Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeklaas | Hacker News Reader

It's sensible in San Francisco because having an active renter makes a property worth significantly less.

Why? You basically cannot kick evict a renter or raise their rent.

Doesn’t that depend on the age of the building? I thought rent control was 1970s and earlier? That being said, SF is generally very tenant/sub tenant friendly in its laws.

Even still, landlords fear legal repercussions so much that they're willing to let a lot slide. When I moved out of my SF apartment, a plant I had had damaged the floor and my landlord was willing to eat the cost provided we moved out swiftly. Replacing the floors probably set him back a couple grand, but evicting tenants could be far more expensive.

From what I've seen of SF rentals and landlords, that's potentially the most money he had spent on maintenance & renovations in a decade, while collecting some of the most profitable rent in the country.

With a price to rent ratio of 53, San Francisco has the least profitable rent in the country.

https://smartasset.com/mortgage/price-to-rent-ratio-50-large...

Yes, if you bought today. What's the point of your post?

It makes intuitive sense for San Francisco to be "the most profitable rent in the country" as you claimed, but the surprising and counterintuitive truth is that it's the opposite.

Are you claiming that landlords who purchased property in SF 15+ years ago aren't making extremely high profits off rent?

The point is they could make even more by selling and using the money to buy in places with higher rent/buy ratio.

They've made more money from appreciation than from rising rents.

Can you please link me a list of cities with a better buy:rent ratio when comparing 2008-2011 SF to 2021 SF? Assuming you were to buy and rent now, since that's the conversation we're having. I have some friends who would be really interested. I just tried to find some on my own, and I could not.

I don’t think you understood his point. Obviously, those homes have appreciated. His point is that people who own property right now in SF stand to make more money by simply selling their property, and using the proceeds to purchase property in other cities around the country, with better ratios.

Appreciation, by itself, will naturally drive this ratio down because of rent control laws. The value of the home is the denominator in that fraction.

How is that relevant to the original post?

I don’t think you can make a claim and then dismiss counter-claims based on relevance. You decided that relative profitability of rent in different cities was relevant here.

Sitting empty it's hemorrhaging cash, which isn't a great quality for investors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com