4 ms·

Im saying in my part of the world. The costs of providing the building and actually renting to a tenant can consume a large part ( easily 50% plus for me ) of

Im saying in my part of the world. The costs of providing the building and actually renting to a tenant can consume a large part ( easily 50% plus for me ) of the gross yearly rent- ( and that does not include any cost of borrowed funds. or the expected return in invested funds ) My observation is lots costs are missed and not accounted for.

bugglebeetle 2y ago
And the rent is paid by the tenants while the equity accrues to the owner. That’s it’s an investment with variable ROI is not anyone’s problem but the investor who stuck their money in this asset class instead of something else. No one is guaranteed a specific return on investment.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >No one is guaranteed a specific return on investment. Indeed, And nobody is guaranteed housing. Landlord profits are arbitrage between 1) long term and short term financial obligation, 2) High credit and low credit individuals, 3) high and low assets at stake. Just like how a bank makes a % interest for taking risk and providing capital that owners wont, landlords do the same thing. Landlords get paid a profit to take on risk and long term liability (to the bank), and again provide capital. In short, banks loan cash to landlords because they are more credit worthy and take on liability. They in tern loan a home to renters, who have worse credit and much less liability. It is all about paying a premium for others to take on financial risk.
  - bugglebeetle 2y ago
    > Indeed, And nobody is guaranteed housing. In parts of America anyway, although states like New York do in fact have a right to shelter. This is nonetheless not the clever jibe you think it is, so much as indicative of moral bankruptcy. That all are not guaranteed housing, that the few can pursue greed at the cost of others survival, is a social and moral failure.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Positive rights implies the right to slaves. If one has a right to a house, they have a right to make someone build them a house. Now, societies can choose to provide services which are not rights.
      - bugglebeetle 2y ago
        As I already mentioned, New York has had a right to shelter for something like 40 years and as far as I understand abolished slavery in 1827. Finland also has this in their constitution and does not have a slaves building homes for people. I think your model of reality is a bit off.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        As I asked elsewhere, please don't be snarky. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was distinguishing between fundamental human rights and state entitlements. I don't think laws in Finland or New York defines reality in all places and times. If you want to talk about reality, this means that people get a cot in a bunkhouse with a roof over it. These laws dont entitle people to own houses or live in other peoples property.
        chefandy 2y ago
        > As I asked elsewhere, please don't be snarky. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was distinguishing between fundamental human rights and state entitlements. I don't think laws in Finland or New York defines reality in all places and times. If you want to talk about reality, this means that people get a cot in a bunkhouse with a roof over it. These laws dont entitle people to own houses or live in other peoples property. You might solicit fewer snarky comments by avoiding asinine comparisons between slavery and eviction regulation, and then admonishing people for not having a realistic take.
        bugglebeetle 2y ago
        >If you want to talk about reality, this means that people get a cot in a bunkhouse with a roof over it. >Maybe the most important structural change in Finland is that we've renovated our temporary accommodations in shelters and hostels into supported housing. For example, the last big shelter in Helsinki, run by the Salvation Army, had 250 beds. It was completely renovated in 2012. Now they have 81 independent, modern, apartments in that same building. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5437402 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5437402 Again, your model of reality is quite warped and off by being rooted in American cruelty.
chefandy 2y ago
A) I don't know where your part of the world is, but this is an article about the US market on a US website. You might live somewhere with entirely government subsidized housing and it would have no bearing whatsoever on the realities of this market. Even within the US, market's where landlords don't have the leverage to price gouge aren't a problem. People who want to price gouge who don't have the leverage to price gouge are never a problem until they get it. B) Landlords always throw their hands up and say "but the expenses!" but they never have the receipts handy. Are there missed expenses? Of course. But the chance of there being enough missed expenses to change the nature of this conversation is pretty much nil. If there's no actual evidence– and there never is– assuming it exists would be ridiculous. C) In the markets where this is the biggest concern, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments yield upwards of 5k per month. You could include a free leased Porsche for each tenant and not touch 50% expenses. D) Paying your mortgage, beyond the interest, is not an expense. It's your money. You get the equity.
- asdefghyk 2y ago
  RE "...I don't know where your part of the world is, but this is an article about the US market on a US website....." Article does not say that. After several paragraphs it could be implied with mention of LLC ? There is also examples given of Venia . So I would not say exclusively about US at all. And I just say , lots people claiming its good money , quite profitable, so we can look forward to lots new investors that are attracted to this profitability.... but it does not seem to happen. Why?
  - chefandy 2y ago
    > Article does not say that. After several paragraphs it could be implied with mention of LLC ? There is also examples given of Venia . So I would not say exclusively about US at all. Don't be obtuse. They're obviously speaking about the US legal system, some of the comments listed signed with US locations, and if you look at the article two entries down in their blog that refers to "the housing market," they only cite US statistics. > And I just say , lots people claiming its good money , quite profitable, so we can look forward to lots new investors that are attracted to this profitability.... but it does not seem to happen. Why? What in the world are you talking about? Real estate is one of the most, if not the most popular long-term investments in the United States? If nobody invested in real estate when why is the market so tight? Do you even think about this critically for a moment before you type it out? And once again, ZERO evidence of these so-called expenses. I'm not even talking about receipts, I'm just asking for examples for regular expenses large enough to change the nature of this debate. Of course, they don't exist. You are either willfully ignorant, genuinely ignorant, or lying.

