{"title":"The Prevalence, Profitability, and Risks of Milking Among Low-End Small Rental Properties","authors":"Nathaniel Decker","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2023.2210560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Low-cost but unsubsidized one- to four-unit rental properties provide a critical source of housing for millions of low- and moderate-income renters. These properties are disproportionately in high-poverty neighborhoods and, until recently, studies of these low-end small rental properties (SRPs) primarily focused on their financial viability. Scholars found that, in general, these properties were marginally profitable at best and carried serious financial risks. Recently, however, studies have found that low-end SRPs may be as profitable as or even more profitable than properties in lower-poverty neighborhoods, and have suggested that these profits are driven by exploitative management. I surveyed the owners and managers of SRPs to understand whether low-end properties were more likely to be profitable and whether the owners who did achieve profits at the low end used “milking” strategies. I found that SRPs in high-poverty neighborhoods are about as likely to be profitable as the rest of the market, but are also financially riskier. I found no compelling evidence of a link between profit and more exploitative management practices at the low end of the market. These findings call for a change in policymakers’ understanding of profit and exploitative management among low-end SRPs.","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Housing Policy Debate","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2023.2210560","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Abstract Low-cost but unsubsidized one- to four-unit rental properties provide a critical source of housing for millions of low- and moderate-income renters. These properties are disproportionately in high-poverty neighborhoods and, until recently, studies of these low-end small rental properties (SRPs) primarily focused on their financial viability. Scholars found that, in general, these properties were marginally profitable at best and carried serious financial risks. Recently, however, studies have found that low-end SRPs may be as profitable as or even more profitable than properties in lower-poverty neighborhoods, and have suggested that these profits are driven by exploitative management. I surveyed the owners and managers of SRPs to understand whether low-end properties were more likely to be profitable and whether the owners who did achieve profits at the low end used “milking” strategies. I found that SRPs in high-poverty neighborhoods are about as likely to be profitable as the rest of the market, but are also financially riskier. I found no compelling evidence of a link between profit and more exploitative management practices at the low end of the market. These findings call for a change in policymakers’ understanding of profit and exploitative management among low-end SRPs.
期刊介绍:
Housing Policy Debate provides a venue for original research on U.S. housing policy. Subjects include affordable housing policy, fair housing policy, land use regulations influencing housing affordability, metropolitan development trends, and linkages among housing policy and energy, environmental, and transportation policy. Housing Policy Debate is published quarterly. Most issues feature a Forum section and an Articles section. The Forum, which highlights a current debate, features a central article and responding comments that represent a range of perspectives. All articles in the Forum and Articles sections undergo a double-blind peer review process.