# Landlords NOT selling up



## Knuttell (15 Oct 2022)

There have been a lot of stories, articles, threads etc on Landlords selling up due to the very challenging environment. 
Not going to go into these reasons. Well laboured and stated in previous threads and understood by all Landlords currently engaged in the rental market.

Who I would like to hear from are that cohort of Landlords who have taken the view that what they have they hold and will not be exiting the rental market and the reasons behind that decision.


----------



## noobie (15 Oct 2022)

I'm not selling.  Seriously considered it earlier in the year and the reason is largely because of the good advice here for which I am very grateful.  https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...sition-should-we-sell-rental-property.227038/

It's definitely been a hard decision, but as you say what you have you hold, it's a great little house, in a nice small development, we may live in it ourselves when retired, and there's a tracker mortgage on it so we've decided to keep going and just hope we continue to get good tenants as we have so far.

Part of what I was agonising over earlier in the year was increasing the rent - it was rented since 2019 at a very modest rent (800 for a 3 bed detached really nice warm house with a home office / second sitting room.).  It's not in an RPZ but we know that's only a stroke of a pen so the stupid rules had me in a position where my preference would have been to leave the rent as is for my excellent tenants but if I did that it would be to my detriment as I couldn't increase it for others if they moved and RPZ landed.   So I decided in the end to increase it just to 1,000 but now the tenants have bought their own place so I will give it to a letting agent and probably look for 1,200 and insulate myself a bit from RPZ landing and God knows what other changes. Similiar are asking 1,400-1,500.

My main concern now with tenancies of indefinite duration is getting good tenants.  I thought that would be a simple call to the letting agent but turns out not!    She said because there's such demand they find it difficult to even advertise a place because there's a deluge and how do you sort through so many people or what way do you do it.   Sounds a bit to me like she doesn't want the job (weird?  when she very successfully looks after another property for me which belongs to my deceased brother's estate).  I might try another agent but thought it was an interesting point I hadn't thought of.    I want to go with a letting agent because I just think tenants would not be as quick to mess around / leave the rent late etc. when there's a professional in the middle.


----------



## noobie (15 Oct 2022)

I should add I was hoping there would be some small bit of good news in the budget but we had already made our decision, disappointing that there wasn't something though.
At least mortgage interest is allowable so that softens the blow of it rising so rapidly.


----------



## Knuttell (15 Oct 2022)

Can we keep this on topic please.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (15 Oct 2022)

noobie said:


> I'm not selling.  Seriously considered it earlier in the year and the reason is largely because of the good advice here for which I am very grateful.  https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...sition-should-we-sell-rental-property.227038/
> 
> It's definitely been a hard decision, but as you say what you have you hold, it's a great little house, in a nice small development, we may live in it ourselves when retired, and there's a tracker mortgage on it so we've decided to keep going and just hope we continue to get good tenants as we have so far.
> 
> ...


What makes you think you can live in it when you retire? Tenancies of indefinite duration. SF want to prevent you evicting someone.


----------



## DannyBoyD (16 Oct 2022)

I'm not selling up; but I'm only letting for 6 months at a time.


----------



## landlord (16 Oct 2022)

I am a landlord for 20 years with 7 properties (six rented and one is my family home).
I am over exposed in the property sector, but will not be selling (at the moment anyway) I even have one of my properties eligible to be sold with no capital gains tax this year (after holding it for seven years)
Don’t get me wrong, I am extremely concerned about the Shinners getting in. I am also concerned generally about the increased regulation, lack of support from the RTB and the burden of 52% tax, PRSI and USC.
For me, personally, I will be staying in the market for the following reasons.
I have great long term tenants and enjoy a great relationship with them, I take pride in fixing or replacing broken items immediately. Rent has always been paid on time.
My average gross rental yield is approximately 9%.
For me, over the last 20 years
one of the biggest burdens about being a landlord is when tenants are constantly moving in and out. The cost (both financial and in time) of preparing a rental property to be re-let is a nightmare. However, because of the current housing crisis tenants have nowhere else to go, so this burden is almost gone.
The truth is, I enjoy being a landlord. The interactions with my tenants have always been a positive experience for me.
I am fickle when it comes to investing in stocks and shares. I am personally not great handling the volatility.  For me, when it comes to investing in property, it might be considered the slowest horse in the race, but I sleep better at night, knowing the property market isn’t going to drop by 10% overnight.
Also 4 of my 6 rentals have HAP tenants living in them. With a possible recession on the way and potential job losses on the horizon that gives me some peace of mind in terms of secure rent.
I am one of those people that cannot sit still for a minute and need to be kept busy so realistically I could see myself holding these into retirement.
I am seriously hoping, possibly somewhat naively that within the next 20 years politicians will come to their senses and stop meddling in this sector.


----------



## Zenith63 (16 Oct 2022)

landlord said:


> Also 4 of my 6 rentals have HAP tenants living in them. With a possible recession on the way and potential job losses on the horizon that gives me some peace of mind in terms of secure rent.


I’d have thought those on HAP are most exposed to job losses in hospitality etc, and once the HAP tenant cannot pay the Council stop too. What’s your thinking on it?


----------



## landlord (16 Oct 2022)

Zenith63 said:


> I’d have thought those on HAP are most exposed to job losses in hospitality etc, and once the HAP tenant cannot pay the Council stop too. What’s your thinking on it?


I have two sets of tenants on HAP and two sets of tenants on Homeless HAP.
The two sets of tenants on standard HAP already have decent jobs, and to be honest, I was surprised, and I think they were too that they qualified for HAP… perhaps they fudged the figures. They were actually surviving okay and paying the rent comfortably before they got the HAP bonus, so this gives them a buffer.
The other two sets of tenants on homeless HAP have almost all of their rent paid for them. coincidentally, they both have jobs as well.  Regarding the financial/security benefits of homeless HAP. I started this post a few months ago.
https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/appeal-to-landlords…consider-homeless-hap.227891/

Forgot to mention, they’re all on ECB trackers, 0.75% above ECB. interest only. 
Apart from one which was bought for cash. 
I would be very reluctant to give up this tracker.


----------



## cremeegg (16 Oct 2022)

I am a landlord with a few properties, more than 5 less than 10, I have no intention of selling.

Here is why.

I have borrowings against some of the properties, so my value invested is small, at one time I had negative equity of a property. The % return on my investment is infinite. Property value €200k, mortgage €210k rent €18,000 pa, interest €1,575. So allowing for other costs a return of €15,000 on an investment of minus €10k. Today that property is probably worth €220k so a return of 150% per annum on my investment.