bugglebeetle 2y ago

And the rent is paid by the tenants while the equity accrues to the owner. That’s it’s an investment with variable ROI is not anyone’s problem but the investor who stuck their money in this asset class instead of something else. No one is guaranteed a specific return on investment.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
>No one is guaranteed a specific return on investment. Indeed, And nobody is guaranteed housing. Landlord profits are arbitrage between 1) long term and short term financial obligation, 2) High credit and low credit individuals, 3) high and low assets at stake. Just like how a bank makes a % interest for taking risk and providing capital that owners wont, landlords do the same thing. Landlords get paid a profit to take on risk and long term liability (to the bank), and again provide capital. In short, banks loan cash to landlords because they are more credit worthy and take on liability. They in tern loan a home to renters, who have worse credit and much less liability. It is all about paying a premium for others to take on financial risk.
- bugglebeetle 2y ago
  > Indeed, And nobody is guaranteed housing. In parts of America anyway, although states like New York do in fact have a right to shelter. This is nonetheless not the clever jibe you think it is, so much as indicative of moral bankruptcy. That all are not guaranteed housing, that the few can pursue greed at the cost of others survival, is a social and moral failure.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Positive rights implies the right to slaves. If one has a right to a house, they have a right to make someone build them a house. Now, societies can choose to provide services which are not rights.
    - bugglebeetle 2y ago
      As I already mentioned, New York has had a right to shelter for something like 40 years and as far as I understand abolished slavery in 1827. Finland also has this in their constitution and does not have a slaves building homes for people. I think your model of reality is a bit off.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        As I asked elsewhere, please don't be snarky. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was distinguishing between fundamental human rights and state entitlements. I don't think laws in Finland or New York defines reality in all places and times. If you want to talk about reality, this means that people get a cot in a bunkhouse with a roof over it. These laws dont entitle people to own houses or live in other peoples property.
        chefandy 2y ago
        > As I asked elsewhere, please don't be snarky. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was distinguishing between fundamental human rights and state entitlements. I don't think laws in Finland or New York defines reality in all places and times. If you want to talk about reality, this means that people get a cot in a bunkhouse with a roof over it. These laws dont entitle people to own houses or live in other peoples property. You might solicit fewer snarky comments by avoiding asinine comparisons between slavery and eviction regulation, and then admonishing people for not having a realistic take.
        bugglebeetle 2y ago
        >If you want to talk about reality, this means that people get a cot in a bunkhouse with a roof over it. >Maybe the most important structural change in Finland is that we've renovated our temporary accommodations in shelters and hostels into supported housing. For example, the last big shelter in Helsinki, run by the Salvation Army, had 250 beds. It was completely renovated in 2012. Now they have 81 independent, modern, apartments in that same building. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5437402 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5437402 Again, your model of reality is quite warped and off by being rooted in American cruelty.

chefandy 2y ago

A) I don't know where your part of the world is, but this is an article about the US market on a US website. You might live somewhere with entirely government subsidized housing and it would have no bearing whatsoever on the realities of this market. Even within the US, market's where landlords don't have the leverage to price gouge aren't a problem. People who want to price gouge who don't have the leverage to price gouge are never a problem until they get it. B) Landlords always throw their hands up and say "but the expenses!" but they never have the receipts handy. Are there missed expenses? Of course. But the chance of there being enough missed expenses to change the nature of this conversation is pretty much nil. If there's no actual evidence– and there never is– assuming it exists would be ridiculous. C) In the markets where this is the biggest concern, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments yield upwards of 5k per month. You could include a free leased Porsche for each tenant and not touch 50% expenses. D) Paying your mortgage, beyond the interest, is not an expense. It's your money. You get the equity.

asdefghyk 2y ago
RE "...I don't know where your part of the world is, but this is an article about the US market on a US website....." Article does not say that. After several paragraphs it could be implied with mention of LLC ? There is also examples given of Venia . So I would not say exclusively about US at all. And I just say , lots people claiming its good money , quite profitable, so we can look forward to lots new investors that are attracted to this profitability.... but it does not seem to happen. Why?
- chefandy 2y ago
  > Article does not say that. After several paragraphs it could be implied with mention of LLC ? There is also examples given of Venia . So I would not say exclusively about US at all. Don't be obtuse. They're obviously speaking about the US legal system, some of the comments listed signed with US locations, and if you look at the article two entries down in their blog that refers to "the housing market," they only cite US statistics. > And I just say , lots people claiming its good money , quite profitable, so we can look forward to lots new investors that are attracted to this profitability.... but it does not seem to happen. Why? What in the world are you talking about? Real estate is one of the most, if not the most popular long-term investments in the United States? If nobody invested in real estate when why is the market so tight? Do you even think about this critically for a moment before you type it out? And once again, ZERO evidence of these so-called expenses. I'm not even talking about receipts, I'm just asking for examples for regular expenses large enough to change the nature of this debate. Of course, they don't exist. You are either willfully ignorant, genuinely ignorant, or lying.