How Much Is 17 More Than 83

[Fonda Stacer]

Obviouslythere will be costs associated with renting the home out: taxable income, maintenance on the property, etc., so if we rent it out we don't want to just charge what we're paying on our mortgage - we'd definitely be losing money if we did that.

Given the assorted costs associated with maintaining a home/rental property, what is the minimum amount of rent that would be reasonable to charge above the cost of the mortgage? Is there some rule of thumb to use? For example, say your mortgage/tax/insurance payment is $1,000 so add 50% and you'll need $1,500 in rent to pay taxes on your rental income, put money away for eventual repairs, etc.?

I am sorry to say, you are asking the wrong question. If I own a rental that I bought with cash, I have zero mortgage. The guy I sell it to uses a hard money lender (charging a high rate) and finances 100%. All of this means nothing to the prospective tenant.

In your situation, I understand you are looking to decide on a rent based on your costs. That ship has sailed. You own already. You need to look in the area and find out what your house will rent for. And that number will tell you whether you can afford to treat it as a rental or would be better off selling.

Keep in mind - you don't list a country, but if you are in US, part of a rental property is that you 'must' depreciate it each year. This is a tax thing. You reduce your cost basis each year and that amount is a loss against income from the rental or might be used against your ordinary income. But, when you sell, your basis is lower by this amount and you will be taxed on the difference from your basis to the sale price.

Edit: After reading OP's updated question, let me answer this way. There are experts who suggest that a rental property should have a high enough rent so that 50% of rent covers expenses. This doesn't include the mortgage. e.g. $1500 rent, $750 goes to taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs, etc. the remaining $750 can be applied to the mortgage, and what remains is cash profit.

No one can give you more than a vague idea of what to look for, because you haven't shared the numbers. What are your taxes? Insurance? Annual costs for landscaping/snow plowing? Then take every item that has a limited life, and divide the cost by its lifetime. e.g. $12,000 roof over 20 years is $600. Do this for painting, and every appliance. Then allow a 10% vacancy rate. If you cover all of this and the mortgage, it may be worth keeping. Since you have zero equity, time is on your side, the price may rise, and hopefully, the monthly payments chip away at the loan.

For example there is a house on my street that has been looking for renters for 3 years. They want $2,500 a month. This covers their mortgage, and a little bit more for taxes and repairs. It has never been rented once. Other homes in my neighborhood rent for around $1,000 a month. There is no value to a renter in renting a house that is $1,500 more then a similar house 2 doors down.

Now what you can look at is cost mitigation. So I am using data from my area. Houses in my part of Florida must have A/C running in the wet months to keep the moisture from ruining the house. This can easily be $100 a month (usually more). The city requires you to have water service, even when not occupied, though the cost is very small. Same with waste, which is a flat fee: $20 a month. Yard watering is a must during the dry months (if you want to keep grass). Let's say that comes out to $50 a month, year round. Pest control is a must, especially if your house has wooden parts (like floors or a roof). Even modest pest control is $25 a month. Property taxes around $240 a month. Let's say your mortgage is around $1,000 a month. That means to sit empty your house would cost $1,435.

The important take away from this, is that it's not a source of income for the landlord as much as it is an investment. You will likely not be able to rent a house for more then a mortgage + costs + taxes, but it does make a good investment vehicle.

first, let me reiterate what everyone else is saying about rental rates having nothing to do with your expenses. you should charge market rates. slightly higher if you want better tenants and slightly lower if you want to avoid prolonged vacancy. you can determine market rates by finding similar properties in your area and seeing what they are asking for rent. you will need to adjust for location, square footage, number of bathrooms, etc.

if you add up all of the above expenses and it's more than the market rates for rent, you should sell. if the above expenses are below the market rates, then you need to consider if the profit margin is enough to justify the hassle and the risk.

