Many landlords are happy to take less than market rent from their tenants because they are doing them a kindness, they like the tenants, and they don't want to be greedy, and they don't want their tenant to move out.
These are wonderful and admirable qualities. It does tend to result in very long term tenancies, as lets face it, who wants to give up a very sweet deal? Tenants are well aware of where their property sits compared to similar properties, and know when the rent is very good compared to others.
I know a tenant who has a four bedroom home in the Capital city who pays a mere $200 per week, when market rent is over $650 per week. How long has she been there? 15 years and counting. Does the tenant know how much she'd need to pay if she moved out? Yes, she's well aware she'd need to pay $350 for a one bedroom place, let alone what four bedroom is worth. This happens a lot more than anyone wants to admit. It's a lot of support landlords give their tenants.
I wonder though if the support landlords give their tenants could be better used elsewhere. Supporting more causes, doing greater good. Making the world a better place.
Lets look at this in a bit more detail. If you rent your property to someone for $50pw cheaper than the neighbours rent an equivalent property, you are effectively handing your tenant a gift, tax free, of $2,600 per annum. Over 10 years that's $26,000, or with compounding interest at 7.2%, closer to $50,000. That's a lot of money!
What could you as a landlord do with that money? What does your tenant do with it?
How many 'One Dollar a Day' charities could that support? Answer: 137 families fed and lifted from poverty.
How many families are supported when a landlord discounts their rent? Answer: 1. What do they do with it? Who knows! It could be supporting a charity, or it could be spent at the pub. It's not in your power to choose.
$50 per week would make a huge difference to an animal shelter, protecting wildlife, feeding kids good food, clothing those who need it, programs for disadvantaged youth, researching cures for disease. There are lots of great uses for your funds surplus to your requirements. Why would you not want to be in control of where it goes?
Now imagine how much that would be if every landlord of the estimated 300,000 rental properties in New Zealand did the same.
How much good do you think three quarters of a billion dollars do?
Residential property management service looking after your properties in Wellington, Porirua, and Hutt Valley. Property experts you can trust to optimise your investment, we free you from the hassles of being a landlord and let you get on with the things you want to do. Claim back your time and your weekends!
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Off-peak letting vs in-peak letting.
I'm a big fan of fixed term tenancies, as long as they end at the right time of year. If they don't, landlords are doomed to suffer financially.
Why?
Firstly, it takes longer to rent a property when fewer people are looking, and Wellington certainly has a season of many people looking vs not many people looking the rest of the year.
Secondly, in off-peak, the proportion of high-risk tenants to low-risk tenants is higher. So, while 8 out of 10 may be excellent in peak season, in off-peak season that may be only 2 out of 10 people. You have a choice of taking a high-risk tenant knowing you'll be paying for it with rent arrears and damages, or wait for the great tenant when they finally come along, resulting in longer vacancies.
Thirdly, landlords know it can be hard to attract tenants in the off-season, so lower their rents. This means you could get less money for your property than it would be worth in peak season, when the laws of supply and demand mean higher rents are easier to get.
We know someone with a property that has fixed term tenancies to peak season, but their tenants for the last few years have broken the lease late in the year, in off peak, meaning the usual process of advertising the property is disrupted.
Outgoing tenants usually accept the landlord going 'oh, you are leaving? I'll put the rent up for the next person then', unless that tenant is responsible for finding the new tenant as they are breaking their fixed term. In this circumstance, they see it as a hindrance for replacing themselves, and argue against it. Ordinarily this may be no big deal, but bear in mind it must be 6 months after the tenancy begins before a landlord can increase the rent again, so this slows down the usual pattern of increase. You may have been just about to do a rent review in the current tenancy when they leave, and instead of realizing its planned review, see it as a barrier to replacing themselves. You need to decide if it is worth the hassle of arguing the point, or just take the hit. Many just take the hit and keep rent the same.
If this happen for several years in a row it compounds the effect. Take two properties next door to each other. One has the leases end at peak season, and has long term tenants who have regular rent increases. The other keeps ending at the wrong time of year, and has all the above inhibiting factors on the rent discussed above. Which property performs better financially? The one with regular increases of course. It may be $50 per week or more better than its neighbour after a few years of market forces and stroppy outgoing tenants effecting the rent.
Why?
Firstly, it takes longer to rent a property when fewer people are looking, and Wellington certainly has a season of many people looking vs not many people looking the rest of the year.
Secondly, in off-peak, the proportion of high-risk tenants to low-risk tenants is higher. So, while 8 out of 10 may be excellent in peak season, in off-peak season that may be only 2 out of 10 people. You have a choice of taking a high-risk tenant knowing you'll be paying for it with rent arrears and damages, or wait for the great tenant when they finally come along, resulting in longer vacancies.
Thirdly, landlords know it can be hard to attract tenants in the off-season, so lower their rents. This means you could get less money for your property than it would be worth in peak season, when the laws of supply and demand mean higher rents are easier to get.
We know someone with a property that has fixed term tenancies to peak season, but their tenants for the last few years have broken the lease late in the year, in off peak, meaning the usual process of advertising the property is disrupted.
Outgoing tenants usually accept the landlord going 'oh, you are leaving? I'll put the rent up for the next person then', unless that tenant is responsible for finding the new tenant as they are breaking their fixed term. In this circumstance, they see it as a hindrance for replacing themselves, and argue against it. Ordinarily this may be no big deal, but bear in mind it must be 6 months after the tenancy begins before a landlord can increase the rent again, so this slows down the usual pattern of increase. You may have been just about to do a rent review in the current tenancy when they leave, and instead of realizing its planned review, see it as a barrier to replacing themselves. You need to decide if it is worth the hassle of arguing the point, or just take the hit. Many just take the hit and keep rent the same.
If this happen for several years in a row it compounds the effect. Take two properties next door to each other. One has the leases end at peak season, and has long term tenants who have regular rent increases. The other keeps ending at the wrong time of year, and has all the above inhibiting factors on the rent discussed above. Which property performs better financially? The one with regular increases of course. It may be $50 per week or more better than its neighbour after a few years of market forces and stroppy outgoing tenants effecting the rent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)