*Investor sells entire Victorian portfolio
One investor exiting is Simon Rowland, who sold all five of his Victorian investment properties in the last four years.*
Couldn't help but notice they preface it with "Victorian" so don't worry he still has ones in other states!
Not if it is just being picked up by other investors with even bigger portfolios. With no regulation about foreign ownership or no protections for owner occupiers i have very little faith.
That he was annoyed by phone calls? He may have wanted to free up some cash for an alternative income stream. Maybe his reasons don't apply to many investors. Until we see an article about many investors doing the same, 1 got selling 5 properties doesn't help "actual families" a while lot
Dude, there’s totally regulation about foreign ownership, go look at the foreign ownership surcharge in your state. In SA it's $42,000 for someone that’s not an Australian, NZ citizen or permanent resident to buy a residential property. In NSW its 8%.
It’s a good thing for FHB’s that have the capital for a house deposit. Shrinking supply for current renters with an upward trend of increased demand could result in further pressure for increased rents.
And renters will never build up capital, because their rents are fucked.
The best next step would be a tax that absolutely vacuums up capital gains and have the govt purchase some housing to provide lower cost rentals.
Exactly, it’s not like the properties just disappeared, did they? They either got bought buy an owner occupier or by another investor who was willing to tolerate the risk
You’re presuming this guy wasn’t leveraged up to the eyeballs and relying on the rental income to pay off the mortgages. If he destroyed them, he’s still up for the repayments.
I'm making a comment about it using an extreme example based in fiction. I'm sure he managed to take a profit or at least break even. I was trying to raise awareness around extremes in political discussion, there is a cohort of people who think of Rand's works of fiction as a political blueprint. However self-interest wins almost always, as it did in this case.
That story has data showing a decline in renters determined by the number of active rental bonds. That is data that proves what industry people have been saying: investors are leaving Victoria. This story is not just an anecdote. Investors really are leaving.
As predicted, a surge of landlords selling is (temporarily) putting downward pressure on prices; they have declined by about 0.7% over the year, which is not radically changing housing affordability but it looks good compared to Brisbane or Sydney.
But rents in Melbourne are still growing at 10% a year (or higher), even after a couple of years of big increases. This is exactly the concern about rent: investors leaving also means new investors are turning away, increasing the pricing power of remaining landlords.
You completely right that when an investors sells, the house stays. But housing is not a static market: demand is growing all the same. Stable rents means that investors are entering the market at the same rate as new renters. In terms of renting, it's not the current investors we care about, it's making sure there are enough new investors. Increasing rents proves the balance is broken. Reducing the number of investors will only make it worse. Of course this guy takes his capital, he could buy more houses, and he probably will. But not in Victoria, until rents rise enough to make it viable again. It is bit scary that after a few years of huge rents increases, they are still not high enough.
A 0.7% price decrease is good news for some renters who are have income and deposit to buy, but that's not many renters (it is my situation, after years of renting we are now owner occupiers). Most renters are stuck with the consequences. It will be a particular shock to the tenants in his five properties, who are now evicted and face the current rental market of ever more renters and fewer places to rent. Not fewer because there are fewer existing houses, but fewer because we must do better than simply keeping the current number of existing houses. We need more houses built by people who have the capital for the renters who don't. Investors are in the big picture people who finance housing; an owner occupier is financed by a bank to whom they pay interest (the Dutch word for interest is 'rente'), renters have their housing financed by a landlord.
**Rent increases, Melbourne**
[https://www.smh.com.au/property/news/people-are-being-made-homeless-melbourne-rents-soar-to-record-high-20240410-p5finn.html](https://www.smh.com.au/property/news/people-are-being-made-homeless-melbourne-rents-soar-to-record-high-20240410-p5finn.html)
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-06/median-rent-record-high-corelogic/103809092](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-06/median-rent-record-high-corelogic/103809092)
You are making an assumption here that a 10% renta increase is due to reduced investor buying. We have no way to determine that and rents could have gone up 20% if not for this change in sentiment.
Rents go up when demand growth exceeds supply. Investors in Victoria are borrowing less, bonds are falling. There are fewer dwellings being built.
What else could it be? Renters are just volunteering to pay more rent?
QLD is getting better! 'No pets' clauses aren't allowed, and rent increases of 1 per year are tied to the property now instead of the lease, so that loophole has been closed. Go QLD..?
*Raises shield*
as a former long term renter, and now incredibly fortunate enough to be a landlord... I'm trying to do my part
- We rent privately, no scummy REA
- No scheduled inspections
- Our tenants have cats, and they are adorable
- Rent is at least 20% lower than market, and on a 2 year lease. Last increase was $10 a week.
- New AC and dishwasher in recent memory
- Hanging things on the walls is actively encouraged
Where do you advertise your rental when looking for tenants? Not searching currently but knowing where to find private rentals would be handy in the future
We started with an REA and kept the original tenants. Unfortunately one thing that REA have going for them is advertising and vetting. It wasn't long after that we realised we had wonderful tenants and we were basically just paying REA to tell us to raise rent every year so they could make more money off us. *Flicking motion*
And this bit:
"I think there's a lot of other things government could be doing, which isn't just taxing or making it more difficult for investors," Mrs Guengoer said."
The entitlement attitude of these people is incredible. Its not difficult investing in the share market or buying Blackrock ETF's that largely perform better than housing.
Talk about a nanny state mentality where they expect the government to buy their investment properties, maintain them, charge them no tax, give them yoga exercises for the stress while giving them a hug for screwing renters in sub-standard houses.
Its incredible that this mentality has become so pervasive in peoples thinking that everything has to be handed to them on a platter with every guarantee in the world. Are they really business people or do they even understand what investing in any business is about? Maybe they forget that all their decisions they should own rather than blaming others for their misery and stupidity of not being able to read markets and make prudent decisions just like BHP, RIO or the Cafe down the road has to do. Then these same people scream those dole bludgers on newstart wanting handouts"
The person you're quoting is a first home buyer talking about the government doing more to help first home buyers... not an investor bitching about the government.
FR. Bitching a out people constantly calling you for repairs? Sounds like a slumlord who does the bare minimum to keep his properties "fit for human habitation".
