It would seem to me that it would be a win win if agents got paid more for managing a property over time as opposed to rewarding them for churning over tenants. I don't think it is in the tenants nor the landlords interest that short term leases are signed, at least as far as long term PI's go.
aren't tenants funny!
- Thread starter lizzie
- Start date
It would seem to me that it would be a win win if agents got paid more for managing a property over time as opposed to rewarding them for churning over tenants. I don't think it is in the tenants nor the landlords interest that short term leases are signed, at least as far as long term PI's go.
Presumably the PM gets paid to get me good tenants. A good tenant is one who pays their rent on time, keeps the place tidy and does not make unnecessary requests of the landlord. A good tenant can stay as long as they like.
If a tenant is not a good tenant then I do not want to encourage them to stay. Personally I believe I should be entitled to money back from the PM who gave them the keys in the first place.
The reality is that PM fees are based on the fact that the PM will get some good, bad but mostly in between tenants, and the average churn on tenancies. So there is no need to pay them extra when they get it right.
As a landlord I'm not too keen on signing a long-term lease without dealing with a tenant first hand on a shorter lease. I would suggest the tenant would need to rent from me for a twelve month period prior to being allowed a longer term lease. This would give both the tenant and myself a fairly good indication of whether a longer term lease is desired.
In addition periodic rent increases would need to be included within the terms of the lease. Given that a tenant is wanting a longer term lease they are also likely to want to keep any increases minimal. On the other hand the landlord is unlikely to want to lose money when they are providing security of tenure. So these terms will need to be negotiated to ensure that the returns are maintained as much as possible, whilst giving the tenant a level of comfort that they will not be disadvantaged and that they have the security of knowing the frequency and amount of any rent increases.
There is a clear disadvantage for a landlord with a long term lease as it limits their ability to terminate the lease in a timely manner if their circumstances change. This is something that generally does not affect the tenant as a change in their circumstances will be taken into consideration by a tribunal more readily than that of the landlords.
There is also the difficulty of a landlord selling the property with a long term tenancy in place, particularly if they wish to take advantage of short term market conditions.
So while there are benefits to the landlord in having good long term tenants, it does not necessarily follow that these same benefits would be realised with a long term lease in place.
Regards
Andrew
Makes sense.
I suppose this is why I tend to ask RE agents is the owner of the property I am renting a long term investor, or have they just joined the fray so to speak or an owner moving out and possibly going to sell when conditions improve etc.
If a rental has been on the market for several years with one owner it is a good bet that it will continue to be available as a rental whether the lease is long term or otherwise.
Cheers.
So let's NOT run your definition of a 'good Tenant' through this scenario.....cos it'll be a complete and utter waste of time.
Last edited:
Right you are Kathryn. Sorry - my oversight.
If you had 135 of them like SMcK, it'd be even better.
Cmon.. 0-38 in 6 years is good...still have another 30 good years to go, then might start slowing down
I'll answer this in Bargain Hunter's abscence.
Judging by those figures, some of them look like today's prices, so I'll give you an idea of something more like the actuals.
The numbers look a bit better now, don't they?
Flash house in flash suburb? You're kidding right? We don't buy flash houses in flash suburbs. Most of ours are very basic and yield at least 8% on purchase and some much more. You would be waiting a very long time for them to be worth 3m.
Judging by those figures, some of them look like today's prices, so I'll give you an idea of something more like the actuals.
The numbers look a bit better now, don't they?
Mum, I think you blew it outta proportion, it was just an example - None of the figures were based on any actual figures nor was the $400 realistic to a $3mil property.
I think Dazz was saying what would be considered a good tenant, rather than based on the actual facts of anyones properties - especially not yours.
I must agree though, a good tenant should also be paying plenty in rent, I don't get why people discount rent/avoid putting rent up for a "good" tenant.
I think Dazz was saying what would be considered a good tenant, rather than based on the actual facts of anyones properties - especially not yours.
I must agree though, a good tenant should also be paying plenty in rent, I don't get why people discount rent/avoid putting rent up for a "good" tenant.
As much as I hate to admit it, I may not want to increase a "good" tenants rent as quickly as another tenant.
It's like going to a favorite pizza place. It may not be the cheapest pizza, or even the best. They may greet you with a smile every time, know you by name, or give you a free treat once in a while.
Why do you continue to go back? Maybe because you like the service.
Having IPs is a bit like this. The tenants may not pay the most, but they report maintenance concerns before they are large issues (bad tenants would not report them at all) They may keep wear and tear down a minimum. You get the idea. If they are occassionaly late with rent, they inform first and ask if it is OK.
irrelevant to what Dazz was saying
I'd be curious if anybody on here has land tax for ONE rental property or $8,200 per annum. Happy to be wrong, with figures from someone else who doesn't have the same barrow to push as you Dazz.
Heck, maybe WA land tax is triple the rest of the country.
And.... if I am wrong, and someone in your street is paying land tax of $8,200 over just one property, then perhaps your example was not the best to use anyway. It is hardly "normal".
who honestly cares wylie ?
you are totaltlly ignorigng the picture dazz painted but are trying to pick aprt and show faults with minute details of it....
you are ignoring the whole picutre and picking fault with details
most resi tenants dont pay anywhere near enogh omeny to cover holdingg
costs for avertage new purchases
in other things, they do
since we are in this to make $, the defintion of how "good" something is must include a measure based on $$ made
in resi the $ made from rent is generally crap
therefore when comparing resi tenants and others side by side, on a $$$ made basis, rasi teants come up pretty s h i t
I don't know why you get offended and try to prove this is not what it is. I only have resi investments, I dont get offended by someone pointing out that other investments ahve tenatns which pay more.
