exodus of small investors from the Irish rental sector has reduced the number of available tenancies

Question is where will they end up. Anecdotal I know but a friend sold an apartment in Swords recently- there was 3 bidders comprised of one couple and two investment funds. The funds drove the price beyond their expectations and could easily outbid the couple. I was surprised myself that funds are buying individual units but I guess with their sweetheart tax deal the rental income is pure gravy for them whereas the tax situation for a small investor is crippling.

2 reasons, the value of the properties are at the peak of inflated prices so great time to sell. The other is its like the wild wild west in the rental market, desperately needs regulation.

The problem seems to be that any more regulation may push more small landlords to sell up which reduces the supply even more.

There's a lot of discussion about long term rentals and how many renters want that option. Is it not possible for the government to bring in some legislation that incentivises private landlords to provide 8/10/15/20 years fixed term tenancy contracts? If that's what renters want, why not encourage landlords to provide it instead of pushing them out which is what they are doing now.

It would seem to be a good option for landlords who buy investment properties, ie, they are assured of long-stay tenants which means they don't have regular turnover of tenants or months when their properties are empty. It seems it would be good for tenants to have certainity about where they live for a fixed number of years.

If it's not a long-term fixed lease then no incentives apply. It can't be beyond the imagination of the smart people in Revenue or Dept of Finance to come up with some scheme.

It's absolutely peak market right now. Small landlords are selling because of that. Huge return. They may then come in a few years and buy back when market falls. It's common sense for someone who knows what theyre doing.

Yes guaranteed rent increases every year and rigid rules. The REITs are leaving properties empty instead of reducing the rents.

People wanted professional landlords and now we have them they are complaining about the professionals buying up properties and keeping prices high. Wait till they drive the last of the small landlords out and see how soon they start lobbying for more favorable laws for landlords.

There's a theory.

Behind the Investment Funds are the politicians. Most of the people will qualify for HAP. They own a lot of properties that can be kept unoccupied to keep the rents high because of the lack of supply. The rent is going up, the state is paying them indirectly the high rent through HAP. Small landlords can't afford to keep a place empty for too long, as mortgage needs to be paid. There's no competition from genuine buyers vs investment funds in buying properties.

Investments funds are the BIG winners.

Tax payers are the losers here.

Everything shows that larger operations have larger operating costs. Smaller landlords carry out a certain amount of work and themselves. Cleaning and painting when a house between tenancies when a house is relet. Minor plumbing and other repairs. Economies of scale never account for that. Where larger operations have an edge is longterm in there willingness to consider breach of contract and following tents( such as students and there parents where they co-sign) for damage. There will be a hullabaloo then as well as all co- tenents may be responsible and end up paying the majority of the costs.

What is this "everything" that shows this? It doesn't make any logical sense to me. A bigger landlord can run an apartment block and bulk-purchase things like paint, flooring, appliances, furniture etc. and then even have more of the same in reserve for when they need to be replaced. This also means their handyman only needs to know how to fix one type of each of these appliances too. Compared to a landlord with one or two apartments who has to do everything piecemeal, this is a much more efficient system.

I've rented in a big block from a major landlord and did find this to generally be true. If there was a problem with something, they'd have someone who was on call out quickly to fix it, no questions asked. If I needed something replaced (like my hob in one case) they're up and have it done the next day, it was clear they didn't even have to wait to order one in, and they didn't give any hassle about it because it's a pretty trivial expense at such a big scale. From the experience of both myself and other friends who rented off smaller landlords, you can get a sound one who will try to get the job done quickly, but you can just as easily get someone who will slouch and fight it, and either way they just aren't as quick.

I don't think that's always true. When I was renting previously from a big operator it was fairly expensive, but so were most things, and it wasn't luxurious. It was well kept enough and reasonably modern, but the fittings and finishings were not high-end. I don't know how everyone around was paying for their own rent but I never thought the place was dominated by council placements or HAP. If you take any given apartment or house for rent, I don't really see how it being operated by a small landlord instead of a big one really makes it any more suitable for the middle of the road tenant.

Up until very recently they were the only group providing rental accommodation. How much maintenance and repair do you think a house needs that you have to have a team waiting to do repairs?

Given that an industry provided a service for decades and the government then let large organisations in with less tax to destroy the indigenous suppliers would you object? That is what is going on here letting large international companies come in and take the money out of the country. Small landlords pay tax the big companies don't. It is like an invasion as they buy up property.