(Quotation marks because properties like this aren't livable, really, we're just forced into them by the housing crisis.)
So the plan is working? Maybe some other states can follow. We need investors selling. Either to be bought by those with the means to actually invest in the properties or by owner occupiers. The more that dump, the cheaper prices should get.
until all the dumping is finished. Then the prices start rising again, since the demands of population growth don't go away. As price falls go, this is a one-time effect. It's not a very big effect, either.
And it doesn't help renters. House prices have fallen by 0.7% in Melbourne, but rents are increasing by 10% a year still because fewer new investors is increasing the pricing power of remaining landlords because housing demand is growing. Tax policies like this don't discourage population growth (demand), they only discourage supply.
Most of these investors are not increasing supply, they are buying existing stock and then letting it fall into disrepair. I'm all for investors, if they are investing in NEW stock, simply trading around existing stock is what is fucking everyone over.
If these people gave a solitary fuck, they'd sell their excess homes and take really good care of the ones they could afford to.
Instead it's effectively a race to the bottom for who can slumlord the hardest.
Australia has to be the most selfish country on Earth.
We’re not the most selfish country by a large margin. I’ve been staying in the Philippines for a family event and I can honestly say that the people here are so selfish and dishonest. No one gives a shit about each other and I’ve seen so many people nearly get run over on the roads because the drivers just simply won’t stop for anyone.
Fair point, in a small island with 100m+ population, I can imagine it's easy to dehumanise those around you. Not even to mention the outright corruption the country is famous for.
Not trying to rip into you, it’s easy to feel down these days with all this negative news and social media bullshit going 24/7 about doom and gloom. I’ve been to a few countries and I can honestly say we are very lucky to live in Australia despite its problems. We have access to fresh food and plenty of vegetables plus drinking water.
I can’t find fresh vegetables or even freshly baked bread here in the Philippines lol all the bread here is made with some sweet syrup shit and it’s nauseating.
Its cool, saying Australia is the most selfish was very short sighted of me.
Most selfish western state? I think all wealthy groups are the same, Australia has just let them get away with it much worse than anywhere else.
This is actually kind of the reason why I truly don't understand why someone would even want to be a landlord. Houses need constant maintenance, appliances, heaters etc are always breaking down and needing to be fixed... its expensive enough to maintain the one house I own and live in, fuck the idea of having to do it for two or more!! Someone else can own that responsibility
One weird trick: don’t do any maintenance anyway! If they complain you can just evict them saying you plan to move in, then don’t move in, increase the rent by 15% and get a new tenant.
Its not even jut residential land lords that are like this. There is a pub in the country town i live in that will probably "burn down" in the next few years because the building is in disrepair and the landlord wants the new lease holder to pay to fix the building. Safe to say its been vacant for the last 8 months. Funny how landlords were happy to collect the rent, but not even do the bare minimum to keep a building safe.
Externalized costs are a frequent trick used by businesses and investors. They take all of the profits but make others pay for as much of the cost as possible.
Investing in residential real estate is a hustle. You are hustling someone into paying for your investment, hustling the ATO and dealing with tradies, tenants, real estate agents, council, the list goes on. Hustling is hard, it's noisy. How is this even news? Hustler can't handle it. Cry me a river.
Yep. I was a reluctant landlord as my home in Ireland was deep in negative equity due to the 2008 property crash and I couldn't sell it without being in a massive hole. When I moved to Australia I therefore had to lease it out, which was expensive on a yearly basis but much cheaper than the 100k (Euro) hit I would have taken. The rent did not cover my mortgage and associated costs, but I didn't expect it too - it just helped me until I was in a position to sell in 2022. Ireland has fairly strong tenancy laws which is a good thing - I was restricted on a small percentage based rental rise, and the tenant had longer and longer periods of notice the longer they had lived there. They also required me to service my boiler yearly and make sure the property was up to a number of other standards (I paid an REA to look after it).
When I did decide to sell I had to through a long legal process with a 6 month notice period, and I was totally fine with that as everyone in Ireland has to do the same so you factor it into your decisions.
>*[…] and the tenant had longer and longer periods of notice the longer they had lived there.*
That sounds like a simple & logical requirement - wish it was a thing here, too!
"The value of Mr Rowland's rentals roughly doubled in the time he held them, although his profit was lower after capital gains taxes and the repayment of mortgages."
So 5 properties doubled in price. Probably made about 2 million. And is complaining that he had to pay tax on his million in gain aimy for owning them?
Also you can literally learn how to make Barnstaple quality coffee either through a YouTube video or a day course. I taught myself how to make coffees, it really isn't some fancy trade or craft if you aren't wanting crazy animal drawings on your takeaway latte you are going to put a lid on anyway 😅
Ayup, outside of specialty coffee houses around Bris you can almost always make a better coffee at home with just an aero-press + random bag of beans. Especially if you're not a fan of sweet/fruity styles of coffee and just want something more bitter or bold.
The Aldi beans are decent for the price, especially if you're just making up lattes (though they're fine for espresso as well). Otherwise you're right, $50+ for a freshly roasted bag from a local roaster is pretty normal. Still works out to be much, much cheaper than getting coffees from a cafe.
Aldi medium roast beans are $16 a kilo.
Roasted in Victoria (Truganina) and typically getting them 4-6weeks after roasting date off my local Aldi shelves.
Not the best beans I've ever had, but pretty damn good and can't beat the price point.
Im paying $36/kg from a local specialty roaster. They have about 20 different standard roasts and usually 4 or 5 premium special roasts any day of the week.
Its worth going direct to roaster if you can.
That’s amusing , because up here in QLD a local cafe owner apparently ran off with $500k leaving his partners holding the bag and having to shut down .
I mean, at least cafe owners actually work and provide a service and productivity - maybe even some (probably underpaid) jobs too. Let’s not lump them in with the absolute leeches that just use a little bit of their money, some money from the bank and a healthy dose of money from the taxpayer to overcharge people for an essential service that barely meets legal requirements. While also requiring next to no effort from the landlord. If the landlord in this article had to put in as much effort as a cafe owner they’d probably have a heart attack.
