Commercial landlords (who don't employ their own maintenance/service workers) can negotiate contracts at lower cost, they can for equipment too (including roof replacements, they don't need to buy them all at once to do so). Insurance for individual landlords might be higher, but for those with lots of properties they typically do get lower per property costs. They also can negotiate better leverage rates due to the higher amount of total business they bring. They also can just be more efficient at managing the routine costs because of experience and the ability to try different approaches and improve on them. They are more likely to have a better read on local price conditions (and thus know when to retain a rental vs. selling it to one of those overpaying owner-occupiers who thinks buying is always better) which is key to long-term profitability.I can see that happening. But it seems fairly unlikely. What are the economies of scale? `Are they buying 50 roof replacements at one time? Are the property taxes and insurance lower? Unlikely. The insurance is usually higher for rental properties.
Landlords can make a profit and it still be cheaper for the renter than owning... just like with every other good or service you buy from someone else.
Retail landlords (meaning those one off investors or accidental landlords) are far less likely to be profitable in their endeavors (for the reasons above along with the happenstance of their initial purchase decisions).
Statistics: Posted by avalpert1 — Wed Dec 04, 2024 9:32 am — Replies 369 — Views 32376