6 ms·
> There is simply no reason from an investors perspective to leave a home empty unless you can't find a renter who will cover their costs Right now the four be
by objclxt 9y ago
> There is simply no reason from an investors perspective to leave a home empty unless you can't find a renter who will cover their costs
Right now the four bed house next door to me in San Francisco is empty, and has been empty for the past three years - it's worth $4 million, and is owned by a family based in mainland China. On one occasion a representative of theirs stopped me in the street and asked if my home was for sale (fortunately for me my landlord decided it wasn't).
And when I lived in London I saw equally empty properties - new build flats worth millions of pounds completely deserted.
> A home lying empty has a negative return (due to maintenance and operating costs, still have to water lawns, repair weather damage, etc).
Not if the value of the home increases greater than the negative pressures...which it very much has been in many cities.
> A home being rented has a higher return. There is simply no reason from an investors perspective to leave a home empty unless you can't find a renter who will cover their costs
Tenants have their own problems. They have rights, homes are harder to liquidate with a tenant in, and you may decide it's just not worth the hassle. If you're expecting the property value to increase 50% over the next few years the income a tenant would be providing you is a relative pittance.
- valuearb 9y agoAgain, you are pointing out that the real problem is with restrictive rental regulations. If you can't easily require a renter to leave at the end of their lease, you would never rent your home, even if you didn't plan to live in it for a few years. But again, you get the appreciation whether you rent or not. It's in an investors best interest to rent, as long as they don't have to give up control of the property doing so.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- pyoung 9y agoSingle family homes in SF are exempt from rent control.
- tobtoh 9y agoIn Australia, you can terminate a lease without issues if you intend to sell the property or move in yourself. However, in Melbourne, it's estimated (from water usage analysis) that 20% (1) of investor owned properties are vacant (4.8 per cent of greater Melbourne's total housing stock and 18.9 per cent of all investor-owned housing stock). So I don't believe the 'restrictive rental regulations' are primarily to blame. Anecdotally, the inner-city 2 bedroom house (worth around A$1.5M) behind where I live has been unoccupied ever since I moved in ten years ago! I'm as baffled as you that people do this! (1) http://www.afr.com/real-estate/almost-20pc-of-melbournes-investorowned-homes-empty-20151203-glee9q http://www.afr.com/real-estate/almost-20pc-of-melbournes-inv...
- DesiLurker 9y agoNo, the point he is highlighting is that often real estate is the best way to park large sums of money for foreign investors (however they may have gotten, in India its called black money) they often dont really care for making a little on the top with rent. infact view it as hindrance should they need to unload it (think high gini coefficient countries). This is really hurtful for working people living in that market as for them it translates into unbearable high prices by distorting rental markets. the only reason this has recently slowed down is because fincen has started cracking down on such purchases. btw this also happened after 2008 crash when banks forclosed a lot of properties but wernt selling any so they ended up holding onto them for long periods. some counties had to pass measures on similar lines. long term markets are efficient, short term not much so.
- legulere 9y agoThe possibility of being pushed out of your apartment comes with a high coast to society, and not an option. The reality is that we have a market failure in allocating resources.
- robk 9y agoThe super rich don't want a place dirtied by renters. It's perfectly rational. They'd rather it empty and pristine.