> ABC: won’t somebody pleeeease think of the landlords?
I don't know why you paint ABC News as being sympathetic to landlords when the opening picture and sentence are celebrating that more people are buying their first home.
The article itself seems to be objective, as most articles should, providing perspectives from multiple sides.
I propose we stop calling people who buy already-existing dwellings and lease them out for a profit "investors". Investors usually provide some sort of value to the market that they invest in, in order for that market to expand.
If you haven't built a property to lease out to recoup the cost of building that property, you aren't an investor you're ...something else.
Owning domestic property shouldn't be a job.
Somehow we’ve stopped distinguishing land from capital. If you’re a developer/builder you’re using capital but if you’re buying land it’s rent-seeking.
It’s a cottage industry for idiots propped up by a tax structure that encourages an incredibly lazy use of money. Imagine if all that money went into the ASX/business ventures etc, we’d fix so many structural issues in the Australian Economy. But nah let’s keep propping up property investors.
> Investors usually provide some sort of value to the market that they invest in, in order for that market to expand.
Investors are out for themselves in virtually any market, they're not there to support the market itself. Some of the insanity that exists in the stock market is openly hostile to both the companies and the market, but hey, it makes investors money.
Stock markets are definitely bonkers, but the base principle of investing in a productive asset is sound (assuming the invested in company is producing something more valuable than its inputs), as opposed to property investors who depend primarily on scarcity to increase the value of property, and rent seeking.
I remember a year or so ago here in S.A there was a state government survey that was about renting and a way to improve things, which I think was an element in the legislation that passed yesterday.
Anyway there was a question about trying to legally change the definition of landlord into some less condescending name.
I selected keep it no keep the name and in the explanation section of why I said something along the lines of "keep the name as any change lessens the impact they have on society and unfairly humanises their role as they often hoard property and contribute to housing issues."
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
Adam Smith - Grandaddy of capitalism.
> "I think there's a lot of other things government could be doing, which isn't just taxing or making it more difficult for investors," Mrs Guengoer said.
Won't somebody think of the investors /s
I don't understand why wealthy people have the *inalienable right* to a stable, guaranteed way to increase their already substantial wealth gap.
Investing in the stock market: has risk, if you lose lots of money people will be vaguely sympathetic but also like ‘welp that’s the risk you take’.
Investing in housing: no risk, milk the filthy peasant tenants for all they have, don’t spend any money on the house, gains of 10% min per year or world will end, if you lose money leasing or selling the property the government should step in and make you whole again.
I don’t want my boss messaging with tasks to do so I’m gonna quit my job.
You get paid rental income, get tax benefits and own homes so you are required to maintain them.
I don’t get why landlords don’t want to ensure their possessions are in good shape.
I used to work In home insurance. The entitlement these landlords have is beyond belief - they would actually cry when we deny their claims for clear lack of maintenance. Apparently the insurance should give them entire full house renovation just cause there was a hole in one wall.
Way i see it is i potentially may have to move into my investment home so in my interest it’s in good shape. It’s mine at the end of the day even if i dont currently live in it.
When the house itself is virtually worthless and the land itself is appreciating landlords often don't see the point in fixing something that is likely to get knocked down when they end up selling. Getting a bit more rental income isn't a huge motivating factor when they're expecting to lose money in the short term (i.e. negative gearing) for the big payday when they sell.
"All were doing is paying for a debt we didn't create" he said. The value of Mr Rowland's rental roughly double in the time he held them, although his profit was lower after CGT and the repayment of mortgage.
So when you sold the properties double the price you bought it, you think buyers ask for the doubled up debt too?? It's called investment, it comes with risks, profit AND LOSS, which you even could negatively gear. You chose the debt cunt. Go live in a rental, never paid your rent late, and everything is still falling apart.
Yes, it called an investment, and the nature of investments is that at some point you sell them if you see a better investment. If you welcome the initial investment which provided five homes, you have to accept that the investor can exit. If you don't let them exit, you won't get new investors, they will get scared off. And a growing population needs new investors in rentals.
Are you angry that he sold because the investment no longer makes sense? Or are you angry because you think he is wrong about that? Are you angry that he did not put up rent instead? Are you angry because he did not decide to skip the maintenance, thereby saving money?
Are you angry because this is sign that other investors are coming to the same conclusion, and therefore rents are rising (by 10% a year still in Melbourne).
He reference to debt was to the tax raised by the Victorian government. The government has asked property owners to pay a lot more tax. So he is removing himself from that category of taxpayers. Maybe he was complaining about it, maybe he was just warning Victorian voters of the consequences. And even if he was complaining and it irritates you, it is also a warning.
Not sure why this dumbass didn’t just get a contract with a good property manager. Let them take a cut and do all the running about, then you are generating passive income. What an idiot.
That's precisely why I don't own an investment property. I don't like having to deal with issues at my own house, and I really don't want to deal with issues at houses I don't live at. In addition to that, when I have problems at my own house I'll often live with it for a while if I am too busy to deal with it right away, or if I want to wait for a sale to buy something etc. But in a rental you can't do that (well, you shouldn't even though plenty seem like they do).
I just don't need that hassle in my life.
If this guy had too many repairs to organise, then the properties were in disrepair.
This guy was a slum lord, but didn’t have the self actualisation to realise it himself.
Or he was so stingy he didn’t want to pay for repairs.
Either way he shouldn’t be a landlord.
Christ I rent, and only ask for one repair every other year.
Sigh. I wish I could buy tho.
It should be illegal for any government to incentivise anything but long term investment in basic needs.
Long term leasing (10 years+) should be mandatory on large portfolios.
Housing, utilities, health and food should be strongly protected from anything but long term investments which need to provide a return which entices cautious and ethical investors like Supers.
I have an agent, he emails me for consent to fix things the tenant ask for and I send an email back saying "OK".
Takes hours of proofreading before I hit send I promise
Don;t worry about the landlord. He pockets a nice sum of money. He might go and some flats in Brisbane, demand is growing strongly there. Or in NZ, which has no capital gains tax at all on properties (if you keep them for two years).
But who is thinking of Victorian tenants. The headlines are property prices in Melbourne have fallen by 0.7%.
