Say you're a landlord. You rent out a nice storefront for $2,000 per month. The lease is about to expire, and you think you could get as much as $2,750 per month for it.
So you inform the tenants; they balk and move out; and you put it on the market.
Every month the storefront stays vacant, you are now losing $2,000 per month—maybe more, if you have to keep some heat and electricity going to protect and show the place. You also have to prep it for showing and a new occupant, and maybe pay a realtor a listing commission, and may need a lawyer to draw up a new lease, etc.
So let's say it stays vacant six months; you incur some costs, you hire a realtor to show it; and eventually settle with the new tenant for $2,500 per month. Success, right? Not so fast.
It will now take you at least two years to show a profit from your decision—maybe more, depending on the variables above—since you've lost $12,000-$15,000 on a speculative profit of just $500 monthly. If the new tenant stays anything less than two years, you're guanteed to lose money.
So, was your decision worth it? One could imagine a simple formula to do the math: number of months vacancy times rent lost per month plus other expenses divided by new revenue from raised rent equals the number months necessary to begin seeing a profit... (That would omit the headaches and other human tolls of your choice.)
In a down economy, the only time it makes sense to raise the rent is if (A) the existing tenant isn't paying, and you expect to evict them anyway; or (B) you have a new tenant already firmed up; or (C) the prospective raise in rent is large enough to warrant the risk; or (D) you have so much money already that you can afford to roll the dice this way.
For about eight years in Hudson, I rented out the ground floor of my house (which opened onto a garden) for less than $500 per month, utilities included. The reason? My tenant was reliable, unobtrusive and friendly. Trying to get more money would have exposed mr to both losses and potentially serious hassles. A bird in the hand, &c.
Countless sports radio, TV and blog commentators have noted that the Patriots did not beat any team with a winning record, implying that New England’s 13-3 season was not that strong.
But six teams which finished 8-8 would have had 9-7 winning records—the Broncos, Chargers Cowboys, Eagles, Jets and Raiders—if not for the Patriots beating them.
And some teams had winning records at the time they faced New England, only slipping below .501 after (or because of) playing the #1 AFC seed. Moreover, 8-8 was enough to win at least one division.
A trusty set of eyes who witnessed the much-anticipated (and well-attended) Taghkanic Town Board's organizational meeting reports that the new Democratic majority made two big decisions on Monday night:
(1) Longtime Town Attorney Rob Fitzsimmons (who also advises the County and Town of Claverack, inter alia) was not reappointed, and that the firm of Carter, Conboy in Albany was selected from among the applicants for the position;
(2) That the tenure of Building Inspector Dennis Callahan will be extended six months, during which time a job search will be conducted, with Callahan able to apply “like anyone else.”
Both Fitzsimmons and Callahan were closely associated with the previous Republican-led Boards, and deeply involved with the long-running Wilzig controversy in Taghkanic.
Recent Comments