I have a tough bark with no bite. My tenants are mostly long term and again, as discussed previously, I rarely raise rent on a regular basis for those tenants I really like. I too usually give Xmas gifts to my tenants. I don’t like nickel and diming folks, but I expect you to take care of the place and pay on time too. If you are getting a deal from me, and you know I know you do, I don’t want to hear from you. Constant turnover is not a good thing on time and wallet, so I usually act accordingly to keep the boat still and moving forward. As long as home appreciation value is ticking up I am good.
At my last vacancy, I had a guy telling me how he was suing his current landlord…nope!
Another guy wouldn’t let me see his wife’s credit report…nope!
We ended up renting to the people with excellent credit and income. They came to the open house with paystubs and filled out the application on the spot. The only real worry with them is that they will want to buy their own house very soon.
When I was younger, I worked at a swimming pool supply store. My boss said that when hiring people to clean pools, she needed someone smart enough to test the water and know what chemicals to add. However, if someone was too smart, she knew they would quit after a few months. In the ideal world, you would get a tenant that was gainfully employed and able to pay the rent on time, but not so successful that they will soon leave to buy their own house.
See, what idiot applicants. Gee, I wonder why I am not getting any call backs???
What can you do, except enjoy the tenancy while you have it. Hopefully, the tenant is not calling you every minute and pays you on time every time. Sometimes it is a blessing that they eventually do leave so that you can reset rents hopefully at much higher levels.
Your boy, financialsamarai seems to agree with me, SFHs are better…
Which Investment Property To Buy Recap:
Single Family Homes usually provide better capital appreciation, more expansion potential, more tenant type flexibility, and potentially less tenant turnover. Downside includes more hands-on maintenance, and a lower rental income yield. For those who would like to live in the home, make improvements, and then rent out the home, a SFH is the best investment property.
Condos are generally cheaper to acquire and may provide a higher rental income yield. Downside includes HOA fees and HOA regulations that may restrict rental freedom and reduce rental profits. You’re the king of your condo, but not king of the common domain. For those who cannot afford a single family home, or who like spending less time on maintenance should consider a condo.
Multi-unit properties provide maximum rental yield income and a high amount of tenant type flexibility. The main downside is potentially higher turnover rates and much more active management by the landlord. Also check for rent control laws. In San Francisco, multi-unit properties are under rent control, but SFHs and condos are not. For those who have more energy and more time, multi-unit properties are the way to go.
The lower rental yield of a SFH makes it hard to afford.
In SF I can buy a condo or townhouse for 700K that rents for $4K, and that’s in a decent part of town where professionals like to live. With SFH I can’t buy crap with 700K. Those will be in crappy parts of towns with bad quality tenants.
So in abstract, without consideration for price, I agree with the desirability of SFH. In the city though I don’t think it works.
SF is a very tricky place for landlord. It’s full of landmine. Tenant quality is more important than ever.