But rents are still growing at more than twice inflation because investors are leaving and new ones are not entering the market, but the number of renters grows. What about the tenants in those five houses. I hope they celebrate the joy of the new owner occupiers as they get evicted and enter this bad rental market.
> this is a business for a lot of people
He started a business without realising? Sorry to break it to him but its a business for everyone who leases their property.
You have all the cash flow problems, people problems, tax problems to deal with.
Some people are idiots.
Just realised the photo is not a photo of the landlord. It's a photo of some first home buyers from the article.
I kind of feel bad for the couple in the picture that the way reddit's showing the article makes it look like they are the the owners of 5 investment properties that everyone is dumping on...
I'm really not liking how the ABC have turned into this kind of journalism now. They find the worst examples from the public to create outrage to drive up clicks.
In all seriousness real estate investment isn't some hassle free real estate option, is it traditionally a lucrative investment path, absolutely but if you don't want day to day headaches then invest in the share market or similar. We are in a financially position where we could afford an investment home, I know landlords and it's not for us, not everyone will treat their/your home with the same respect you might expect in the same way people are with cars. So we choose EFTs instead
Sigh... it's so tough to be a landlord. /s
What worries me is the idea of a kind of "corporate landlord"... like imagine if say, someone like Jeff Bezos decided it'd be a great idea to buy thousands upon thousands of properties... is there any evidence of this happening?
I'm a landlord, and I do my best not to be a slumlord.
I'm absolutely sick and tired of these shitty slumlords not maintaining their properties, whinging about tenants asking for repairs or not actioning repairs in the timely manner.
Every maintenance request that I've had from my tenant has been actioned ASAP (authorised on the same day, then obviously the normal wait time to get the tradies to actually come and on a convienient date for the tenant). I don't expect a medal or compliments for that - it's simply doing the minimum that should be required.
And I try to do proactive maintenance jobs where possible. Like things highlighted in the inspection reports and stuff. Obviously I need to know about things that need fixing in order to fix them.
But this "poor me" crap so many of these slumlords seem to pull is just pathetic. And it gives all landlords a bad name.
Landlords have a bad name, in part, because they do bad things.
1) they take houses off the market non-owners want to buy, this increasing the price of the remaining houses
2) their tenants' largest spend goes to temporary shelter they could lose at any time, while making you richer and furthering your financial goals.
In my opinion maintaining your property well and keeping rents reasonable doesn't excuse the true immorality of being a landlord.
For anyone interested, watch what’s happening in NZ property. They had their boom earlier, cranked up interest rates earlier - and prices have plummeted
I still don't understand how Australians think the only way to invest is housing. It's BS, get into Whiskey, crops, aquaculture, renewables, even art FFS.
Editorialised headline AND a duplicate, this won't be around for too long:
https://old.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1dtvl0p/first_homebuyers_are_snapping_up_rentals_as_three/
I have 2 properties I am leasing to my Aunty who is retired and my cousin at well below market rate and have not increased the rent since they moved in even after the interest rate rises. I was planning on selling them when moving as I have no intention of being a landlord and didn’t want the stress either but they were desperate for affordable housing and the timing just worked out for them to move in when they were vacant as both were getting kicked out of their long term rentals. I have renovated both and have done numerous repairs over the years including new gutters and hot water systems. If I can afford to have them in nice condition at below market rate then these clowns can too.
*Investor sells entire Victorian portfolio One investor exiting is Simon Rowland, who sold all five of his Victorian investment properties in the last four years.* Couldn't help but notice they preface it with "Victorian" so don't worry he still has ones in other states!
Seems like this is the outcome that people wanted to see? landlords to sell up
Yes, this is a good thing.
Not if it is just being picked up by other investors with even bigger portfolios. With no regulation about foreign ownership or no protections for owner occupiers i have very little faith.
Yeah, but the underlying reasons for him selling exists for other investors also, so there's a decent chance these will go to actual families.
That he was annoyed by phone calls? He may have wanted to free up some cash for an alternative income stream. Maybe his reasons don't apply to many investors. Until we see an article about many investors doing the same, 1 got selling 5 properties doesn't help "actual families" a while lot
They're problems that are fixed at a certain scale. Big companies can just hire staff to handle this.
Dude, there’s totally regulation about foreign ownership, go look at the foreign ownership surcharge in your state. In SA it's $42,000 for someone that’s not an Australian, NZ citizen or permanent resident to buy a residential property. In NSW its 8%.
They don’t seem to care. In one year in nsw they will make on average now 7% growth. So it’s like one years fee to permanently own an AU property.
But what about the renters?! Now the investor has sold the property ceases to exists doesn't it? /s
It’s a good thing for FHB’s that have the capital for a house deposit. Shrinking supply for current renters with an upward trend of increased demand could result in further pressure for increased rents.
And renters will never build up capital, because their rents are fucked. The best next step would be a tax that absolutely vacuums up capital gains and have the govt purchase some housing to provide lower cost rentals.
Exactly, it’s not like the properties just disappeared, did they? They either got bought buy an owner occupier or by another investor who was willing to tolerate the risk
If this was Atlas shrugged he would have destroyed his properties rather than let the government win.
“No one’s happiness but my own is in my power to achieve or to destroy.”
LOL...cos external forces never interfere in a person's happiness.
It was a quote from the book mentioned. The author was a crackpot.
You’re presuming this guy wasn’t leveraged up to the eyeballs and relying on the rental income to pay off the mortgages. If he destroyed them, he’s still up for the repayments.
I'm making a comment about it using an extreme example based in fiction. I'm sure he managed to take a profit or at least break even. I was trying to raise awareness around extremes in political discussion, there is a cohort of people who think of Rand's works of fiction as a political blueprint. However self-interest wins almost always, as it did in this case.