This is tricky to determine because future valuations are uncertain. You can make rough estimates though. The most uncertain component is likely to be capital appreciation or depreciation (increase or decrease in the value of your property). This is usually a relatively large number (significant to the calculation). The value is uncertain because it depends on predictions of the housing market. Future interest rates or economic conditions will likely play a major role in dictating the future value of your home. Obviously there are numerous other costs to consider such as maintenance, tax and insurance some of which may be via escrow and included in your mortgage payment. Largest uncertainty in terms of income are the level of rent and occupancy rate. The former is reasonably predictable, the latter less so.

The absolute amount you are paying on the mortgage is a red herring similar to when car dealers ask you what payment you can afford. That's not what's relevant. What's relevant is the Net Present Value of ALL the payments in relation to what you are getting in return.

Note that one issue with assessing your cost of capital is, what's your opportunity cost. ie. if you didn't have the money tied up in real estate, what could you be earning with it elsewhere? This is not really part of the cost of capital, but it's something to consider.

Also note that the total monthly payment for the mortgage is not useful to your calculations because a significant chunk of the payment will likely be to pay down principal and as such represents no real cost to you (its really just a transfer - reducing your bank balance but increasing your equity in the home). The interest portion is a real cost to you.

I just wanted to add one factor to the other answers. The cost of maintenance etc. is not a fraction of the cost of financing - it is more likely a fraction of the value of the house, and a function of its age. If you say you need to replace a roof every 25 years, and that costs $10,000 (depends on the size of the house, obviously), then you need to set aside $400 a year for roof repair. Other costs (painting, flooring, kitchen, bathrooms, water heaters, heating, AC, yard upkeep etc) can be roughly estimated in the same way. A rule of thumb is 1% of the value of the house per year to cover all big-ticket maintenance. If you pay 4% mortgage, that would increase the reserve by 25%; but if interest rates rise, the fraction may be smaller (I remember paying over 10% mortgage...).

In general, whether keeping a property for long term rental income (with the potential for appreciation - but prices can go up and down) is a good idea will largely depend on your ability to predict future costs and value. If you have a variable mortgage, that will be harder to do.

Your reasoning is backwards. As others have pointed out, you cannot just decide how much you charge irrespective of the market. Let me paraphrase a little economics 101 to underline why you also should not think like this:

You can see a rental property like your house (the same reasoning is usually explained with the example of hotel rooms) as a series of perishable goods. Your house represents the potential sale of the January rent (which perishes once January is over), plus the February rent etc.

Your approach was to compute the total costs (all fixed and variable costs of owning that house as well as costs associated to renting specifically) and average them over the time period so that you know how much to ask at least.

Assuming that you are only looking to rent it out, not sell it or let a family member live there, you can't think like this. Most of those costs that you averaged are what economists call sunk costs. You have already incurred the mortgage costs and they are not affected by your decision to rent or not to rent. These costs are irrelevant to your decision making process. You only need to think about marginal costs: those additional costs that you have when you rent but not when you don't.

Look at the market prices for renting similar properties in that region and compare them with your marginal costs. As long as they are higher than your marginal costs, rent it out. This does not mean that you are sure to make profits, but it means that you are sure to make less losses than in your only alternative of not renting.

Clark Howard does say you really need to be getting 90% back in the mortgage payment. Remember that what ever your paying in principle a month is adding to your net worth and every month that gets you a little more money than the last payment. Also this is a good hedge on inflation and at some point within a few years you will be at break even.

I think the mortgage must not be in the equation at all in order to determine how much to charge. Of course you want to cover your mortgage but the renting price is determined only by how much the renter is willing to pay (offer and demand) and not your mortgage (some people don't even have a mortgage).

In order to arrive at a decision you need the numbers: I suggest a spreadsheet. List the monthly and annual costs (see other responses). Then determine what the market rate for rental. Once you have the numbers it will be clear from a numbers standpoint. One has consider the hassle of owning property from a distance, which is not factored into the spreadsheet

3a8082e126