I also have unmortgaged investment properties typically paying 10% return on my investment with the possibility of capital gain. Where else would you get that.

All the government interference in the market has the effect of pushing rents up. Of course there is the possibility of issues, but in the real world as opposed to the fevered imaginations we sometimes see on here, most tenants pay the rent in full and on time. I would be cautious about renting to a family with children or anyone with a very settled life who is likely to want to stay forever. tenant churn can be a pain as @landlord above says, but it is healthy.

I realise I am very exposed to the Irish property market, but I have a long term view. The actual price of property next year or even in 5 years is irrelevant to me. The 2007 crash reduced my rents maybe 25%, it took 4 years for them to come back. If that's the worst the market can throw at me I'm happy.

If I knew that rents would fall 25% next year, would I sell, no. My return on the unmortgaged properties would fall from 10% to 7.5%


----------



## Green in Wien (17 Oct 2022)

I'm a non-resident landlord with one property in Dublin. It's an ex PPR from when we moved abroad a few years ago. The yield is only 4%.

We are not selling up for a few reasons:

It's in an RPZ and rent is approx €200 (~10%) below market rates. For us that's okay, absent RPZ rules we would have it at this level as tenants are good and pay the rent on time
Value is 80%-100% more than purchase price now but we are shielded from CGT for a large amount of this uplift having purchased between 2011 and 2014
We've spent 15% of gross rent over the years on management agency fees, insurance, maintenance, repairs - this includes one redecoration in between tenancies. This may seem on the high side but we are trying not to let the house get "tired" the way a lot of rentals do
Mortgage interest is still 25% or so of rental income which reduces rental profits. We are on PPR rates still, and if on BTL rates the arithmetic would be different. 
Due to non-resident status we only pay 20% tax on rental profits. This is the big one and if were being taxed at 52% like everyone else we would be long gone
Home serves as a potential place to live if we or kids ever return to Dublin, also a hedge against Irish property per se
It generates a cash surplus of €5k the last few years but was negative the year tenants left and we had to redecorate and pay estate agent fees. We have a cash buffer of €10k to deal with any potential rent arrears or major repairs. This has an opportunity cost of course.

As you can see there are a lot of factors behind our decision but TBH the biggest one is tax. If we were being taxed at 52% we would be only a bit above breakeven in cash terms. We'd still be paying down capital but for that return it just wouldn't be worth the risk.


----------



## flyingfolly (17 Oct 2022)

We have one rental property and not selling up. We have our mortgage fully paid, pension fully loaded, some money in shares and fully own the rental property (ie. no mortgage).  We're in our late 30's.

We're keeping it because its a diversification of investment. We are saving for a second one (to purchase outright, not BTL via mortgage) now too. For all of the potential pitfalls, its the only asset class (along with S&P500) right now that can give a good return in the long term of 30-40 years for us


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Oct 2022)

flyingfolly said:


> We are saving for a second one (to purchase outright, not BTL via mortgage) now too.





flyingfolly said:


> some money in shares



Clearly I would disagree with your strategy of having such an undiversified portfolio - all your eggs depending on the future of house prices, rents and the whims of government policy. 

I also don't believe in borrowing to invest as it increases risk.

But in your situation, where you have decided to buy a third property, I don't know why you don't sell your shares, add the proceeds to your savings and buy a property now?  You will have the loan paid off soon enough at the rate you are going.

Brendan


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (18 Oct 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I also don't believe in borrowing to invest as it increases risk.


It also increases return


It's a question of degree. A 100% LTV on your property portfolio is very risky, a 0% LTV is not. Something like 40%-50% for me strikes the balance between increased return due to leverage while still being able to deal with a dud tenant or liquidate portfolio for other reasons if needed.


----------



## flyingfolly (18 Oct 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Clearly I would disagree with your strategy of having such an undiversified portfolio - all your eggs depending on the future of house prices, rents and the whims of government policy.
> 
> I also don't believe in borrowing to invest as it increases risk.
> 
> ...



We have money in shares already. Therefore to diversify further, we should have more money in property. 

We are not borrowing to invest - all property is purchased outright with no mortgage. 

We don't sell the shares now because the market is down. No point in selling shares at a loss to buy property at its peak.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Oct 2022)

Hi Coyote

That was the point I was trying to make.  Borrowing might be appropriate in his case as he has a substantial amount of money. 

Brendan


----------



## flyingfolly (18 Oct 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Coyote
> 
> That was the point I was trying to make.  Borrowing might be appropriate in his case as he has a substantial amount of money.
> 
> Brendan



Perhaps but with increasing interest rates I'd rather not take on un-needed debt where possible.


----------



## Tadaima (20 Oct 2022)

2 years ago I had 3 rental properties. I now have 1 sold, 1 rented and 1 with a family member in it.  
Reason to sell: rogue tenants, tenants rights and taxation. They were planned to be my second income and pension. I sold one  rental after going through the long process of getting difficult tenants out,  They blocked up the vents causing mould but kept using it against us  to not pay rent. I spent a lot on professional repairs and  to confirm it was their fault not mine. I gave them notice to sell but Covid made that a long drawn out process. Believe it or not, Threshold helped us get them out more than the RTB did! 

Another property is in a desirable area beside a university and hospital.  
Reason to keep: That property has my daughter living in it but no one else (despite being 3 bed)  as I can't get the rent a room tax relief and I am afraid of the grey area or changes around licensee / tenant rights.  

The third property is rented at abut 75% of market rate.  It is non RPZ and I do put the rent up every 2 years but  the market rent is going up faster than I can reasonably keep up with.  I increase it around 10% at a time as trying 20% could damage my good relationship with the tenant. ( I know, I know.......) This house was my PPR in the past and I plan to downsize to it  within the next 5 years.........it is beside my present PPR.  Otherwise I would give notice and sell and may yet do so because of the risk of not being allowed to move back in to it. 
Reason to keep: Good tenants and future PPR and willing to take risk.


----------



## DannyBoyD (20 Oct 2022)

> has my daughter living in it but no one else (despite being 3 bed) as I can't get the rent a room tax relief



Your daughter can claim rent-a-room however.


----------



## T McGibney (20 Oct 2022)

DannyBoyD said:


> Your daughter can claim rent-a-room however.


In theory yes, but in practice?


----------



## Knuttell (23 Oct 2022)

From my own perspective, I am now at four rental properties.

My view on the property I own were relatively straightforward that I would use as pension supplement and pass onto my children.

The Govt are making that extremely difficult.

One of the tenants is leaving at end of Oct, I had just about convinced myself to continue in a rigged game hoping that things would improve....cue Govt sensing this and their introduction of eviction ban and I'm back to seriously thinking of selling.

