> We're talking about a mortgage on the rental property itself not on the landlord's personal residence.
Yes. Everyone in this conversation understands that. There's no relation between the amount and terms on your mortgage for your rental property and the market price to rent a given unit.
If I take a 20 year mortgage does that mean I should charge more rent than if I took 30 years because my payment is higher? Should I drop rent by half when I'm done paying my mortgage since I no longer have a payment? It's nonsensical.
There's especially no reason to expect that rent should cover 100% of the principal fraction of your mortgage payment. Taxes, maintenance, interest, etc. are pure costs which are understandably passed on to tenants. The principal fraction of a mortgage payment is not a cost, it is building your equity.
If rent is covering all costs and "only" 50% of the principal fraction of your mortgage payment you're still making a profit. Because you're paying, let's say, $1000 of the mortgage payment with your own money, but you're getting a $2000 increase in equity.
If the increase in equity should be satisfactory, that's an argument for just letting everyone live in the place for free. I mean, you're coming out ahead.
I know other landlords with multiple units. If they don't think something will be an income producing property, they won't buy.
My point is that you charge market price. Because that's how markets work.
Price to rent ratio varies very widely between different markets. If you don't want to buy in a market with a high price to rent ratio that's fine. There's simply no rule that guarantees a price to rent ratio such that rent covers all costs plus the full payment on a 30 year mortgage in all markets at all times.
Because that's how it normally works? Why would any renter pay that much? If they have that much disposable income each month, they could just buy instead of renting.
You aren't aware that plenty of people rent houses?
By renting instead of buying, you don't incur any of the costs or headaches associated with with home ownership or repair. There are also plenty of people who are only living in one place for a limited period of time, and additionally, plenty of corporations will rent out homes in decent locations if their employees need to be there for extended projects.
I am aware; I was a renter until a couple of years ago. I have rented houses in the East Bay (Alameda, CA) and Seattle, and in each case, my rent was 70%-80% of what the monthly payment on a 30 year mortgage on the same house would have been. The same was true of apartments I rented in Manhattan.
Maybe it doesn't work that way in other markets, but you'd have to be nuts as a renter to pay enough to cover your landlord's mortgage.
Let me assure you then, that in most markets, you will pay far more than the cost of a 30 year mortgage plus taxes and insurance for renting a house. You're subsidizing the cost of vacancies and also paying for some of the maintenance.
A 3 bedroom, 2 bath home in a decent but inexpensive part of the DFW where I live will run you $2K per month. These prices will skyrocket as rental prices catch up to the mortgage market. But just for comparison, 2 years ago that same house would have been on the market for about $220K and would have had a monthly mortgage of about $1200 a month on a 15 year loan or $800 or so on a 30 year loan.
In my neighborhood now, people rent for considerably more than they would pay per month if they bought here. They want to live here but nothing is for sale. It’s large single family homes. Renters tend to be people who have frequent job transfers and people who are having custom homes built nearby.
Also I’ve never rented anything for less than what I could own something comparable. Maybe you can in some markets. But generally I expect to pay more monthly. It’s a trade off for avoiding everything that comes with home ownership. Down payments, maintenance, and the overall commitment. It’s hard to just pick up and move when you have to go through the process of selling, making contingent offers on another place, multiple closings, all that.
I have been a renter in NYC, Seattle, and the Bay Area; every single time, I looked up how much the property last sold for and calculated how much a mortgage on it would cost me per month. My rent was normally 70%-80% of the expected payment on a 30 year mortgage.
I was never paying below-market-rate rent, either! Maybe it doesn't work out this way if you're renting in an area with lower average property values?
Yes. Everyone in this conversation understands that. There's no relation between the amount and terms on your mortgage for your rental property and the market price to rent a given unit.
If I take a 20 year mortgage does that mean I should charge more rent than if I took 30 years because my payment is higher? Should I drop rent by half when I'm done paying my mortgage since I no longer have a payment? It's nonsensical.
There's especially no reason to expect that rent should cover 100% of the principal fraction of your mortgage payment. Taxes, maintenance, interest, etc. are pure costs which are understandably passed on to tenants. The principal fraction of a mortgage payment is not a cost, it is building your equity.
If rent is covering all costs and "only" 50% of the principal fraction of your mortgage payment you're still making a profit. Because you're paying, let's say, $1000 of the mortgage payment with your own money, but you're getting a $2000 increase in equity.