Any collaborative effort to control rents can control a market irrespective of the size of the group doing so. Without getting to deep into economics institutional landlords are effecting the market simply by showing what rents are demanded in a market that has chronic undersupply. When there is equilibrium in a market then it is more difficult for markets to be controlled by either "buyers" or "sellers" unless either controls a significant part of the market.By setting your rents below market in order to attract the most desirable tenants, you were very consciously competing against other landlords, including institutional landlords. Not competing to get the highest immediate rent, but to get the most desirable tenant. I hope the strategy worked for you and, if it did, it worked precisely because the rent you sought was competitive.
I can't speak for Dr Strangelove as regards what he meant by "amateur landlord", but I think his post contrasts institutional landlords on the one hand (renting property is their primary or only business; they have a relatively large number of properties to let) and small, private landlords on the other (they have other occupations and other sources of income; they have a small number of properties, often just one, to let). His point is that, in numerical terms, the market is dominated by the small, private landlords. Although the institutional investors are much, much bigger than almost any private landlord, they only let about 4% of properties for rent, and that situation is a long, long way from a situation in which institutional investors would have the market power to determine market rent levels.
More or less the above.I can't speak for Dr Strangelove as regards what he meant by "amateur landlord", but I think his post contrasts institutional landlords on the one hand (renting property is their primary or only business; they have a relatively large number of properties to let) and small, private landlords on the other (they have other occupations and other sources of income; they have a small number of properties, often just one, to let). His point is that, in numerical terms, the market is dominated by the small, private landlords.
Where I am/was but will be, originally there never were institutional. But there are now and will be. When I started it was white Irish, but quickly became Polish/Lithuanians - hard workers. Changed before I got out to other emigrants including refugee or asylum, hard to tell. A couple clearly traumatised, war or mental issues. No baddies. But my lord are they all milking the system. My child now subletting off a HAP tenant of a sibling, said tenant living where with wife and kids. Just got his naturalisation papers. He saw the property being renovated and told us he’s a load of potential tenants. The Irish roofer also wants to rent it, for his adult at home mid twenties child.By setting your rents below market in order to attract the most desirable tenants, you were very consciously competing against other landlords, including institutional landlords. Not competing to get the highest immediate rent, but to get the most desirable tenant. I hope the strategy worked for you and, if it did, it worked precisely because the rent you sought was competitive.
The problem is finding finance, and agreeing on what is required. Unlike most European countries where up to half the population live in apartments just 10% do so here. And of the remaining housing stock, only 10% is 2 bed homes or smaller.Perhaps because there are so few who are prepared to actually put in any effort at all? The countless threads of issues with management companies here would suggest many don't want to put in the effort and are happier complaining about the efforts of the few who do.
No problem being called amateur, a name doesnt mean much..More or less the above.
ASM threads are full of landlords with:
-1 or 2 properties assembled by accidental
-profound ignorance of the regulatory regime they have to operate in
So I think “amateur” is fair terminology.
Likewise just browse daft.ie and you’ll find lots of lettings by people who clearly don't take much care of their asset.
I dont see this..I can't speak for Dr Strangelove as regards what he meant by "amateur landlord", but I think his post contrasts institutional landlords on the one hand (renting property is their primary or only business; they have a relatively large number of properties to let) and small, private landlords on the other (they have other occupations and other sources of income; they have a small number of properties, often just one, to let). His point is that, in numerical terms, the market is dominated by the small, private landlords.
Here’s one.Care to show what you mean, providing 1 or 2 examples wont do, as you said "lots of lettings"?
I dont see it...Here’s one.
No letting agent, pure minimum upkeep of property visible in photos.
I am not dissing this. The landlord is providing a useful service.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?