Wealthy Landlord wants sympathy

[Bsuds]

We could go back to living in Caves but I don't think there are enough of those to go around.

[JLives]

Housing is a basic human need and right, ...

No, it's not. Only ACCESS to it is a right. You still have to pay the market rent.

No you don't. Landlords set the rent. My 3 bed 1.5 bath is set at half "market rent". I don't owe anything on the property and I have a job so no need to live off my tenants.

[JLives]

*removed*

[fluffy]

No, it's not. Only ACCESS to it is a right. You still have to pay the market rent.

With both purchases and rentals moving out of reach for more and more people every day then the system is broken.

[fluffy]

I don't owe anything on the property and I have a job so no need to live off my tenants.

I can't help but wonder just how many landlords choose to squeeze every nickel they can out of tenants, regardless of the level of profit they see.

[cv23]

With both purchases and rentals moving out of reach for more and more people every day then the system is broken.

If indeed "the system is broken" why all the hate for landlords as they are only part of "the system" just as tenants and homeowners are?

[cv23]

I can't help but wonder just how many landlords choose to squeeze every nickel they can out of tenants, regardless of the level of profit they see.

And some of us wonder just how many tenants choose to squeeze every nickel they can out of landlords, regardless of profit they see.
Some seem to forget rental housing is a two way street with BOTH parties working in part for their own benefit and that there are abusers of "the system" on both sides.

[countmeout]

Housing is a basic human need and right, it never should have been lumped in with traditional investments as a wealth producing vehicle. What is happening now is that people are still jumping in to the buy-to-rent game, even though the rents required are ridiculous. Call me idealistic, but shouldn't a responsible society offer a better life for all its members ? How are we going to achieve that by catering to just a few ?

Housing as a basic human right extends as far as a dry place to sleep/clean/poop and keep a small amount of belongings, shelter essentially. Beyond basic shelter, people like to have many more things like rooms and decks and yards and garages. It's not catering to a few people when those people are the ones putting capital up to manufacture these places with extra amenities beyond shelter.

The alternative to our current system is giving everyone the same place to sleep, we all just pay in a certain percentage, based on wages, even if you're not working so then the house is free. Nobody would be motivated to do anything in this system.

[countmeout]

No you don't. Landlords set the rent. My 3 bed 1.5 bath is set at half "market rent". I don't owe anything on the property and I have a job so no need to live off my tenants.

That's subsidized housing. It's not living off your tenants to expect a 7% return based on the value of your asset. That return includes asset appreciation.

You'd be making 7% on any other investment with the same value of your house, with different risks, you're choosing to leave tons of money on the table, could sell the home and invest the money for much more return. Or would you also sell the house for less than market rate? Don't need to live of the new buyers, right ;)

[JLives]

No you don't. Landlords set the rent. My 3 bed 1.5 bath is set at half "market rent". I don't owe anything on the property and I have a job so no need to live off my tenants.

That's subsidized housing. It's not living off your tenants to expect a 7% return based on the value of your asset. That return includes asset appreciation.

You'd be making 7% on any other investment with the same value of your house, with different risks, you're choosing to leave tons of money on the table, could sell the home and invest the money for much more return. Or would you also sell the house for less than market rate? Don't need to live of the new buyers, right ;)

It's not subsidizing. I just don't gouge people who need a home. Yes I am choosing to leave money on the table. I choose community more. I'm still making a profit. Just not as much as the greedy people.

[countmeout]

It's not subsidizing. I just don't gouge people who need a home. Yes I am choosing to leave money on the table. I choose community more. I'm still making a profit. Just not as much as the greedy people.

Conveniently skipped the comment about selling your home. Would you sell at a modest profit, based on what you paid for it, or would you gouge people who need a home by charging market rate?

Whether you agree or not, providing a service for less than market, an average rate of return based on price of asset. You're using asset values from many years ago and charging historical rent prices based on those values. In other words, when you first entered the market, you were the gouger you're currently claiming not to be. Becasue if someone bought your home today, they'd be charging markets rates to cover expenses.

[Nedroj]

And your assumptions are moronic as is your attitude and reading comprehension.

Wow, bit excessive...

I am a renter but I also own property as well, just not here in the Okanagan. And yes you should expect a return but *bleep* happens and sometimes you are stuck holding the bag. Like I said Im usually on the landlord's side of things but not with this guy. Solely because he wrote into Castanet trying to gain sympathy from readers about how hard done by he is because there is and always has been a cap on rental increases. When he has a very simple solution which is to sell ONE of his 20+ properties (at a significant profit I suspect) to cover the extra expenses. Again in the same way I would suggest a renter who cant afford to live here move to somewhere they can.

Right, so sell one property and keep the remaining millions of dollars tied up in assets that provide a poor return. There is no way you're a landlord of anything... The real solution is to sell ALL of the properties and put the money somewhere that will generate 7%.

I never said I was a landlord, just that I own property outside of the Okanagan, which is the family farm I inherited up in northern BC.

Also why just 7%? That seems a bit low for such a risky business. I mean my investments in the stocks even with the last year of volatility have still provided a 9% return. Although that's down from the 19-22+% return I was seeing previous to Biden taking over the presidency.

[countmeout]

I never said I was a landlord, just that I own property outside of the Okanagan, which is the family farm I inherited up in northern BC.

Also why just 7%? That seems a bit low for such a risky business. I mean my investments in the stocks even with the last year of volatility have still provided a 9% return. Although that's down from the 19-22+% return I was seeing previous to Biden taking over the presidency.

The stock market at best will do 10%. I use 7% as a baseline to ensure all diversified investments are making a good minimum.

It's just furthering my point, a rental empire isn't the gravy train everyone thinks it is.

[gertlush]

So Bernie Madoff averaged about a consistent 10% return, may I enquire how people are averaging 20% plus? You are doubling your money every 3-4 years, would you not hold most of the worlds wealth by now?

[TylerM4]

So Bernie Madoff averaged about a consistent 10% return, may I enquire how people are averaging 20% plus? You are doubling your money every 3-4 years, would you not hold most of the worlds wealth by now?

Yeah, highly likely than anyone claiming more than 10% is at least one of the following:
- Embellishing
- Not calculating their numbers correctly
- Very lucky and likely to lose much of their gains at some point in the future if using the same strategy
- Relying on insider information or other shady practices

Reminds me of a personal story from a few years back:
Had a coworker tell me that he's been averaging 15% annual return on his investments for the past few years ever since he went to a new investment advisor. Legitimate advisor, wasn't an aggressive portfolio, and his advisor told him some of his other clients who had more aggressive portfolios were making even more. I was impressed and considered contacting this guy, but asked to see my co-workers numbers 1st. Long story short... coworker was making a significant monthly contribution to his investment account and was including that contribution in his annual return calculations. Was pretty disappointed when I told him he was actually seeing around 7%.