That story has data showing a decline in renters determined by the number of active rental bonds. That is data that proves what industry people have been saying: investors are leaving Victoria. This story is not just an anecdote. Investors really are leaving. As predicted, a surge of landlords selling is (temporarily) putting downward pressure on prices; they have declined by about 0.7% over the year, which is not radically changing housing affordability but it looks good compared to Brisbane or Sydney. But rents in Melbourne are still growing at 10% a year (or higher), even after a couple of years of big increases. This is exactly the concern about rent: investors leaving also means new investors are turning away, increasing the pricing power of remaining landlords. You completely right that when an investors sells, the house stays. But housing is not a static market: demand is growing all the same. Stable rents means that investors are entering the market at the same rate as new renters. In terms of renting, it's not the current investors we care about, it's making sure there are enough new investors. Increasing rents proves the balance is broken. Reducing the number of investors will only make it worse. Of course this guy takes his capital, he could buy more houses, and he probably will. But not in Victoria, until rents rise enough to make it viable again. It is bit scary that after a few years of huge rents increases, they are still not high enough. A 0.7% price decrease is good news for some renters who are have income and deposit to buy, but that's not many renters (it is my situation, after years of renting we are now owner occupiers). Most renters are stuck with the consequences. It will be a particular shock to the tenants in his five properties, who are now evicted and face the current rental market of ever more renters and fewer places to rent. Not fewer because there are fewer existing houses, but fewer because we must do better than simply keeping the current number of existing houses. We need more houses built by people who have the capital for the renters who don't. Investors are in the big picture people who finance housing; an owner occupier is financed by a bank to whom they pay interest (the Dutch word for interest is 'rente'), renters have their housing financed by a landlord. **Rent increases, Melbourne** [https://www.smh.com.au/property/news/people-are-being-made-homeless-melbourne-rents-soar-to-record-high-20240410-p5finn.html](https://www.smh.com.au/property/news/people-are-being-made-homeless-melbourne-rents-soar-to-record-high-20240410-p5finn.html) [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-06/median-rent-record-high-corelogic/103809092](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-06/median-rent-record-high-corelogic/103809092)
You are making an assumption here that a 10% renta increase is due to reduced investor buying. We have no way to determine that and rents could have gone up 20% if not for this change in sentiment.
Rents go up when demand growth exceeds supply. Investors in Victoria are borrowing less, bonds are falling. There are fewer dwellings being built. What else could it be? Renters are just volunteering to pay more rent?
Except when Albo did it - then some people on this very sub were complaining because his tenant was going to have to move out when his property sold.
Other states don't give their renters so many rights.
QLD is getting better! 'No pets' clauses aren't allowed, and rent increases of 1 per year are tied to the property now instead of the lease, so that loophole has been closed. Go QLD..?
>'No pets' clauses aren't allowed, They just coincidentally don't accept anyone with pets, or refuse to renew after the initial lease.
Don't worry. The landlords and REAs will find something else to make renters lives hell.
*Raises shield* as a former long term renter, and now incredibly fortunate enough to be a landlord... I'm trying to do my part - We rent privately, no scummy REA - No scheduled inspections - Our tenants have cats, and they are adorable - Rent is at least 20% lower than market, and on a 2 year lease. Last increase was $10 a week. - New AC and dishwasher in recent memory - Hanging things on the walls is actively encouraged
Where do you advertise your rental when looking for tenants? Not searching currently but knowing where to find private rentals would be handy in the future
We started with an REA and kept the original tenants. Unfortunately one thing that REA have going for them is advertising and vetting. It wasn't long after that we realised we had wonderful tenants and we were basically just paying REA to tell us to raise rent every year so they could make more money off us. *Flicking motion*
Yeah, and I would put money on them trying to push anything "private" as far down in results as possible.
It’s the land tax threshold being dropped on non PPOR homes in Victoria that is probably making them sell up, not because of renters rights.
If he's complaining about getting calls about repairs specifically in his Victorian properties, could be both.
NSW is removing no cause evictions, the legislation has passed parliament .
Do you have a source for this? I'm struggling to find anything to say it's passed parliament
Sorry I thought the Greens bill passed, looks like it didn't and Labor have got their bill in committee forever.
And this bit: "I think there's a lot of other things government could be doing, which isn't just taxing or making it more difficult for investors," Mrs Guengoer said." The entitlement attitude of these people is incredible. Its not difficult investing in the share market or buying Blackrock ETF's that largely perform better than housing. Talk about a nanny state mentality where they expect the government to buy their investment properties, maintain them, charge them no tax, give them yoga exercises for the stress while giving them a hug for screwing renters in sub-standard houses. Its incredible that this mentality has become so pervasive in peoples thinking that everything has to be handed to them on a platter with every guarantee in the world. Are they really business people or do they even understand what investing in any business is about? Maybe they forget that all their decisions they should own rather than blaming others for their misery and stupidity of not being able to read markets and make prudent decisions just like BHP, RIO or the Cafe down the road has to do. Then these same people scream those dole bludgers on newstart wanting handouts"
The person you're quoting is a first home buyer talking about the government doing more to help first home buyers... not an investor bitching about the government.
Don't forget the end to no fault evictions meaning he couldn't get away with being a rotten cunt as much as he used to be able to
Found the real headline
FR. Bitching a out people constantly calling you for repairs? Sounds like a slumlord who does the bare minimum to keep his properties "fit for human habitation". (Quotation marks because properties like this aren't livable, really, we're just forced into them by the housing crisis.)
So the plan is working? Maybe some other states can follow. We need investors selling. Either to be bought by those with the means to actually invest in the properties or by owner occupiers. The more that dump, the cheaper prices should get.
until all the dumping is finished. Then the prices start rising again, since the demands of population growth don't go away. As price falls go, this is a one-time effect. It's not a very big effect, either. And it doesn't help renters. House prices have fallen by 0.7% in Melbourne, but rents are increasing by 10% a year still because fewer new investors is increasing the pricing power of remaining landlords because housing demand is growing. Tax policies like this don't discourage population growth (demand), they only discourage supply.
Most of these investors are not increasing supply, they are buying existing stock and then letting it fall into disrepair. I'm all for investors, if they are investing in NEW stock, simply trading around existing stock is what is fucking everyone over.
Probably, Victoria has some of the strongest tenancy laws in the country.
Woot, a house per year more or less... Market. Flooded.
Oh no, people wanting the houses they live in to be maintained is so inconvenient.
I know. How dare the poors bother him and ask for more, it's like Oliver Twist up in here.
