My manager screens at 3x rent, I've been approving at 2.5x with reserves. Who's right?
Nine units, three of them under a manager I brought on last year for the ones furthest from me. Her written criteria say gross income at 3x monthly rent, no evictions in seven years, minimum credit score, verifiable employment. Mine on the six I still handle myself have been closer to 2.5x plus two months of visible savings plus a clean landlord reference going back at least two years.
Her 3x standard has held up. Two placements, both paying on time, but one unit sat 41 days and the other 29 days, and at a $1,250 rent that vacancy cost me more than a month of the difference in rent I might have gotten from a stronger applicant.
My 2.5x-plus-reserves standard has produced one late payer in three years and one tenant who's now in year four and I'd keep forever. It's also produced a much faster fill. In my market, and I think this is the part that matters, 3x of a $1,250 rent means $45,000 a year and there are a lot of good tenants here who don't make that.
Her answer is that a written standard applied identically to every applicant is the defensible one, and the reserves-and-reference version is judgment, which is harder to document. That's a fair hit and it's a fair housing question I'd want a lawyer's read on in my state before I made her change anything.
So is 3x the right screen, or is it a filter that costs more in vacancy than it saves in risk?
Income screen on a workforce-rent unit?
16 votes