All they are  short of doing is using landords as doormats. They seem to have an agenda of chasing small landlords out of the rental market. As a FG voter and member I will remember this at next election and won't be voting for Varadkar (in my constituency) or FF. FG are no longer a party of middle class.

The dilemma remains but coming to the conclusion that after 20+ odd years I no longer have the energy to deal with RTB (incompetent) and Govt(utterly useless) and may bow out and look at alternative property investment in UK.

Who knows I  will probably change my mind but for someone like me to even consider selling up says it all really.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (24 Oct 2022)

I have been flip/flopping sell/don't sell since the eviction ban has made me look into things a lot more, which is a hidden benefit of it at least.
I have around 18 months until the end of a part 4 cycle, I will probably give notice at the end of that.

I would either sell at that point or maybe look at short term corporate lettings (seems like it might be a lot of hassle), depending on the market conditions.

I definitely want to avoid moving to an indefinite duration lease, for reasons I gave on another thread, mainly that the property value becomes tied to rent (if selling with tenants in situe becomes law) and the risk that the RPZ controlled rent would fall way behind market rents due to periods of sustained inflation.


----------



## Knuttell (27 Oct 2022)

Have decided not to sell, bought when very few were buying property in 2012 (PPR) and an apartment in Dublin a year later..I can recall hearing people say on radio that they would be knocking apartments down such was the overbuild.

Will stick to my guns and trust my contrarian intuition.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (27 Oct 2022)

I'm interested in asking those not selling, are ye not fearful at all of SF getting into power and bringing in laws that mean you can only sell with the tenant in sitchu? A 300k house suddenly worth 200k. That isn't a concern for ye? Or do ye see things playing out differently.


----------



## Look ahead (27 Oct 2022)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I'm interested in asking those not selling, are ye not fearful at all of SF getting into power and bringing in laws that mean you can only sell with the tenant in sitchu? A 300k house suddenly worth 200k. That isn't a concern for ye? Or do ye see things playing out differently.


Who is going to buy a house with a tenant in situ, only another landlord, but wait,  the landlords are selling up and getting out as fast as their legs can carry them so what's the answer here?


----------



## Knuttell (27 Oct 2022)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I'm interested in asking those not selling, are ye not fearful at all of SF getting into power and bringing in laws that mean you can only sell with the tenant in sitchu?


Probably couldn't be any worse than FG/FF, both parties and especially FG no longer represent me or people like me, landord, hard working middle class who get up early in the morning (laughable).

Such a move would be unconstitutional and no guarantee that SF will get into power as a single party and would likely self destruct within a short period in power....purely speculative, who knows anyway betting the house (s) on black ..... (def not red)


----------



## venice (27 Oct 2022)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I'm interested in asking those not selling, are ye not fearful at all of SF getting into power and bringing in laws that mean you can only sell with the tenant in sitchu? A 300k house suddenly worth 200k. That isn't a concern for ye? Or do ye see things playing out differently.


Yes it's a major concern however I don't see an election before 2025 so I have time. A lot can happen in a couple of years. There is also a chance they are bluffing..


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (28 Oct 2022)

venice said:


> Yes it's a major concern however I don't see an election before 2025 so I have time. A lot can happen in a couple of years. There is also a chance they are bluffing..


Two years away. Now that the eviction ban is in, I see it being extended. Just like the RPZ. Do people expect the RPZ to disappear anytime???


----------



## Gordon Gekko (28 Oct 2022)

Knuttell said:


> Probably couldn't be any worse than FG/FF, both parties and especially FG no longer represent me or people like me, landord, hard working middle class who get up early in the morning (laughable).
> 
> Such a move would be unconstitutional and no guarantee that SF will get into power as a single party and would likely self destruct within a short period in power....purely speculative, who knows anyway betting the house (s) on black ..... (def not red)


Fine Gael’s problem is that there are no votes in a rational position. They’re fighting a rearguard action against Sinn Fein/IRA and Kwasi Doherty.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (28 Oct 2022)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Fine Gael’s problem is that there are no votes in a rational position. They’re fighting a rearguard action against Sinn Fein/IRA and Kwasi Doherty.


Perhaps they have forgotten their base. People voting for SF are not going to vote FG, they just aren't. FG trying to appeal to SF voters is pointless.

It would be interesting to hear landlords not selling, how they see the RPZ in the future, the issue of vacant possession in the future, taxation in the future, regulation in the future and the market as a whole. For me, the nett returns are too low following appreciation of an asset, rising interest rates and increased threats and regulation (ever changing!)


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (28 Oct 2022)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> Two years away. Now that the eviction ban is in, I see it being extended. Just like the RPZ. Do people expect the RPZ to disappear anytime??


The difference is that the eviction ban needs to be temporary to get around the protection on property rights in the constitution. It would surely be challenged if they extended it. I'm no expert on constitutional law but would see it more likely that it would end and then they would bring another one in the following winter rather than extending it.

There is a risk to selling at the moment also, if you issue notice to tenants at the moment you can't start to sell until June, it's possible the property market could drop significantly over the next 8 months. The interest rate rises will surely get passed on by the banks in the new year. Other countries have seen 15% property drops recently due to raising interest rates, and it's early days into the rate rise impact.  Amazon sales are way down, people have started cutting back already, companies have started scaling back on jobs, a recession is highly likely. The various central banks are already factoring it in and are using language to indicate that they might loosen policy in the near future. If the Irish banks continue to absorb increases and make relatively small gradual increases, it's possible that the property market here could ride out a short recession without a massive crash.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (28 Oct 2022)

The ‘problem’ is that the Sinn Fein/IRA base are gullible fools who are swallowing their ‘free houses for all’ nonsense. 

Sinn Fein/IRA are our Trump or Brexit. It’s just soundbite-based nonsense.

These guys are the political wing of a terrorist organisation. It’s basically “Vote for ISIS and we’ll give you a free house” and gullible fools are falling for it.


----------



## Allpartied (28 Oct 2022)

Interesting discussion from landlords, who seem to believe that government housing policy should prioritise their profit and their requirements. 
But that's not supposed to be the government's policy.  It is supposed to govern for the common good, rather than a, relatively, small, though vociferous priveleged minority.  
Security of tenancy is a real game changer, in terms of quality of life, for many, many people.   Especially, when starting a family, putting down roots in a community and trying to establish  stable lifestyle.  Irish law rarely reflects this crucial need, instead allowing tenants to be ditched out, at very short notice, on the whim of the private landlord.  
Whether its Sinn Fein, or Fine Gael, this needs to change.  Its grossly unfair.