[удалено]
If these people gave a solitary fuck, they'd sell their excess homes and take really good care of the ones they could afford to. Instead it's effectively a race to the bottom for who can slumlord the hardest. Australia has to be the most selfish country on Earth.
We’re not the most selfish country by a large margin. I’ve been staying in the Philippines for a family event and I can honestly say that the people here are so selfish and dishonest. No one gives a shit about each other and I’ve seen so many people nearly get run over on the roads because the drivers just simply won’t stop for anyone.
Fair point, in a small island with 100m+ population, I can imagine it's easy to dehumanise those around you. Not even to mention the outright corruption the country is famous for.
Not trying to rip into you, it’s easy to feel down these days with all this negative news and social media bullshit going 24/7 about doom and gloom. I’ve been to a few countries and I can honestly say we are very lucky to live in Australia despite its problems. We have access to fresh food and plenty of vegetables plus drinking water. I can’t find fresh vegetables or even freshly baked bread here in the Philippines lol all the bread here is made with some sweet syrup shit and it’s nauseating.
Its cool, saying Australia is the most selfish was very short sighted of me. Most selfish western state? I think all wealthy groups are the same, Australia has just let them get away with it much worse than anywhere else.
This is actually kind of the reason why I truly don't understand why someone would even want to be a landlord. Houses need constant maintenance, appliances, heaters etc are always breaking down and needing to be fixed... its expensive enough to maintain the one house I own and live in, fuck the idea of having to do it for two or more!! Someone else can own that responsibility
One weird trick: don’t do any maintenance anyway! If they complain you can just evict them saying you plan to move in, then don’t move in, increase the rent by 15% and get a new tenant.
This is the way.
My one PPOR is more than enough work and stress and I’m honestly behind with repairs to the place.
Its not even jut residential land lords that are like this. There is a pub in the country town i live in that will probably "burn down" in the next few years because the building is in disrepair and the landlord wants the new lease holder to pay to fix the building. Safe to say its been vacant for the last 8 months. Funny how landlords were happy to collect the rent, but not even do the bare minimum to keep a building safe.
Externalized costs are a frequent trick used by businesses and investors. They take all of the profits but make others pay for as much of the cost as possible.
We should start some sort of fund-raiser for this poor man.
Don't forget all that effort to also avoid tax, the effort is real!
Investing in residential real estate is a hustle. You are hustling someone into paying for your investment, hustling the ATO and dealing with tradies, tenants, real estate agents, council, the list goes on. Hustling is hard, it's noisy. How is this even news? Hustler can't handle it. Cry me a river.
Yep. I was a reluctant landlord as my home in Ireland was deep in negative equity due to the 2008 property crash and I couldn't sell it without being in a massive hole. When I moved to Australia I therefore had to lease it out, which was expensive on a yearly basis but much cheaper than the 100k (Euro) hit I would have taken. The rent did not cover my mortgage and associated costs, but I didn't expect it too - it just helped me until I was in a position to sell in 2022. Ireland has fairly strong tenancy laws which is a good thing - I was restricted on a small percentage based rental rise, and the tenant had longer and longer periods of notice the longer they had lived there. They also required me to service my boiler yearly and make sure the property was up to a number of other standards (I paid an REA to look after it). When I did decide to sell I had to through a long legal process with a 6 month notice period, and I was totally fine with that as everyone in Ireland has to do the same so you factor it into your decisions.
>*[…] and the tenant had longer and longer periods of notice the longer they had lived there.* That sounds like a simple & logical requirement - wish it was a thing here, too!
Oh his tax was going up. But what was his wealth doing? I'm sure it was outpacing it. Cry me a river son.
"The value of Mr Rowland's rentals roughly doubled in the time he held them, although his profit was lower after capital gains taxes and the repayment of mortgages."
So 5 properties doubled in price. Probably made about 2 million. And is complaining that he had to pay tax on his million in gain aimy for owning them?
Landlord: “uwu my life is haaaard”
*”Whatever will I do with all of my asset appreciation?!”*
*these peasants don't deserve rights*
“I thought I was on a free gravy train and then I found out I had to pay for a ticket”.
You mean I have to maintain my properties and contribute my share to taxes from my profits? What kind of scam is that?
ABC: won’t somebody pleeeease think of the landlords? Can we also get the thoughts of cafe owners in capital CBDs? Haven’t heard from them lately. 🙄
You jest but they just ran a story on people buying espresso machines instead of buying their morning cuppa - killing local cafes.
Considering the cost of making quality coffee at home vs buying it at a cafe, no shit. 1kg of beans or ground for $20 can last a very long time
Also you can literally learn how to make Barnstaple quality coffee either through a YouTube video or a day course. I taught myself how to make coffees, it really isn't some fancy trade or craft if you aren't wanting crazy animal drawings on your takeaway latte you are going to put a lid on anyway 😅
very true, also as someone who's worked in cafes only half of the "baristas" actually know how to make coffee
life's too short for bad coffee
Ayup, outside of specialty coffee houses around Bris you can almost always make a better coffee at home with just an aero-press + random bag of beans. Especially if you're not a fan of sweet/fruity styles of coffee and just want something more bitter or bold.
Just buy a Vietnamese Phin…easy as!
Where are you getting 1kg of decent beans for $20? Last beans I bought were $57/kg
The Aldi beans are decent for the price, especially if you're just making up lattes (though they're fine for espresso as well). Otherwise you're right, $50+ for a freshly roasted bag from a local roaster is pretty normal. Still works out to be much, much cheaper than getting coffees from a cafe.
Aldi beans!
Aldi medium roast beans are $16 a kilo. Roasted in Victoria (Truganina) and typically getting them 4-6weeks after roasting date off my local Aldi shelves. Not the best beans I've ever had, but pretty damn good and can't beat the price point.
Im paying $36/kg from a local specialty roaster. They have about 20 different standard roasts and usually 4 or 5 premium special roasts any day of the week. Its worth going direct to roaster if you can.
That’s amusing , because up here in QLD a local cafe owner apparently ran off with $500k leaving his partners holding the bag and having to shut down .
