Wouldn't this mean that landlords are effectively leaving money on the table? If it's not rent controlled, couldn't they just jack up the rent whenever they felt like it?
Yes.
>If it's not rent controlled, couldn't they just jack up the rent whenever they felt like it?
I was talking with a guy who I work with who is a landlord on the side, and he seemed to have this real labor-theory-of-value sense of fairness, like he says he jacks up rent every time his taxes or insurance or what have you goes up, but it sounds like he's like 5 years behind market (which is a huge amount)
And this is super common in California, small-time landlords, if the tenant is not causing issues, tend to raise rents rather less than market.
I think some of it is that the vast majority of your ROI, in California, comes from property appreciation, (while in many other markets, as far as I can tell, you usually get a lot more cashflow; all the places I looked at in cleveland or in new mexico would be positive cashflow out the gate; all the places I've looked at buying in California only become positive cashflow once rents go up rather a lot) - so I guess maybe some landlords feel that if they don't jack up rents too much on easy tenants, they won't have to do as much work, and as most of their income is actually appreciation on the property which happens either way, they don't see giving up some of the rent as that big of a deal?
I can tell you that if you rent from a professional property management company, your rents will go up way faster, but they are also way more responsive when it comes to fixing things, and there is a strong feeling that if the rents haven't gone up on you in a while, you want to deal with any problems yourself; you don't want to call the landlord, which is evidence in favor of the "landlords avoiding work" theory.
The thing that this theory doesn't explain is that a lot of these landlords seem to be below market by a lot more than what a property management firm would charge. (I think. around here property management companies charge more than usual and usually have really big fees for replacing a moved-out tenant)
A landlord is renting out a long lived expensive asset. Small time landlords I've talked to all mention that you make money on tenants that pay their rent and don't cause issues. Bad tenants easily cost you more than it would to just leave the unit empty. A tenet can easily do $100k worth of damage in less than a year.
A whole lot of the housing stock in silicon valley (and it seems most of what is owned by this type of landlord) is essentially teardowns; stuff built more than 50 years ago to working-class standards. the structure itself represents the right to 'remodel' into something someone willing to pay a million bucks for a house might actually want to live in; and by 'remodel' I mean to leave the 'minimum legal structure' standing (I think paul graham made some joke about it on twitter some time ago, with a photo of a remodel that had one interior wall standing and the rest demolished. The joke was thought to be problematic, if I remember, for some reason I don't remember.)
I mean, sure, if the landlord wants to keep renting out a shack built in the '60s, the wrong tenant can make that quite expensive, but it would be difficult for the tenant to devalue the market value of the asset by 100K.
I suppose that might be another part of it; there certainly is some demand for these older units at market rates, but certainly for people willing to pay full freight, the nicer units go first.