----------



## Lockup (28 Oct 2022)

Allpartied said:


> Interesting discussion from landlords, who seem to believe that government housing policy should prioritise their profit and their requirements.
> But that's not supposed to be the government's policy.  It is supposed to govern for the common good, rather than a, relatively, small, though vociferous priveleged minority.
> Security of tenancy is a real game changer, in terms of quality of life, for many, many people.   Especially, when starting a family, putting down roots in a community and trying to establish  stable lifestyle.  Irish law rarely reflects this crucial need, instead allowing tenants to be ditched out, at very short notice, on the whim of the private landlord.
> Whether its Sinn Fein, or Fine Gael, this needs to change.  Its grossly unfair.


Mary Lou i told you not to go near the real computer!!!!
Last warning or no treat in your lunchbox tomorrow.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (28 Oct 2022)

Lockup said:


> Mary Lou i told you not to go near the real computer!!!!
> Last warning or no treat in your lunchbox tomorrow.


They hid the computer in the 11th bedroom in her massive house, she must have finally wandered in there!

A true socialist wouldn't be caught dead buying a rental property, any spare savings are reserved for massive home extensions.


----------



## Allpartied (28 Oct 2022)

Lockup said:


> Mary Lou i told you not to go near the real computer!!!!
> Last warning or no treat in your lunchbox tomorrow.


Or I could be any moderate Social Democrat from, virtually, any civilised European country.  
Ireland still following the UK, in its Thatcherite disregard for the citizen against the rentier.


----------



## cremeegg (28 Oct 2022)

Allpartied said:


> Interesting discussion from landlords, who seem to believe that government housing policy should prioritise their profit and their requirements.
> But that's not supposed to be the government's policy.  It is supposed to govern for the common good, rather than a, relatively, small, though vociferous priveleged minority.
> Security of tenancy is a real game changer, in terms of quality of life, for many, many people.   Especially, when starting a family, putting down roots in a community and trying to establish  stable lifestyle.  Irish law rarely reflects this crucial need, instead allowing tenants to be ditched out, at very short notice, on the whim of the private landlord.
> Whether its Sinn Fein, or Fine Gael, this needs to change.  Its grossly unfair.


I fully agree, that for many people security of tenure is hugely important.

Introducing new legislation giving security of tenure on existing leases at the expense of landlords is unreasonable.

Not all tenants want long term security of tenure. Many people, often young people, want to stay in an area short term.

The law should provide for both types of tenure. Landlords can offer whichever they wish, tenants can choose whichever they wish.

If landlords had a way to ensure they were paid and no damage was being done to their property, long term tenants would be preferable from their POV.


----------



## cremeegg (28 Oct 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It also increases return
> 
> 
> It's a question of degree. A 100% LTV on your property portfolio is very risky, a 0% LTV is not. Something like 40%-50% for me strikes the balance between increased return due to leverage while still being able to deal with a dud tenant or liquidate portfolio for other reasons if needed.


The risk doesn't depend on the % leverage. It depends on the ability to make the repayments. (obviously the repayments are higher for a bigger loan, but if you can cover the repayments there is no risk, conversely if you cannot cover the repayments !)


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (28 Oct 2022)

Allpartied said:


> Or I could be any moderate Social Democrat from, virtually, any civilised European country.
> Ireland still following the UK, in its Thatcherite disregard for the citizen against the rentier.


So someone who is sent abroad to work and rents out their place can never come back to it because the 'security of tenure' of the renter, trumps their property rights. What about the 'security of tenure' of the owner? 

Is the answer really to put an end to all short term lettings? 
Does that not seem a bit short-sighted and extreme?

Are you not at all worried that when private landlords all leave that security of tenure might end up being in some governemtn built sh***y prefab communist ghettos that no-one wants to live in and everyone with any aspiration whatsoever emigrates to Australia/Canada/US/UK ?


----------



## The Horseman (28 Oct 2022)

Allpartied said:


> Or I could be any moderate Social Democrat from, virtually, any civilised European country.
> Ireland still following the UK, in its Thatcherite disregard for the citizen against the rentier.


Or maybe the State could either house people or stop expecting the private sector to do so on their terms. 

You can't pick and choose the parts of a private market that suits your agenda and disregard the others and not expect the market to react.


----------



## RonnieShinbal88 (28 Oct 2022)

We've had the cuckoo funds, next up are the cuckoo tenants. It's all about security of tenure, once you are in the place is yours.


----------



## Mocame (28 Oct 2022)

Allpartied said:


> Interesting discussion from landlords, who seem to believe that government housing policy should prioritise their profit and their requirements.
> But that's not supposed to be the government's policy.  It is supposed to govern for the common good, rather than a, relatively, small, though vociferous priveleged minority.
> Security of tenancy is a real game changer, in terms of quality of life, for many, many people.   Especially, when starting a family, putting down roots in a community and trying to establish  stable lifestyle.  Irish law rarely reflects this crucial need, instead allowing tenants to be ditched out, at very short notice, on the whim of the private landlord.
> Whether its Sinn Fein, or Fine Gael, this needs to change.  Its grossly unfair.


I entirely understand why this arrangements would be attractive to tenants, the problem is that it isn't attractive to many landlords who bought  properties to rent in the expectation that they would be able to sell when they wished to and now see this option withdrawn.  This is a commercial service and landlords are under no obligation to provide it if the terms are not attractive to them.  For many small landlords who are leaving the sector these terms clearly have become too unattractive and the supply of rented property is declining as a result.


----------



## Leo (1 Nov 2022)

Allpartied said:


> It is supposed to govern for the common good, rather than a, relatively, small, though vociferous priveleged minority.


If higher rents and fewer rental properties are in the common good then they're certainly going about it in the right way. Let's face it, foisting the social housing supply to the private sector, and then continually meddling with the rules of engagement does absolutely nothing positive for the vast majority.  

I don't think anyone could claim that small landlords are a vociferous group, quite the opposite in fact. Perhaps if they were more organised their side of this story might get some coverage in the media.


----------



## Allpartied (1 Nov 2022)

Leo said:


> If higher rents and fewer rental properties are in the common good then they're certainly going about it in the right way. Let's face it, foisting the social housing supply to the private sector, and then continually meddling with the rules of engagement does absolutely nothing positive for the vast majority.
> 
> I don't think anyone could claim that small landlords are a vociferous group, quite the opposite in fact. Perhaps if they were more organised their side of this story might get some coverage in the media.


The government has , absoloutely, neglected its responsiblities in this area. 