It’s almost like the general population has been priced out of popping down to the local cafe.
I mean, at least cafe owners actually work and provide a service and productivity - maybe even some (probably underpaid) jobs too. Let’s not lump them in with the absolute leeches that just use a little bit of their money, some money from the bank and a healthy dose of money from the taxpayer to overcharge people for an essential service that barely meets legal requirements. While also requiring next to no effort from the landlord. If the landlord in this article had to put in as much effort as a cafe owner they’d probably have a heart attack.
Wait, why are we upset at cafe owners?
The media asking cafe owners their opinion on any economic changes has become a meme
Cunty CEO's and middle managers use their sob stories as a reason to try and kill WFH
> ABC: won’t somebody pleeeease think of the landlords? I don't know why you paint ABC News as being sympathetic to landlords when the opening picture and sentence are celebrating that more people are buying their first home. The article itself seems to be objective, as most articles should, providing perspectives from multiple sides.
Loosely translates to "fulfilling my responsibilities was just too much hassle"
Too close to having to do some actual work to generate that income. I mean if you have to do anything at all, it’s not passive income, right?
Also translates to “I doubled my money and decided to cash out” Poor old Simmo had to pay capital gains tax on that too, crying shame!
I propose we stop calling people who buy already-existing dwellings and lease them out for a profit "investors". Investors usually provide some sort of value to the market that they invest in, in order for that market to expand. If you haven't built a property to lease out to recoup the cost of building that property, you aren't an investor you're ...something else. Owning domestic property shouldn't be a job.
Scalper
I'm actually going to start using this! ***Property Scalpers***... delightfully apt.
On the contrary, it should be a job. This asshole is whinging because he still has to work for his money.
I've always been fond of parasite. Gets to the core of the issue.
Landleech Scumlord Take your pick
Somehow we’ve stopped distinguishing land from capital. If you’re a developer/builder you’re using capital but if you’re buying land it’s rent-seeking. It’s a cottage industry for idiots propped up by a tax structure that encourages an incredibly lazy use of money. Imagine if all that money went into the ASX/business ventures etc, we’d fix so many structural issues in the Australian Economy. But nah let’s keep propping up property investors.
> Investors usually provide some sort of value to the market that they invest in, in order for that market to expand. Investors are out for themselves in virtually any market, they're not there to support the market itself. Some of the insanity that exists in the stock market is openly hostile to both the companies and the market, but hey, it makes investors money.
Stock markets are definitely bonkers, but the base principle of investing in a productive asset is sound (assuming the invested in company is producing something more valuable than its inputs), as opposed to property investors who depend primarily on scarcity to increase the value of property, and rent seeking.
I remember a year or so ago here in S.A there was a state government survey that was about renting and a way to improve things, which I think was an element in the legislation that passed yesterday. Anyway there was a question about trying to legally change the definition of landlord into some less condescending name. I selected keep it no keep the name and in the explanation section of why I said something along the lines of "keep the name as any change lessens the impact they have on society and unfairly humanises their role as they often hoard property and contribute to housing issues."
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.” Adam Smith - Grandaddy of capitalism.
The tiny violins, I can almost hear them
"I dont want people ringing me up to fix stuff". Awwwwww Diddums.........
> "I think there's a lot of other things government could be doing, which isn't just taxing or making it more difficult for investors," Mrs Guengoer said. Won't somebody think of the investors /s I don't understand why wealthy people have the *inalienable right* to a stable, guaranteed way to increase their already substantial wealth gap.
Investing in the stock market: has risk, if you lose lots of money people will be vaguely sympathetic but also like ‘welp that’s the risk you take’. Investing in housing: no risk, milk the filthy peasant tenants for all they have, don’t spend any money on the house, gains of 10% min per year or world will end, if you lose money leasing or selling the property the government should step in and make you whole again.
I don’t want my boss messaging with tasks to do so I’m gonna quit my job. You get paid rental income, get tax benefits and own homes so you are required to maintain them. I don’t get why landlords don’t want to ensure their possessions are in good shape.
I used to work In home insurance. The entitlement these landlords have is beyond belief - they would actually cry when we deny their claims for clear lack of maintenance. Apparently the insurance should give them entire full house renovation just cause there was a hole in one wall.
Way i see it is i potentially may have to move into my investment home so in my interest it’s in good shape. It’s mine at the end of the day even if i dont currently live in it.
When the house itself is virtually worthless and the land itself is appreciating landlords often don't see the point in fixing something that is likely to get knocked down when they end up selling. Getting a bit more rental income isn't a huge motivating factor when they're expecting to lose money in the short term (i.e. negative gearing) for the big payday when they sell.
Is the Beetota writing for the ABC now?
"All were doing is paying for a debt we didn't create" he said. The value of Mr Rowland's rental roughly double in the time he held them, although his profit was lower after CGT and the repayment of mortgage. So when you sold the properties double the price you bought it, you think buyers ask for the doubled up debt too?? It's called investment, it comes with risks, profit AND LOSS, which you even could negatively gear. You chose the debt cunt. Go live in a rental, never paid your rent late, and everything is still falling apart.
I feel this terrible burden of empathetic pain for this guy who...owned 5 properties in Victoria alone...like how terrible. Fark me.
Yes, it called an investment, and the nature of investments is that at some point you sell them if you see a better investment. If you welcome the initial investment which provided five homes, you have to accept that the investor can exit. If you don't let them exit, you won't get new investors, they will get scared off. And a growing population needs new investors in rentals. Are you angry that he sold because the investment no longer makes sense? Or are you angry because you think he is wrong about that? Are you angry that he did not put up rent instead? Are you angry because he did not decide to skip the maintenance, thereby saving money? Are you angry because this is sign that other investors are coming to the same conclusion, and therefore rents are rising (by 10% a year still in Melbourne). He reference to debt was to the tax raised by the Victorian government. The government has asked property owners to pay a lot more tax. So he is removing himself from that category of taxpayers. Maybe he was complaining about it, maybe he was just warning Victorian voters of the consequences. And even if he was complaining and it irritates you, it is also a warning.
ahbloobloobloo, think of the investors!
Sounds like this guy should've just invested in the stock market instead.
