Does a first nightly rental have to work as a plain long-term rental too, or is that rule just deleting all the good deals?
A client asked me to quote turnover cleaning on a house she hasn't bought yet. When I looked at her numbers, the deal works at 68% occupancy and $240 a night and it does not work at anything much below that. Her lender apparently ran the same house at long-term rent and it doesn't cover the payment there at all. She's fine with that. I found I wasn't sure whether she should be.
The old rule you hear repeated to beginners is that your first nightly rental should also cash flow as a boring long-term rental, so that if the town changes the ordinance or the market floods with listings, you hand it to a twelve-month tenant and survive. The case for it writes itself. One local vote can end the nightly business and the mortgage doesn't care what the council decided.
The case against is just as real, and I hear it from people who are further along than me. That rule deletes almost every property where nightly rentals actually make money. A cabin twenty minutes from a trailhead has close to no long-term rent. A downtown one-bedroom that pencils as a long-term rental is usually somewhere nobody plans a weekend around. Buy only the properties that work both ways and you may end up with a mediocre long-term rental carrying $25k of furniture.
There's a middle version too, where you use 30-day mid-term rent as the floor instead of twelve-month rent, on the theory that most restrictions target stays under 30 days.
Where do you actually land on this, and if you land on the strict version, what did you have to walk away from to keep it?
How should someone underwrite their first nightly rental?
23 votes