There is a huge imbalance on tenant and landlord rights which want the government to bring in more restrictions to make it only viable for large landlords so they can allow big companies deal with lack of state provided accommodation. Ultimately it means the Irish people will be fleeced. The big problem is the general public can't see it as you have illustrated it

As I said, I've called in for plenty of things to get fixed or replaced while I've been renting. It doesn't have to happen that often, the main thing is that when it does happen, it's done quickly and easily, and it has.

If an industry was providing a service and doing a less effective job at it, I'd be plenty happy to let in more competitors who could do it better. It's a free market, you should have to compete with others, and if they can do it better then they should. I don't believe in giving another provider brownie points because they got there first. If I did I'd never shop in Lidl or Aldi, or get my electricity from anyone but Electric Ireland.

I don't think taxes should be applied preferentially to anyone, because that distorts the market, but that's an issue with taxes, not with the landlords themselves.

There are two element to services, materials and labour. In general large operations may seem to have the advantage but they seldom have costs controls in place until there ability to extract there costs from the market is outside there control. Your assumption that any REIT or rental providers carries a stock of materials is flawed. In general they will have a contractor in place who will service there requirements. In the case of a hob or oven needing replacement they will contact there electrician who will have quoted them a prices for such a job. He will collect the appliance from a supplier and go away and fit it. At the end of the months he will invoice for his time and materials. Some jobs will have set labour fees such as appliances. Some will be on time and materials. However there costs will always be higher than a smaller operator. Its the same in any industry, whether it building, motor repairs or or trades suppliers.

Yes in the area of retail there are advantages of size. In general this gives you the economy of scale to buy cheap and mass sell products. It grand for selling everyday item. However economies of scale do not apply in most other area's where all larger companies do is add there margins to there costs.

The problem is the taxes. For a small landlord to cover a mortgage of €1,000 per month they need to charge nearly €2,000 as they are taxed at their marginal rate. A REIT doesn't pay tax yet it's still charging €2000 per month for apartments and they are willing to leave them empty. If you want competition and a free market you can't give massive advantages to one segment. Do you think the REITs would be buying up whole developments if they had to pay tax at ~50% on the rent?

Any existing small LL will have bought their properties at past prices (possibly decades ago). The cost of owning the property wont have changed much but they will be benefitting from the current high rents. I'd say those selling up are mostly those who covered most/all of the cost of the property and are getting a massive windfall due to high selling prices. The existence of REITs hasn't really changed much for the small LL, certainly not in terms of their costs. Some even claim the REITs have increased rents. It may prevent them acquiring more properties but given the complaints here about tax, that is unlikely anyway.

Despite what some have said, there are obvious economy of scale benefits to owning and operating a large number of units, particularly apartments. Maintenance costs and replacements are built in to the overall project. Assets are depreciated and written off over time. They also get better prices on appliances as part of an overall FM system than someone buying a single item.

I know this won't be a popular here but those exodusing are doing so because it is beneficial to them, it's not something to be lamented. They are not being driven out, rather opportunistically leaving at a good time (as is their right and likely a good business decision). If the small LL was so worried about tenants then they could remain in the game. It seems more like small LLs are angling for a tax break and if not they sell up, either way they win.

There is another side to this story, it might not be many people but a few fall into this:

Accidental of reluctant landlords exiting because the value of the property has for the first time in a decade brought them out of negative equity, or back to the original high price that was initially paid and they can cut their losses and not have to pay over half the rent in tax.

if they are lucky come out with a few quid to clear a loan or make a payment off their primary home. Any profits are subject to CGT so the gov get their pound of flesh as well.

Not every landlord is wealthy, many are just ordinary people working ordinary jobs trying to live.

Of course some costs have risen over time, that is pretty standard in every business. People may be getting out because they are sick of it but also because the current prices which can be achieved by selling make it more attractive. The properties are either bought by occupiers or those who will let them out again so there isn't a negative impact on the overall property market (properties removed from rental are put up for sale which is also under supplied).

The cost of buying, as well as the lack of financing for buy to let properties means there are very few new small LLs. I don't really see the negative in the shift from small LL to large funds. The funds are actually building units which increases the supply. Small LL would be competing with occupiers and I see no longer having that as a positive. Yes there are issues around funds and the tax they pay but these really need to be addressed after they have built enough units, not before which would act as a disincentive to develop.

Maybe they could seek an end to the difference in taxation between normal landlords and REITs.

It may have been the case historically (although I'dalso query that) but I seriously doubt rented units are used less efficiently than owner occupiedunits now.

I know plenty of individuals and childless couples who own two/three bedroom units. There's also lots of empty nesters out there with permanently empty bedrooms. I also know plenty of pairs/groups of individuals renting properties and every bedroom is occupied, it has to be to cover the rent. Very few families can afford to rent a property with an additional occasionally used bedroom.