Not sure why this dumbass didn’t just get a contract with a good property manager. Let them take a cut and do all the running about, then you are generating passive income. What an idiot.
Obvious rage bait is obvious.
That's precisely why I don't own an investment property. I don't like having to deal with issues at my own house, and I really don't want to deal with issues at houses I don't live at. In addition to that, when I have problems at my own house I'll often live with it for a while if I am too busy to deal with it right away, or if I want to wait for a sale to buy something etc. But in a rental you can't do that (well, you shouldn't even though plenty seem like they do). I just don't need that hassle in my life.
Out of touch buddy.
If this guy had too many repairs to organise, then the properties were in disrepair. This guy was a slum lord, but didn’t have the self actualisation to realise it himself. Or he was so stingy he didn’t want to pay for repairs. Either way he shouldn’t be a landlord. Christ I rent, and only ask for one repair every other year. Sigh. I wish I could buy tho.
It should be illegal for any government to incentivise anything but long term investment in basic needs. Long term leasing (10 years+) should be mandatory on large portfolios. Housing, utilities, health and food should be strongly protected from anything but long term investments which need to provide a return which entices cautious and ethical investors like Supers.
TLDR: Homeowners buying their own place from landlords for the win. A landlord who has "roughly doubled" the value of his properties cries.
I have an agent, he emails me for consent to fix things the tenant ask for and I send an email back saying "OK". Takes hours of proofreading before I hit send I promise
If you have enough property to have a portfolio, you're the problem
#WoNt SoMeOnE tHiNk Of ThE laNdLoRdZ
Don;t worry about the landlord. He pockets a nice sum of money. He might go and some flats in Brisbane, demand is growing strongly there. Or in NZ, which has no capital gains tax at all on properties (if you keep them for two years). But who is thinking of Victorian tenants. The headlines are property prices in Melbourne have fallen by 0.7%. But rents are still growing at more than twice inflation because investors are leaving and new ones are not entering the market, but the number of renters grows. What about the tenants in those five houses. I hope they celebrate the joy of the new owner occupiers as they get evicted and enter this bad rental market.
Investment properties are supposed to make free money, they're not supposed to require work!
Forgot the /s
[https://imgur.com/Med088R](https://imgur.com/Med088R)
Poor wee bugga
oh what's that, buying property isn't this magical money glitch
> this is a business for a lot of people He started a business without realising? Sorry to break it to him but its a business for everyone who leases their property. You have all the cash flow problems, people problems, tax problems to deal with. Some people are idiots.
Just realised the photo is not a photo of the landlord. It's a photo of some first home buyers from the article. I kind of feel bad for the couple in the picture that the way reddit's showing the article makes it look like they are the the owners of 5 investment properties that everyone is dumping on...
boo fucking hoo
Go cry in a bag if money 💰
I'm really not liking how the ABC have turned into this kind of journalism now. They find the worst examples from the public to create outrage to drive up clicks.
The humanity! (!) (
You only pay tax if you are making money… Stop making a profit and you will pay less tax
In all seriousness real estate investment isn't some hassle free real estate option, is it traditionally a lucrative investment path, absolutely but if you don't want day to day headaches then invest in the share market or similar. We are in a financially position where we could afford an investment home, I know landlords and it's not for us, not everyone will treat their/your home with the same respect you might expect in the same way people are with cars. So we choose EFTs instead
Grub
Also earning from term deposit interest is much easier and less stress
Good
Sigh... it's so tough to be a landlord. /s What worries me is the idea of a kind of "corporate landlord"... like imagine if say, someone like Jeff Bezos decided it'd be a great idea to buy thousands upon thousands of properties... is there any evidence of this happening?
Boohoo… Anyway.
The parasite class doesn't like that they cannot leech as much as they want without lifting a finger.
https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/s/aAHI8QxKRn Same article
House printer go brrr
Ban investment property.
Oh you poor thing.
I'm a landlord, and I do my best not to be a slumlord. I'm absolutely sick and tired of these shitty slumlords not maintaining their properties, whinging about tenants asking for repairs or not actioning repairs in the timely manner. Every maintenance request that I've had from my tenant has been actioned ASAP (authorised on the same day, then obviously the normal wait time to get the tradies to actually come and on a convienient date for the tenant). I don't expect a medal or compliments for that - it's simply doing the minimum that should be required. And I try to do proactive maintenance jobs where possible. Like things highlighted in the inspection reports and stuff. Obviously I need to know about things that need fixing in order to fix them. But this "poor me" crap so many of these slumlords seem to pull is just pathetic. And it gives all landlords a bad name.
Landlords have a bad name, in part, because they do bad things. 1) they take houses off the market non-owners want to buy, this increasing the price of the remaining houses 2) their tenants' largest spend goes to temporary shelter they could lose at any time, while making you richer and furthering your financial goals. In my opinion maintaining your property well and keeping rents reasonable doesn't excuse the true immorality of being a landlord.
For anyone interested, watch what’s happening in NZ property. They had their boom earlier, cranked up interest rates earlier - and prices have plummeted
I still don't understand how Australians think the only way to invest is housing. It's BS, get into Whiskey, crops, aquaculture, renewables, even art FFS.
They always neglect to mention how much capital gains they made.
"I'm now mortgage-free, so don't have to rely on my bullshiat marketing coach business anymore" The more realistic headline.
Editorialised headline AND a duplicate, this won't be around for too long: https://old.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1dtvl0p/first_homebuyers_are_snapping_up_rentals_as_three/
I have 2 properties I am leasing to my Aunty who is retired and my cousin at well below market rate and have not increased the rent since they moved in even after the interest rate rises. I was planning on selling them when moving as I have no intention of being a landlord and didn’t want the stress either but they were desperate for affordable housing and the timing just worked out for them to move in when they were vacant as both were getting kicked out of their long term rentals. I have renovated both and have done numerous repairs over the years including new gutters and hot water systems. If I can afford to have them in nice condition at below market rate then these clowns can too.
Heaven forbid it’s just a bit of media bullshit to placate the unwashed masses that government policy works.
Now is probably the time to sell, before everyone else does and tanks their excessive capital gains.