Comment by bradly

Comment by bradly 3 days ago

18 replies

Key part of the article to me:

> Of those, mom-and-pop investors, or those who own between 1 and 5 homes, account for 85% of all investor-owned residential properties

In my social circle, if you are going to buy a new house, you are doing everything you can to keep your current house while purchasing the second. It is the clearest path to retirement from traditional 40hr/week employment for the people around me.

> Institutional investors that own 1,000 or more homes account for only about 2.2% of all investor-owned homes, the firm said.

Talking about these two cohorts in the same article may be problematic as they such vastly different motives, operating procedures, and (please don't light me on fire) different regulations needed.

wepple 3 days ago

> In my social circle, if you are going to buy a new house, you are doing everything you can to keep your current house while purchasing the second. It is the clearest path to retirement from traditional 40hr/week employment for the people around me.

That’s fascinating to me. Generally, the homes people buy to live in aren’t optimal investment properties. Why not sell and buy something optimized for return and growth?

  • bradly 3 days ago

    > That’s fascinating to me. Generally, the homes people buy to live in aren’t optimal investment properties. Why not sell and buy something optimized for return and growth?

    Great question and one I wrestled with until hearing Paula Pant's perspective:

    You _really_ know the house you already own. You have a much better understanding of its issues and capital expenses in the next 1-5 years, than a house you are purchasing with an inspection. You know the yard, the neighbors, the city regs, the roof, the plumbing, the weird dog two doors down, and the weirder neighbor three doors down. The mom and pop investor have a much greater risk-of-ruin on a single property than an institutional investor, so this knowledge is extremely valuable.

    The second reason is you most likely purchased that house with a non-investment mortgage, so you get priced in a bit to converting to an investment property after the living in it. My non-owner occupied mortgages for my investment properties required 30-35% down and had a much higher interest rate. Converting your existing home avoids all that.

    Thirdly, taxes. Selling a house triggers a taxable event and with investment properties will heavily push the seller towards a 1031 exchange to avoid a hefty tax bill that year. A 1031 basically requires you to pick 3 specific properties when your property closes with a requirement to purchase one of those three in the immediate six months or face a capital gains bill is a hard bill to swallow. Depending on the state in the United States, purchasing a new property will also reset your property tax bill, while an existing property can have property taxes well below the current rate based solely on property values when purchased.

    • wepple 2 days ago

      That’s really interesting, thanks for the detailed response.

      Honestly makes me wish I’d had better advice when we traded up. And I also ignored the “you’re keeping the old house right?” from a few relatively wise friends. Should’ve asked follow-up questions.

    • seanmcdirmid 2 days ago

      > Depending on the state in the United States, purchasing a new property will also reset your property tax bill

      Does this happen anywhere outside of California?

  • mousethatroared 3 days ago

    That's the first order analysis. It's correct within its assumptions, but it neglects leverage.

    But if you bought a place before the pandemic you could lock in a ridiculously low interest rate for 30 years.

    Now you have the value of the mortgage (leverage) locked at an interest rate lower than inflation. Let's say rent covers expenses and mortgage. The return on an initial $50k down on a 250k property might be around $10k/year, or 20%.

    Tell me, where does one get an investment returning 20% annum?

    Real estate is the easiest and safest way to leverage your investment.

    • wepple 2 days ago

      Damn. That makes a lot of sense. We sold our place that was on 2.75% and bought at 7. Ouch.

      • mousethatroared 2 days ago

        It's not all sunshine. Renters suck and expenses come as big ticket items. Also, the first few years suck until inflation eats away at the mortgage payments suck (cash flow)

      • [removed] 2 days ago
        [deleted]
  • rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3 days ago

    The U.S. is unique in that it offers fixed-rate 30 year mortgages to basically everyone who can afford the monthly payments. Once you've locked in a 30 year mortgage at a great rate, it's super cheap money - your new goal is to basically hold it until it's completely paid off. Then, the only way you can move is by renting out your old place.

    • mousethatroared 2 days ago

      Thats true, but the housing stock is abysmally poor quality so that sucks

  • danny_codes 3 days ago

    Land rents are pretty great in the US at least. Landowners get bailed out by taxpayers when times are hard in many instances. Plus laws are generally designed to protect land rents.

    • kasey_junk 3 days ago

      That doesn’t change the question though. Why would the house you bought last likely be good for renting out? There are much better properties out there generally for residential cash flow.

      But the probable answer is mortgages. If you got a 30 year mortgage for less than 3% you almost certainly want to do anything you can to keep your hands on it. It’s probably the best financial device ever given to the average consumer.

      • ryandrake 3 days ago

        When supply is as constrained as it is, any house is good for renting out.

  • therealdrag0 3 days ago

    Why wouldn’t it be a good house to rent? It’s usually not tourist rental (airbnb), it’s long term living rental (annual lease). Anyone who doesn’t own has to rent an apartment or house.

    Theres also a chunk of people who “don’t believe in debt” so even when they have kids and live in a house they rent until they can pay cash. Or there’s young people who get together in a group of 4 and rent a house to share etc etc.

    • wepple 2 days ago

      My understanding of rental properties is that you want to optimize for low costs and low maintenance, low taxes, and maximum rental yield. Those are absolutely not the things I look for in a permanent home. They might happen accidentally, but generally not.

      • mousethatroared 2 days ago

        If your first home is a condo then it's not so hard.

        When my wife got pregnant we were looking to move to a nicer condo. Rent was so high that an equivalent condo's mortgage payments were lower.

        We had the down payment saved up so it was a no-brainer.

      • therealdrag0 2 days ago

        I know a lot of people who have extra property they own to rent. Mostly it’s about diversification and believing that appreciation of the asset will ensure profitability even if the margins from taxes and rents is low.