>> [Cost have not risen] nearly as much. If at all.

Your counterargument:

> Have you looked over their books?

> Landlords have to pay:

> 1. taxes 2. maintenance 3. insurance 4. mortgage costs (they're usually leveraged) 5. legal and lawyer fees for contracts and disputes 6. costs of unrented space 7. accounting costs 8. costs of just keeping track of all the changing laws 9. depreciation

I think your argument is "there are lots of costs", which is true and people don't appreciate that a landlord can have a hard time.

But it doesn't work as an argument about how much costs have risen or fallen.

Most of the costs you listed have either stayed the same or gone down in recent years, so it doesn't appear to support your side of that argument.

Mortgage costs in particular have gone down a lot in recent years. Mortgages are great if you can get them, because they are so cheap now.

6 has gone up but that one is cheating. It's like saying landlord's income is lower than the amount it "should" have gone up, which does not work as an argument that landlords actually have to pay out more. If 6 has gone up due to longer voids, those voids (until recently) are usually due to raising the rent, their own decision, so again do not constitute landlords paying out more.

9 is an interesting mixed bag, as depreciation is only relevant as a true outgoing cost if you're going to sell the property someday, in which case you should only be counting the interest component of the mortgage, which has gone down, as well as the change in property price, which has probably gone up by more than depreciation (until recently).

You can't know these costs have not risen by guesswork. You have to actually look into the business and their P&L statements. And I was responding to a line of "if at all".

Dismissing depreciation is a serious mistake. All buildings deteriorate, become obsolete, become inefficient and maladapted to modern conditions, and simply "wear out" over time. It's pretty obvious if you look at a city and notice that there aren't many old buildings. Old buildings get knocked down and replaced all the time.

Just think what happens when the city says you have to install fire sprinkers. Or do earthquake upgrades. Or tear all the cladding off because it's been ruled a fire hazard. Or your HVAC system is obsolete. Or the wiring isn't up to code anymore. These all happen.

The generally accepted rule is buildings have a 30 year life.

But think of it another way. Businesses are subject to supply&demand, too. If there was some high margin low risk business, entrepreneurs would rush into it, thereby erasing the high margins. If this is not happening, it's usually because the government via regulation or law, has prevented competition.

There's nothing about property management that suggests it is immune from these forces.

> Dismissing depreciation is a serious mistake. ... > The generally accepted rule is buildings have a 30 year life.

I think you are saying "there are substantial costs" again.

It only works as an argument about rising costs if backed up by "and the real costs to the landlord caused by depreciation have actually risen".

Do you have anything to back that up?

I think most people take the view that landlords have generally benefitted, until recently, from steadily rising property prices, and this nearly always greatly outweighs depreciation over 30 years. I.e. the cost of property doubles more often than every 30 years, so you can use the bonanza to buy replacement buildings which offsets the cost of old buildings being taken down.

And that doesn't even consider cost of the land, which does not suffer depreciation even if a building has to be replaced, and is often the majority of the cost of purchase.

> There's nothing about property management that suggests it is immune from these forces.

But there is a very significant obstacle to these forces acting fluidly according to the ebb and flow of commercial forces! I would happily be a landlord (until recently and maybe even then) on the basis of commercial thinking, but the avenue is not open to me because I don't have access to capital. Capital is around, but it will tend to be allocated first to an entity with an existing portfolio.

Also, in the town where I live, even if I had a few million, I would struggle to become a landlord of commercial property larger than a tiny corner shop, because very few units are for sale. When one comes up, which is not often, there's a secret bidding war because pent up demand exists as does the money behind it, and buyers simply cannot find something. This is despite a very large number of empty units, with owners who seem to be happy keeping them empty (I know several companies that have tried renting be turned away on various grounds, sometimes "we are not interested in renting it at all, we have plans for it in 10 years", others "we want personal rent guarantees from all the directors as well as a large deposit".) Heck, even renting is subject to bidding wars and personal interviews to decide which company should be allowed to rent among several candidates (I've been involved in this twice as a business tenant, and several times for residential, so I'm not speculating.)

I've actually been in the commercial property management business for a while. I can assure you that the notion that you can charge whatever rent you like is false. That it's a magical money machine is false. That you don't have large and ever-growing expenses is false. That landlords don't go bust is false. That you make money with an unrented property is false. That there is some secret cabal of landlords is false.

I lost money every year in it, and finally gave it up before it crushed me.

Sure, I stink as a businessman. But that's also my point. It ain't an easy business to make money in.