The idea that council housing is some sort of last chance safety net, delivered only to those at imminent threat of living in a cardboard box, has taken hold.   It has become a firm belief since the disaster of Thatcher/Reagonomics which infested the UK and USA lead world.   I'm afraid Ireland has weakly followed suit and passed housing off to the infallible market.  

But well run, well funded, council estates were not dystopian nightmares, nor were they the redoubt of crminal gangs, or drug addled yobs. 

In my experience, growing up on an inner city council estate, they were vibrant and supportive communities.   Nurses, teachers, taxi drivers, factory workers, shop workers, plumbers, electricians, all living together in houses which offered secure tenancy, maintenance, repair and regular modernisation.   Rents were fair, with support for those whose wages were low, or who were receiving social welfare. 

That has disappeared, to some extent, and now those social groups find themselves cast into the private market.  

I don't blame landlords for rinsing their tenants and charging 3k a month for some tip in Drumcondra.  Its up to the govt to take control and start to roll back the rampant exploitation and reversion to Rackman times,  which is all around us.


----------



## Leo (1 Nov 2022)

Allpartied said:


> n my experience, growing up on an inner city council estate, they were vibrant and supportive communities. Nurses, teachers, taxi drivers, factory workers, shop workers, plumbers, electricians, all living together in houses which offered secure tenancy, maintenance, repair and regular modernisation. Rents were fair, with support for those whose wages were low, or who were receiving social welfare.


They were and they certainly server their communities well, giving the occupants the option to purchase as their circumstances improved, allowing them stay in the communities they were raised in. Rising costs of development and maintenance challenged that model but the real problems came when many in those communities decided they wouldn't pay their means tested rent. Evictions never happened, so why would you pay? Authorities couldn't sustain that and so schemes like HAP were introduced to shuffle the problem to the private rental sector. 



Allpartied said:


> I don't blame landlords for rinsing their tenants and charging 3k a month for some tip in Drumcondra. Its up to the govt to take control and start to roll back the rampant exploitation and reversion to Rackman times, which is all around us.


No, it should really be up to the government to deliver adequate social housing. The only thing the government taking more control of the private rental sector will do is increase rents, reduce supply, or most likely both. It was widely predicted that the RPZ regime would achieve just that, how could anyone think that further restrictions will reverse it?

Small landlords have traditionally delivered a diverse range of properties to the market here that the larger investment vehicles never will. Chasing them out of the game will be a disaster for people who want to live in a community rather than in high-density developments full of renters.


----------



## DannyBoyD (2 Nov 2022)

Allpartied said:


> landlords for rinsing their tenants and charging 3k a month for some tip in Drumcondra


And here we go with the   landlord bashing again.


----------



## Allpartied (2 Nov 2022)

Leo said:


> They were and they certainly server their communities well, giving the occupants the option to purchase as their circumstances improved, allowing them stay in the communities they were raised in.


Actually, the sale of council houses was a disaster.   The estate I grew up in was sold off in the 80's.  Sure the tenants, at the time, did very well and they sold off for nice money, before moving somewhere else.   But these days, my old family home is, virtually, the only one left as a council home.  
All the rest are renovated, split up  buy to lets.   Rented for thousands per month, on 12 month contracts, to single workers crammed in 5 or 6 to a house.  No-one I grew up with, lives anywhere near the estate.  Houses are far too expensive to buy and far too expensive to rent. 


Leo said:


> Small landlords have traditionally delivered a diverse range of properties to the market here that the larger investment vehicles never will. Chasing them out of the game will be a disaster for people who want to live in a community rather than in high-density developments full of renters.


But if the landlords sell , then the houses will be bought by people who actually want to live in them.


----------



## Leo (2 Nov 2022)

Allpartied said:


> Actually, the sale of council houses was a disaster.


Mainly because there was nothing to replace them. Mixed neighbourhoods have much better outcomes for children raised there than areas of concentrated social housing. 



Allpartied said:


> But if the landlords sell , then the houses will be bought by people who actually want to live in them.


Yes, exacerbating the problems of people who can't afford to buy. People starting families will be forced to move away from family supports, those whose marriages break down will likewise be forced to move away with significant disruption for any children. Will they all end up in high-density developments managed by an investment fund? Is that really what we think is best?


----------



## DannyBoyD (2 Nov 2022)

Allpartied said:


> Rented for thousands per month, on 12 month contracts....crammed in 5 or 6 to a house.


Again you clearly know little about the legislation in regards to tenancies; nor the RTB requirements for registration of tenants.

A family of 6 in a 3 bedroom house would hardly be considered over crowding.


----------



## Knuttell (11 Nov 2022)

Can we keep this on topic.


----------



## Cameo (12 Nov 2022)

i am in the process of selling one (although there are a few wrinkles to iron out for sale to proceed) but planning to retain two others; am humming and hawing whether I buy a cheaper BTL with the proceeds of the one I’m selling, feels some tax breaks should be forthcoming if lifetime tenancy brought in but its politically very difficult to be seen to favour landlords

I’d have probably kept the one i have (despite being under enter by 10% to 15%) if there was a decent tax break in the budget

rationale for investment is something to generate a retirement income and to a lessor extent, something to leave to the kids


----------



## lff12 (16 Nov 2022)

Zenith63 said:


> I’d have thought those on HAP are most exposed to job losses in hospitality etc, and once the HAP tenant cannot pay the Council stop too. What’s your thinking on it?


Given the nature of HAP, it would be difficult to qualify except in limited circumstances if you work, so most HAP tenants are unlikely to have paid work.


----------



## lff12 (16 Nov 2022)

Not a landlord myself, but those I know of not selling are happy with current yields and long term capital appreciation. One cannot sell because there are issues with the PP on the property that make it almost impossible to get full value for on market. Those who I know of who have sold in past year did so because of a mix of low "legacy" rents and feeling that capital appreciation was good for them. I do know of one who did put a rental on the market but after failing to sell has withdrawn it from the market for now and put back on rental market for the moment.


----------



## Always Learning (30 Nov 2022)

I'm relatively new to the landlord game. I have 7 properties currently with sale agreed on 2 more bringing it to nine. I spent a lot of time recently wondering whether I should get into the property game, I even came here for some advice at the start of the year. I'm 36, I done quite well out of the sale of a family business recently which gave me the ability to be able to purchase these properties without any borrowings. I realise that I'm very fortunate and not everyone is in that position. 

