4 ms·

Were it only that simple! There are property taxes and maintenance. It's maintenance that kills you on most rental deals. I think unless you own and manage a

by turk73 7y ago

Were it only that simple! There are property taxes and maintenance. It's maintenance that kills you on most rental deals. I think unless you own and manage a fairly decent portfolio of properties, being a landlord is more of a break-even to loss type of situation. Where are all these $100K properties, btw?

christophilus 7y ago
Avoid the US north-east and west coast, and you can find pretty decent values. I know a guy in his 30s who is "retired". He actually works about 2hrs per week. He has 10 rental properties. He pays 0 taxes due to depreciation exceeding his rent + costs. He makes around $90K / yr take home pay which is enough for his standard of living. So the answer is, yes. Being a land lord can work, if you get the parameters right as he seems to have done.
zemo 7y ago
it literally IS that simple, it's an economic model. The example I gave is, of course, incredibly stripped down and incredibly simplified; it's simplified for the purposes of discussing what a "rate of return" is. The rates are adjusted for maintenance cost in the paper. The example I gave is a simpler model than what is presented in the paper: > These net rental yields use rental income net of maintenance costs, ground rent, and other irrecoverable expenditure. These adjustments are discussed exhaustively in the next section. We use net rather than gross yields to improve comparability with other asset classes. did you try opening the paper and searching "maintenance" before you posted? > Where are all these $100K properties, btw? For one thing, it's a thought experiment. We're using our imagination to define our words. Stop looking at everything so unbearably literally. And for real, that is a ridiculous question even when taken literally. Finding houses under $100k is really not confusing so long as you look in places with low costs of living. Randomly picking Tulsa, Oklahoma, for example: https://www.redfin.com/city/35765/OK/Tulsa/filter/property-type=house,max-price=100k https://www.redfin.com/city/35765/OK/Tulsa/filter/property-t...

by turk73 7y ago

christophilus 7y ago

Avoid the US north-east and west coast, and you can find pretty decent values. I know a guy in his 30s who is "retired". He actually works about 2hrs per week. He has 10 rental properties. He pays 0 taxes due to depreciation exceeding his rent + costs. He makes around $90K / yr take home pay which is enough for his standard of living. So the answer is, yes. Being a land lord can work, if you get the parameters right as he seems to have done.

zemo 7y ago

it literally IS that simple, it's an economic model. The example I gave is, of course, incredibly stripped down and incredibly simplified; it's simplified for the purposes of discussing what a "rate of return" is. The rates are adjusted for maintenance cost in the paper. The example I gave is a simpler model than what is presented in the paper: > These net rental yields use rental income net of maintenance costs, ground rent, and other irrecoverable expenditure. These adjustments are discussed exhaustively in the next section. We use net rather than gross yields to improve comparability with other asset classes. did you try opening the paper and searching "maintenance" before you posted? > Where are all these $100K properties, btw? For one thing, it's a thought experiment. We're using our imagination to define our words. Stop looking at everything so unbearably literally. And for real, that is a ridiculous question even when taken literally. Finding houses under $100k is really not confusing so long as you look in places with low costs of living. Randomly picking Tulsa, Oklahoma, for example: https://www.redfin.com/city/35765/OK/Tulsa/filter/property-type=house,max-price=100k https://www.redfin.com/city/35765/OK/Tulsa/filter/property-t...