4 ms·
It doesn't make it any less dumb. It's the difference of ~80k / year for free you leave on the table.
by eanzenberg 8y ago
It doesn't make it any less dumb. It's the difference of ~80k / year for free you leave on the table.
- mchannon 8y agoIt's not dumb, and it's not for free. If you robbed a bank and had a nice big pile o' cash, how smart would you be to put it in a bank and collect interest on it? You jeopardize (or devalue) the asset by trying to play landlord. By leaping after $80k/year, you may cost yourself $500k/year appreciation in the asset.
- selectodude 8y ago>You jeopardize (or devalue) the asset by trying to play landlord. By leaping after $80k/year, you may cost yourself $500k/year appreciation in the asset. Unless your tenant literally burns the building down and you don't have insurance, I'm not sure how this works.
- hcknwscommenter 8y agoA building that would otherwise be subject to rent control or other tenant protections is worth less than the same building that is empty of tenants. By leaping after 80K/year you can massively decrease the value of an empty building, or a building that is likely to soon empty, or a building that can be condo converted without Ellis acting anyone.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoThe people who are doing this are the kinds of people who lose $80k in their couch cushions.
- nradov 8y agoIt's not dumb. Their goal is capital preservation, not income. And once a renter is in there they're extremely difficult to evict if the owner ever wants to move in or sell.