Speculation. Some investors are more interested in holding the property until they can sell it in the future for a profit, rather than the rent they would earn now. Some landlords will have negative cashflow even if they are charging rent because they know they can sell the property for a profit later.

[–] Dogeek@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

So if the housing market crashed like really bad, by say everybody owning multiple homes being suddenly unable to afford the loans for that many homes, what would happen?

The banks would have to repossess the properties. And sell them on the market, but with many homes to sell, the price would come down crashing.

One can dream.

[–] superweeniehutjrs@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

How does the business of being a landlord not work out to a "yes and" solution? You could make money on rent and sell at a later date. Is risk too high due to the cost of proper upkeep when a unit is occupied? Is it the cost of management?

[–] IMongoose@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

My family has a few houses they rent out. Not nearly enough income to live off of as they all have other jobs, but it's some. As a rule, an empty apartment is better than a bad tenant. Not only will a bad tenant not pay and take months to remove, they will actively destroy the place causing thousands in damages. "Just sue them" someone may say. Well, they don't have any money for rent, they surely don't have 10 months of rent + $4k in repair + legal fees. Sure, we can garnish their wages. What's 5% of $0 in reported income per month?

Yes, some landlords deserve the hate they get but let's not pretend everyone is the perfect tenant either. The people of Walmart need to live somewhere.

[–] bunkyprewster@startrek.website 1 points 10 months ago

I think that a lower price for the rent translates into a lower valuation of the property. So an empty apartment at $2000 a month is still theoretically worth more at sale than a rented apartment at $1500