I've been over it in my head a hundred times, but to me, there's no other investment out there that can get me that kind of ROI. At the moment my average ROI is 11%. After I set aside a little into a fund for annual expenses it's still 9.3%. I vet the tenants myself and build a relationship with them before allowing them in. The purpose of investing in property is to create a passive (as passive as possible) revenue stream that I will use as a salary so I don't need a 09:00 - 17:00. With that in mind, I don't intend to sell the house, so I'm not too worried about the market crashing or potentially unfriendly laws. I also don't care if a tenant has a right to the property for life, in fact, the longer the tenant stays the better. As long as they are paying the bills and keeping the place tidy, I want them to stay forever. I generally won't buy in a RPZ so that's not an issue for me. I advise all my tenants before moving in, I'm not a hands on landlord, if something breaks in the place I expect the tenant to call the repair man and have it fixed, then they can subtract it from the monthly rent. This approach has worked for me so far. 

I would estimate that with 9 properties, I spend on average an hour or two a week dedicated to landlord responsibilities. All the while, I have a steady revenue stream and assets that are appreciating in value. For the moment anyway, but if they fall it doesn't bother me as I don't plan to sell and they will eventually come back around and continue to increase, as they always have throughout history. 

So that's why I'm staying in and not selling. ROI of over 10% along with a good asset behind it. I'm also diversifying my investments between stocks and buying equity in a business.


----------



## Silversurfer (30 Nov 2022)

Always Learning said:


> I'm relatively new to the landlord game. I have 7 properties currently with sale agreed on 2 more bringing it to nine. I spent a lot of time recently wondering whether I should get into the property game, I even came here for some advice at the start of the year. I'm 36, I done quite well out of the sale of a family business recently which gave me the ability to be able to purchase these properties without any borrowings. I realise that I'm very fortunate and not everyone is in that position.
> 
> I've been over it in my head a hundred times, but to me, there's no other investment out there that can get me that kind of ROI. At the moment my average ROI is 11%. After I set aside a little into a fund for annual expenses it's still 9.3%. I vet the tenants myself and build a relationship with them before allowing them in. The purpose of investing in property is to create a passive (as passive as possible) revenue stream that I will use as a salary so I don't need a 09:00 - 17:00. With that in mind, I don't intend to sell the house, so I'm not too worried about the market crashing or potentially unfriendly laws. I also don't care if a tenant has a right to the property for life, in fact, the longer the tenant stays the better. As long as they are paying the bills and keeping the place tidy, I want them to stay forever. I generally won't buy in a RPZ so that's not an issue for me. I advise all my tenants before moving in, I'm not a hands on landlord, if something breaks in the place I expect the tenant to call the repair man and have it fixed, then they can subtract it from the monthly rent. This approach has worked for me so far.
> 
> ...


Congratulations on your current good fortune. However does history repeat itself?








						A short history of renting in Ireland
					

From 19th-century tenements to the crisis of 2015 – 200 years of landlord v  tenant




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## Always Learning (30 Nov 2022)

Silversurfer said:


> Congratulations on your current good fortune. However does history repeat itself?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry but that has gone over my head, I read the article but I'm unsure of the point your making. Don't take that as confrontational, I have just genuinely missed what your implying there.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (1 Dec 2022)

Always Learning said:


> I've been over it in my head a hundred times, but to me, there's no other investment out there that can get me that kind of ROI. At the moment my average ROI is 11%.


Double-digit yields are out there mainly in apartments outside core urban areas. I think that's a good risk-adjusted return. The fact that this is not your sole income means your average tax bill on rental income will be less than 52%. For a lot of people with a day job the average tax rate on their rental income is their marginal person tax rate which just makes the whole thing less attractive.  

@Always Learning - did you ever consider BTL finance on some of portfolio? You could increase your gross rents with a large portfolio and reduce tax bill.



Always Learning said:


> I would estimate that with 9 properties, I spend on average an hour or two a week dedicated to landlord responsibilities.


I think long-run that is a bit optimistic. A landlord often has to do nothing for months at a time but refurbishment has to happen eventually. Re-letting a property always involves work as well and this can suck up time.

On average I think you will do more work than this with nine properties, but it's still not a bad lifestyle. Good luck with it!


----------



## Silversurfer (1 Dec 2022)

Always Learning said:


> Sorry but that has gone over my head, I read the article but I'm unsure of the point your making. Don't take that as confrontational, I have just genuinely missed what your implying there.


Hi, My point is that historically it was not always profitable to be a landlord and the rules have changed many times through the years.


Always Learning said:


> Sorry but that has gone over my head, I read the article but I'm unsure of the point your making. Don't take that as confrontational, I have just genuinely missed what your implying there.


Hi, The point is nothing remains static. The return you are currently getting will not be the same in ten years time or has had happened previously from 1918 - 1960. These laws were only challenged in 1980. Tenants were able to transfer the property to their children at the same rates. It was a lifetime for some landlords.


----------



## Always Learning (1 Dec 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Double-digit yields are out there mainly in apartments outside core urban areas. I think that's a good risk-adjusted return. The fact that this is not your sole income means your average tax bill on rental income will be less than 52%. For a lot of people with a day job the average tax rate on their rental income is their marginal person tax rate which just makes the whole thing less attractive.
> 
> @Always Learning - did you ever consider BTL finance on some of portfolio? You could increase your gross rents with a large portfolio and reduce tax bill.
> 
> ...



Hi NoRegrets,
Thanks for the insights. My properties are all town houses around Waterford, I go for anything between 140 - 175K which will give me between 10.5 and 9.5 ROI (before expenses). I steer clear of apartments all together, the management fees take all the good out of them. This is my sole income at the moment and it is above the threshold so I am on the higher tax rate.

I did consider BTL. So the theory behind than would be to leverage the fund I have in order to be able to buy more property and then allow the rental income to pay off the mortgages, if I understand it correctly? So say turn 2M into 3M and then in the long run I have more property once the debts are paid off? I decided against it, firstly because I'm kind of adverse to risk after seeing what happen my father during the 2008 crash. He was quite wealthy but ended up losing it all and almost the family home which the bank had a lean on. So that shaped my outlook on business strategy in life. But the second reason is that along with the fact I like to be debt free, if I buy the property for cash and therefore all the rental income is coming straight to me and not paying off a mortgage, then I will earn back the money required to buy another property a lot faster anyway. So I end up in the same position either way. As the name suggests though, I'm always learning so if I missed something there, please inform me. 

Finally, on your point about time spent working on landlord related activity, yes, I do expect that will rise in the coming years, but not by all that much when it's averaged out. Of course some periods will be busier than others, but others will be very quiet. In addition the vast majority can be done over the phone and online.


