Quote (Thor123422 @ Mar 15 2021 09:54am)

Absolutely, the pandemic and accompanying response has made it more difficult to be a landlord, but if a landlord can't handle a year with no income from the house then they were not in a position to be a landlord. Period.

Quote (bogie160 @ Mar 24 2021 11:29am)

Do restaurants that aren't able to exist for ~12 months with zero cash flow not deserve to be restaurants? This is absurd.

Quote (Thor123422 @ 24 Mar 2021 09:58)

A rental can sit vacant for a year as a matter of course. Not ideal, but far from an anomoly. A restaurant isn't expected to go a day without customers.

Of course its ridiculous when you apply the same standards to different businesses with different levels of vacancy.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Mar 25 2021 04:38am)

If you're talking about "rentals" that are owned by property management firms (aka corporations), sure! However, when you're talking about a property that a working person invested in and is paying a mortgage on and intends to retire in, and the "rent" fees are simply covering the mortgage payment, what you're realistically talking about is a default on a mortgage that will violate rental guidelines and land the landlord in jail.

It's amazing you can be so stupidly ignorant of what's going on. When you're talking about a person putting $80K down on a $200K property and then renting it out for the next 20 years to cover the cost of paying off the mortgage, the entire "retirement plan" is based around the ability to "survive" in some low rent shithole while renting out your nest egg, and working full time. Come retirement, you can take possession of your nest egg, which as landlord, you'll have made improvements (as you can afford) over the course of others renting it. Now, let's lock everything down AND provide the tenant to NOT pay you, and yet you still have to pay the mortgage as well as all upkeep. Suddenly your job that was covering shitty hole in the wall rent plus the overhead on your nestegg for upkeep/maintenance is now having to cover the mortgage as well, and that's assuming your job wasn't locked down too. So, what happens? You lose your "home" and the "home" you actually own that cost you your home you can't even move into, because you can't evict worthless squatters because of the government saying, "We know best!"

This isn't a case of "poor planning". It's a case of government imposing absolutely ridiculous martial laws with anti-owner mandates, without even paying lipservice to helping out the individuals who'll be inordinately impacted by these edicts.

No worries though, none of us expect a communist to understand the finder points of mortgage loans, rentals, and the horrific impact of completely idiotic government mandates on both of the above. :)

Quote (Thor123422 @ Mar 24 2021 11:58am)

A rental can sit vacant for a year as a matter of course. Not ideal, but far from an anomoly. A restaurant isn't expected to go a day without customers.

Of course its ridiculous when you apply the same standards to different businesses with different levels of vacancy.

Quote (thesnipa @ Mar 25 2021 08:22am)

so property ownership in rentals should only be for people with large cash stores who can take 1 years worth of no rent?

lol that's as pro-millionaire and anti-individual ownership of property i can think of. the only people who can comfortably take even the loss of pay on a single property are corporations, multiple properties and forget it.

what% of the US even has 12k$ in savings (1kmortgage x 12 mo)? then just nuke that and leave zero security. plus 2k$+ in property taxes. you're down to like 5% of american households, and then corporations.

your original statement stands out as incredibly silly to me, and thats for a household. business/retail space would be like 3-4x that in costs. there's a good reason the mexican restaurant in town near me has had 4 owners in the last few years but only like 2 weeks between them. and its also the same reason fast food is spreading while mom and pop restaurants were dying even pre-covid. there's no flexibility in the market any more. they run on almost no margin, high costs, and are gone if they falter. this isnt due to greedy landlords with 1mil in cash looming over them however....

Quote (Thor123422 @ Mar 25 2021 08:26am)

If you're renting a property, it's just reality that you need to be able to take a year without rent. That's not something new, it's how the market works. Don't like it? There are safer investment vehicles with lower returns. It's not pro-millionaire to point out that some investment vehicles are riskier than others and you need to be able to absorb the risk without annihilating your position.

We should have a much stronger social safety net and better income equality. Those are the policies that lead to most people not being able to have rentals, not the fact that rentals are inherently riskier than an ETF.

Quote (thesnipa @ 25 Mar 2021 09:22)

so property ownership in rentals should only be for people with large cash stores who can take 1 years worth of no rent?

lol that's as pro-millionaire and anti-individual ownership of property i can think of. the only people who can comfortably take even the loss of pay on a single property are corporations, multiple properties and forget it.

what% of the US even has 12k$ in savings (1kmortgage x 12 mo)? then just nuke that and leave zero security. plus 2k$+ in property taxes. you're down to like 5% of american households, and then corporations.

your original statement stands out as incredibly silly to me, and thats for a household. business/retail space would be like 3-4x that in costs. there's a good reason the mexican restaurant in town near me has had 4 owners in the last few years but only like 2 weeks between them. and its also the same reason fast food is spreading while mom and pop restaurants were dying even pre-covid. there's no flexibility in the market any more. they run on almost no margin, high costs, and are gone if they falter. this isnt due to greedy landlords with 1mil in cash looming over them however....

Quote (thesnipa @ 25 Mar 2021 09:40)

the rule of thumb in rental investment is after 30 days action is needed on vacant properties. rental price lowering, advertisement, hiring headhunter organizations, etc.

your assertion that 12 month vacancies happen and need to be planned for sounds like endlesssky level hip shooting bullshit. "it happens" isn't congruent with "you need to expect it" or even "you need to be ready for it". its like saying any restaurant owner need to be ready for a catastrophic kitchen fire and have cash flow on hand to replace everything.

overall the war on landlords is near the top of the list for stupidest thing the left is fighting for in 2021. i find it really stupid and will just lead to shitty subsidized housing, corporate boilerplate landlords, or both, while not helping people get quality housing for affordable prices.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Mar 25 2021 09:26am)

If you're renting a property, it's just reality that you need to be able to take a year without rent. That's not something new, it's how the market works. Don't like it? There are safer investment vehicles with lower returns. It's not pro-millionaire to point out that some investment vehicles are riskier than others and you need to be able to absorb the risk without annihilating your position.

We should have a much stronger social safety net and better income equality. Those are the policies that lead to most people not being able to have rentals, not the fact that rentals are inherently riskier than an ETF.