I dont think I'm in a positon yet to look at anythign else ieither instead of/in additon to resi, so Im'm ok with it - doesnt; men that makes it somehting it is not though.
I know why people don't over increase rent on tenats who have been behaving themselves well etc, cus ethey are scared to lose them and get an average tenatn - one that doesnt even fulfil their repsonsibilities.
We are happpy with a tenant who's behaviour is just over the line because we know they are rare.
you are totaltlly ignorigng the picture dazz painted but are trying to pick aprt and show faults with minute details of it....
you are ignoring the whole picutre and picking fault with details
most resi tenants dont pay anywhere near enogh omeny to cover holdingg
costs for avertage new purchases
in other things, they do
since we are in this to make $, the defintion of how "good" something is must include a measure based on $$ made
in resi the $ made from rent is generally crap
therefore when comparing resi tenants and others side by side, on a $$$ made basis, rasi teants come up pretty s h i t
I don't know why you get offended and try to prove this is not what it is. I only have resi investments, I dont get offended by someone pointing out that other investments ahve tenatns which pay more.
I dont think I'm in a positon yet to look at anythign else ieither instead of/in additon to resi, so Im'm ok with it - doesnt; men that makes it somehting it is not though.
I know why people don't over increase rent on tenats who have been behaving themselves well etc, cus ethey are scared to lose them and get an average tenatn - one that doesnt even fulfil their repsonsibilities.
We are happpy with a tenant who's behaviour is just over the line because we know they are rare.
Last edited:
I care when figures used to try to prove how crap the returns on one investment house are so far from "normal" that they just don't relate to "normal".
And if you think I am nit-picking, so be it
.My investments are feeding us right now. I consider them to be rather fantastic.
Oh.... and Dazz never picks fault with my posts. Pffffttt!!
Dazz did not post his post in repsonse to yours. That's what you are doing.
He was simply saying, the definiton of "Good"tenant is poor in resdiential compared to the defintion of a "good" many other things - a good soccer player for example doesnt JSUT meet the rules, they exceed them
A good commercial tenant doesn't just pay their way, they pay more which is wha tmake s them good
In resi we are so over the moon we don't get ripped off that anyone who does not break the law is good
that' pretty mediocre, whichever way you look at it (if you look at it objectively and not for mth epoint of vie of being persponally offended)
why does it offend you when tosomeone says the tenant is mediocre ?
I have only resi invesmtents too, but I'm not offended I giind it very strange and defensive form somoen with your years of experience wylie
He was simply saying, the definiton of "Good"tenant is poor in resdiential compared to the defintion of a "good" many other things - a good soccer player for example doesnt JSUT meet the rules, they exceed them
A good commercial tenant doesn't just pay their way, they pay more which is wha tmake s them good
In resi we are so over the moon we don't get ripped off that anyone who does not break the law is good
that' pretty mediocre, whichever way you look at it (if you look at it objectively and not for mth epoint of vie of being persponally offended)
why does it offend you when tosomeone says the tenant is mediocre ?
I have only resi invesmtents too, but I'm not offended I giind it very strange and defensive form somoen with your years of experience wylie
Last edited:
I care when figures used to try to prove how crap the returns on one investment house are so far from "normal" that they just don't relate to "normal".
And if you think I am nit-picking, so be it
My investments are feeding us right now. I consider them to be rather fantastic.
Oh.... and Dazz never picks fault with my posts. Pffffttt!!
Wylie,
How are things going for your hubby?
Is he going stir crazy, or has he found "retirement" more time consuming than he thought.I'm just starting my third week, and absolutely loving it. We always seem to have something to do.
Today we were rednecks. We bought a second hand couch on the other side of town and carried it on the roof of our Toyota Rav 4. Got a few funny looks
So tell me jaycee..... did you NOT consider the figures he was quoting to be rather excessive ($8,200 land tax on one rental house to be taken from the gross rent, leaving a pittance)?
Lets make that figure, oh.... lets call it $15K per annum for that one rental house. How do the figures look now. Crappy?
Would the figures in any way resemble the REAL return for a typical resi property return? No?
I am not offended by Dazz. I just think it silly to pluck a figure from the air to make resi income figures look crappy, when the figure appears to be totally made up.
I might add, that I was NOT the first member to point out that the figures were "manipulated".
If someone other than Dazz had posted such "unusual" figures to support a particular point of view, I would have made the same comment.
Lets make that figure, oh.... lets call it $15K per annum for that one rental house. How do the figures look now. Crappy?
Would the figures in any way resemble the REAL return for a typical resi property return? No?
I am not offended by Dazz. I just think it silly to pluck a figure from the air to make resi income figures look crappy, when the figure appears to be totally made up.
I might add, that I was NOT the first member to point out that the figures were "manipulated".
If someone other than Dazz had posted such "unusual" figures to support a particular point of view, I would have made the same comment.
Well.....you kinda were, by default, since Bargain Hunter is my husband.
I was giving an example of what we would term a good investment, which I realise is not the same as a good tenant, but I believe the two go hand in hand. You want a good tenant residing inside a good investment. Which is basically what you said here:
I can't fathom why someone would own a property that is worth around 3m and be satisfied with a paltry $400pw unless it is a landbank of some sort for future development or they have an emotional attachment to it. But, if that is their wish and they have the good tenant mentioned in the above posts, well, if that is the market rent for the property (I can't understand why it would be so low, but I don't live in a vaccuum either and realise that some of the well-to-do areas do have low yields) I would presume they are happy. And at the end of the day, that's what matters, dosen't it?