----------



## Always Learning (1 Dec 2022)

Silversurfer said:


> Hi, My point is that historically it was not always profitable to be a landlord and the rules have changed many times through the years.
> 
> Hi, The point is nothing remains static. The return you are currently getting will not be the same in ten years time or has had happened previously from 1918 - 1960. These laws were only challenged in 1980. Tenants were able to transfer the property to their children at the same rates. It was a lifetime for some landlords.



Thanks for the clarity. On that point, my answer is, I don't know! No-one does I suppose so in that case I think you need to make hay while the sun shines and be as responsible with your investments as you can be. I'm in a very fortunate position of not having any debt, so even in the worst case scenarios I am pretty insulated and think I can make a good living. Fingers crossed!


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (1 Dec 2022)

Always Learning said:


> if I understand it correctly? So say turn 2M into 3M and then in the long run I have more property once the debts are paid off? I decided against it, firstly because I'm kind of adverse to risk after seeing what happen my father during the 2008 crash. He was quite wealthy but ended up losing it all and almost the family home which the bank had a lean on. So that shaped my outlook on business strategy in life.


It's about degree, not the principle. If you had 20% debt across a portfolio you have close to zero risk of negative equity or not being able to meet your repayments.



Always Learning said:


> But the second reason is that along with the fact I like to be debt free, *if I buy the property for cash and therefore all the rental income is coming straight to me and not paying off a mortgage, then I will earn back the money required to buy another property a lot faster anyway.*



Not really. If your gross yield is greater than your cost of finance then the bank's money is going the work for you. Suppose you have €1m and properties yield 10%. You can opt to borrow another €500k or not. For simplicity I assume no maintenance costs


*No debt**Debt at 33% of portfolio*Equity1,000,0001,000,000Debt0500,000Value of portfolio1,000,000

1,500,000
Gross rental income @10% yield100,000150,000Cost of debt@6%030,000Net rental profit100,000120,000

You take on some risk but you get an extra 20% profit. Potential for more CGT gains as well. It all depends on your risk tolerance. For me anything above 50% leverage on a rental property is too risky. 2004-2008 era saw landlords take on 100% interest-only mortgages which was madness both from borrower and lender perspective.


----------



## Always Learning (1 Dec 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It's about degree, not the principle. If you had 20% debt across a portfolio you have close to zero risk of negative equity or not being able to meet your repayments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to break that down, much appreciated. I suppose I've always be so staunchly against having any debt that I didn't give proper consideration into the benefits of a small amount a debt. Leveraging by 20-25% seems like a pretty negligible risk after giving it a little consideration. I'm going to give that some serious thought. Could be the difference of an extra property in the portfolio.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (1 Dec 2022)

Always Learning said:


> Leveraging by 20-25% seems like a pretty negligible risk after giving it a little consideration. I'm going to give that some serious thought.


Do your homework carefully on this as some of your rental income will of course go toward paying down capital. You should only leverage to the point where you can deal with an increase in rates and/or a non-paying tenant without any impact on your lifestyle.

You may need to talk to a broker. There are only about a thousand BTL mortgages granted a year in Ireland these days (not a big number) and I suspect not all lenders do them.


----------



## lff12 (5 Dec 2022)

Maybe another point, but given the fact that 70% of apartments are rental units and a very significant % of 1994-2008 apartment units have defects that make them very difficult to borrow against, would this also be an explanatory reason why some landlords are not selling up?


----------



## Always Learning (6 Dec 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Do your homework carefully on this as some of your rental income will of course go toward paying down capital. You should only leverage to the point where you can deal with an increase in rates and/or a non-paying tenant without any impact on your lifestyle.
> 
> You may need to talk to a broker. There are only about a thousand BTL mortgages granted a year in Ireland these days (not a big number) and I suspect not all lenders do them.



After speaking with the bank, looks like I will have to do this in the format of a mortgage for each investment property, one at a time. I was hoping perhaps they could make a facility available whereby I could simply get passed for a loan of maybe 200-300K which I could draw down as and when is needed on certain properties. I can't though. have to be a BTL mortgage for each one otherwise they consider it lending for speculative purposes.

My next question, what's best in this climate. A variable or a fixed rate?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (6 Dec 2022)

Always Learning said:


> I can't though. have to be a BTL mortgage for each one otherwise they consider it lending for speculative purposes.


Be careful here. Revenue state that interest is only an allowable expense under certain circumstances:

_The interest must be from a mortgage that is used to purchase, improve or repair your rental property._

So I don't think top-up finance will be eligible here on a property you already own, you would have to borrow on a new purchase. Personally I find this a silly rule - interest should be allowable at portfolio level up to a certain LTV - but it is what it is.

Otherwise lenders will probably insist on individual loans secured against individual properties. It's far simpler for them to deal with when things go wrong.


----------



## Purple (7 Dec 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Personally I find this a silly rule - interest should be allowable at portfolio level up to a certain LTV - but it is what it is.
> 
> Otherwise lenders will probably insist on individual loans secured against individual properties. It's far simpler for them to deal with when things go wrong.


I presume it's to stop people taking a bigger mortgage on their rental properties in order to clear the mortgage on their PPR and then claiming tax relief on the interest.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (7 Dec 2022)

Purple said:


> I presume it's to stop people taking a bigger mortgage on their rental properties in order to clear the mortgage on their PPR and then claiming tax relief on the interest.


True. But it leads to the silly situation where two landlords with mortgages paid off can sell the houses to each other and take out mortgages to claim tax relief. But if they just remortgage the properties the tax relief can't be claimed.

Personally I would tax rental income entirely differently. But if you are going to allow mortgage interest as tax deductible it should be at something like a cap of 50% of portfolio value and shouldn't be tied to specific purchases.


----------



## Knuttell (7 Dec 2022)

Maybe this needs a separate thread however it's drifted off topic.


----------



## Boyddbookman (7 Dec 2022)

Always Learning said:


> After speaking with the bank, looks like I will have to do this in the format of a mortgage for each investment property, one at a time. I was hoping perhaps they could make a facility available whereby I could simply get passed for a loan of maybe 200-300K which I could draw down as and when is needed on certain properties. I can't though. have to be a BTL mortgage for each one otherwise they consider it lending for speculative purposes.
> 
> My next question, what's best in this climate. A variable or a fixed rate?


That facility you describe was termed revolver credit.  I used it in the late '90s for short time, but have not encountered it being offered by Irish banks since then.


----------



## Always Learning (7 Dec 2022)

Boyddbookman said:


> That facility you describe was termed revolver credit.  I used it in the late '90s for short time, but have not encountered it being offered by Irish banks since then.



