clothes when you return home, complain about working hard from inherited assets and then say landlords have it hard!

People who work decent jobs, don't inherit assets and pay most of their wages for rent Nox have it hard man. I don't mean to be harsh man but a good dosh of reality is needed for some people.

steddyeddy

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Go raibh maith agut for that. I should have added a good (inherited) dosh for the sake of the poster

runawaybishop

steddyeddy wrote: »

Wait, what loss are you talking about. Say you have two houses, one your residence and one for renting. You rent out the second house and lets say the rent generated nearly pays the mortgage leaving you to make up the rest with your work wages. At the end of that you get an asset. An asset you secure for a renter subsidised mortgage.

There are more costs then just the mortgage* but essentially yes, many people cannot afford to run at a loss for such a prolonged period. It doesn't matter if they get a house 25 years later if they can't afford to pay for it now - the government's interference in the market and general antilandlord policies are forcing private landlords out. This isn't exactly helping the supply situation.

*Insurance, tax, repairs, inspections, advertising, maintance, redecorating etc.

steddyeddy

runawaybishop wrote: »

There are more costs then just the mortgage* but essentially yes, many people cannot afford to run at a loss for such a prolonged period. It doesn't matter if they get a house 25 years later if they can't afford to pay for it now - the government's interference in the market and general antilandlord policies are forcing private landlords out. This isn't exactly helping the supply situation.

*Insurance, tax, repairs, inspections, advertising, maintance, redecorating etc.

But you're not talking about a static market. You're talking about a market which sees relatively high increases in charges to customers. You're also talking about using an asset to pay for an asset. Like any business you'll run at a loss for a few years but it is possible to make it over the hump, invest in more property and make a large profit. Using an asset to pay off the cost of an asset also doesn't preclude a landlord actually working for a living too. Very few businesses allow for that.

handlemaster

KyussB wrote: »

Again, posters are trying to avoid the primary point, with the minutiae of landlord finances and by trying to pull-in the situation of problem tenants again.

There are multiple posters presenting the impression, that if a landlord gets their mortgage paid off by tenant rents, with little in the way of cash flow to spare after the mortgage payment - that there is no gain until the mortgage is over - even though at the time the mortgage is over, the landlord ends up with an asset worth several hundred grand.

There's a very careful narrative at play, which tries to obfuscate and hide this fact, through appeals to the complexities of landlord finances, problem tenants, negative equity, and all manner of other issues - which attempt to gloss over this principal, massive gain, that landlords achieve.

Hiding this, seems to be at the core of the 'poor landlords' narrative.

so operate at a loss year on year and cross your fingers for future ownership of a property you have no way to know what value it will have . seems very weird to run a business that way

runawaybishop

steddyeddy wrote: »

But you're not talking about a static market. You're talking about a market which sees relatively high increases in charges to customers. You're also talking about using an asset to pay for an asset. Like any business you'll run at a loss for a few years but it is possible to make it over the hump, invest in more property and make a large profit. Using an asset to pay off the cost of an asset also doesn't preclude a landlord actually working for a living too. Very few businesses allow for that.

Except rent caps throw all that out the window. Landlords would have been hit hard 10 years ago and then rent caps stop them recovering fully. Why else do you think so many landlords are quitting the market?

I wouldn't expect landlords to break even on rent/mortgage all the time but when there is reduced room to prepare for issues/reduced rental periods then people quickly realise their money is better spent in a different investment.

handlemaster

steddyeddy wrote: »

But you're not talking about a static market. You're talking about a market which sees relatively high increases in charges to customers. You're also talking about using an asset to pay for an asset. Like any business you'll run at a loss for a few years but it is possible to make it over the hump, invest in more property and make a large profit. Using an asset to pay off the cost of an asset also doesn't preclude a landlord actually working for a living too. Very few businesses allow for that.

so now its not a normal business the owner should accept they will have to make up the short fall by gaining other employment. I though that landlords were rolling in the cash ?

steddyeddy

handlemaster wrote: »

so now its not a normal business the owner should accept they will have to make up the short fall by gaining other employment. I though that landlords were rolling in the cash ?

By gaining other employment? Like everyone else does? It seems the real problem is the expectation that landlords have that the renters should completely cover the costs of a mortgage while the landlord makes a profit. In this case maybe make more sensible investments.