NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/invest/realest/972

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 1.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!lynx!triton.unm.edu!pkrause
From: [e-mail] (Paul Krause CIRT)
Newsgroups: misc.invest.real-estate
Subject: Re: Real Estate News Summary, Part 128
Message-ID: <wklq90=@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:24:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.wklq90=
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 21

In article <[e-mail]> johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton) writes:
>The problem is if you have a building with about a 10-20% vacancy rate then
>you may not want to lower the rates to fill it up. Once your current tenants
>find out that you lowered the rent for newcomers then everyone will come in
>and want the same deal. Instead of receiving 100% rent on 90% of the building
>you get 90% rent on 100% of the building. You are better off leaving them
>empty and hoping you can ride out the storm.
>
>John Eaton
>!hp-vcd!johne
>
This sounds plausable, but never happened to me.  What I saw more of was
landlords who refused to admit their rents were to high (largely because
of overbuilding of new units) .  They would have 1 or two units in a 4-plex
vacant for months rather than lower the asking rent.   My experience is
with residential, I suspect the above would be more likely in a commercial
situation.  The "storm" can last a long time too.  It took me three years
to get the rents back to what they were "suposed" to be when I bought the
place.  John Reed in his Managing Apartments book spends a lot of time
talking about raising/lowering rents if anyone is interested in more details.
Paul