they would rather have it occupied and being paid than the tenants leave and the place sit empty.|
Small-time landlords (maybe what’s going on here) are also more sensitive to disruptions in cash-flow. That is, a tenant that can’t pay rent or is just tearing up the place. So it’s more desirable to retain a tenant that can keep paying, even if they’re not worth top-dollar to you.
I also just threw up in my mouth a bit while typing that out.
Once you get up to corporate scale however, I’m guessing that you just have a certain percentage of bad tenants no matter what you do. So part of your overhead is processing evictions and refurbishing units for new renters. As a result, it is less risky to squeeze everyone a little harder.
Sure but they still don’t have to raise the rent at every opportunity, that’s still a choice.
Also though the largest landlords are in a position to create artificial scarcity by buying up properties just to keep them empty, so people don’t have other options.
Small-time landlords (maybe what’s going on here) are also more sensitive to disruptions in cash-flow. That is, a tenant that can’t pay rent or is just tearing up the place. So it’s more desirable to retain a tenant that can keep paying, even if they’re not worth top-dollar to you.
I also just threw up in my mouth a bit while typing that out.
Once you get up to corporate scale however, I’m guessing that you just have a certain percentage of bad tenants no matter what you do. So part of your overhead is processing evictions and refurbishing units for new renters. As a result, it is less risky to squeeze everyone a little harder.
Sure but they still don’t have to raise the rent at every opportunity, that’s still a choice.
Also though the largest landlords are in a position to create artificial scarcity by buying up properties just to keep them empty, so people don’t have other options.