It's frustrating because I have sizeable funds in my account, enough to buy the property in question ten times. I just want to leverage that by a small amount, maybe 25% in order to spread across a couple of investment property investments. However, not only do I need to go through the mortgage application each time, they guy in the bank is telling me I may not even be eligible for a mortgage of €50,000 on this property because I am technically unemployed. But that's because I recently sold a business which left me with a sizeable investment fund which I want to make make go as far as possible, hence the requirement for some leverage. Tricky situation. Maybe this does require a new post...



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> So I don't think top-up finance will be eligible here on a property you already own, you would have to borrow on a new purchase. Personally I find this a silly rule - interest should be allowable at portfolio level up to a certain LTV - but it is what it is.



I don't own the property though, I'll still be using the funds to purchase new properties.


----------



## flyingfolly (7 Dec 2022)

Always Learning said:


> It's frustrating because I have sizeable funds in my account, enough to buy the property in question ten times. I just want to leverage that by a small amount, maybe 25% in order to spread across a couple of investment property investments. However, not only do I need to go through the mortgage application each time, they guy in the bank is telling me I may not even be eligible for a mortgage of €50,000 on this property because I am technically unemployed. But that's because I recently sold a business which left me with a sizeable investment fund which I want to make make go as far as possible, hence the requirement for some leverage. Tricky situation. Maybe this does require a new post...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own the property though, I'll still be using the funds to purchase new properties.


Banks are sometimes also less likely to lend to you if they see you have a large amount of cash and would be able to pay back the debt earlier (meaning they make less from the loan).

I was told this when looking into a BTL mortgage as we had 100% of the cash required to buy the property but wanted to hold some cash back and get a mortgage instead


----------



## Knuttell (7 Dec 2022)

@Moderators, can you split this off topic secton off this thread?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Dec 2022)

Hi Knuttell

It's not off topic.  People investing in BTLs are similar to those not selling existing ones. 

And after 4 pages, threads do meander anyway. 

You have made your point very well in the first couple of pages.

Brendan


----------



## Boyddbookman (8 Dec 2022)

Always Learning said:


> It's frustrating because I have sizeable funds in my account, enough to buy the property in question ten times. I just want to leverage that by a small amount, maybe 25% in order to spread across a couple of investment property investments. However, not only do I need to go through the mortgage application each time, they guy in the bank is telling me I may not even be eligible for a mortgage of €50,000 on this property because I am technically unemployed. But that's because I recently sold a business which left me with a sizeable investment fund which I want to make make go as far as possible, hence the requirement for some leverage. Tricky situation. Maybe this does require a new post...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own the property though, I'll still be using the funds to purchase new properties.


Your frustration is understandable.

There used to be derivative mortgage products offered by some banks pre 2008, one of which was a cash backed security.  In effect, this meant that if you had sufficient funds on deposit to cover the loan amount, you could essentially borrow against that cash security.  I expect that these types of products may have disappeared once banks themselves started being charged to hold large depository amounts with the ECB.

Have you considered working with a specialist mortgage broker rather than dealing with a "life and pensions" type sales agent AKA bank teller ?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (8 Dec 2022)

Always Learning said:


> However, not only do I need to go through the mortgage application each time, they guy in the bank is telling me I may not even be eligible for a mortgage of €50,000 on this property because I am technically unemployed. But that's because I recently sold a business which left me with a sizeable investment fund which I want to make make go as far as possible, hence the requirement for some leverage. Tricky situation. Maybe this does require a new post...


It does seem ridiculous that a rent roll on your scale would not quality you for a very small amount of leverage. 

I think I said before but there are about 1k BTL mortgages issued in Ireland every year (a very small number).

I don't know who does them but I would think a brokers is best placed to tell you where and how to pitch your business plan.


----------



## LS400 (8 Dec 2022)

Always Learning said:


> It's frustrating because I have sizeable funds in my account, enough to buy the property in question ten times.



I can see exactly where the bank is coming from, You have the funds to purchase , but want the bank to take a risk on you with your investing agenda.

Your investing in property, and maybe other avenues to maximise your return, but these are funds you have, and are willing to risk it..

Your not employed, and if things go belly up with any of this, bottom line is, you don't have a job for continued income in which to service your loan.

A certain well know multi millionaire also had a very much funded deep well of money, made some bad investments/choices, and it all came crumbling down, you are no different.  As far as the bank should be concerned, there would be nothing to stop you taking a punt on crypto or some other no-brainer and end up in a bad situation.

There is a risk here in what you want to achieve, having a proven ongoing employment record, would see them lay out the red carpet for you.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (8 Dec 2022)

LS400 said:


> Your not employed, *and if things go belly up* with any of this, bottom line is, you don't have a job for continued income in which to service your loan.


The probability of a full portfolio of residential properties failing to pay their rent at the same time is basically zero.


----------



## LS400 (8 Dec 2022)

With a certain political party on the cusp of power, I'm a lot less confident than before on that score.


----------



## ClubMan (9 Dec 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> The probability of a full portfolio of residential properties failing to pay their rent at the same time is basically zero.


Too big to fail?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Dec 2022)

ClubMan said:


> Too big to fail?



That is a different concept completely. "Too big to fail" refers to banks which won't fail because the government will bail them out.

Coyote is pointing out that if 10% of tenants are problems, and you own only one property, you face a 10% chance of a serious problem and a 90% chance of no problem. 

If you own 10 properties, the chances of no rent is .1^10.  
In practice, it's a bit higher than this as they are not independent events, a diversified portfolio of 10 properties is better than one property.

Brendan


----------



## Always Learning (9 Dec 2022)

LS400 said:


> I can see exactly where the bank is coming from, You have the funds to purchase , but want the bank to take a risk on you with your investing agenda.
> 
> Your investing in property, and maybe other avenues to maximise your return, but these are funds you have, and are willing to risk it..
> 
> ...



I'm practically zero risk to the bank though. I'd have debt of 300K spread across ten properties generating an income of 160K per annum. There is no chance that town houses will not be occupied over the coming years. The rents may drop somewhat, even they dropped significantly I'm still in a very comfortable position to repay. 

I dunno, I think I will get it in the end but I'd like to have access to speak with a sensible business manager in the bank who could see the bigger picture put a plan in place around that, rather than treating each request as an individual mortgage.


----------



## LS400 (9 Dec 2022)

Always Learning said:


> I'd like to have access to speak with a sensible business manager in the bank who could see the bigger picture



I say good luck with that, because common sense has gone completely out the window to a large extent.

In my case, on a much smaller scale, I walked into the bank with with 3 investment properties loan free, Family home, loan free  looking to purchase holiday/investment property,

Employed, good salary, looking for €175k on a property valued at €380k. It was torture TBH. Got there in the end.


----------

