Would you rent an apartment to a trader

Most people who rent apartments are 1 paycheck away from broke and have a negative net worth. This is true even for those with relatively high incomes.

Given this context undue scrutiny given to a trader who has a proven cash reserve and a wife with a stable job just seems to reflect a personal bias.
 
I read one author trader that he could not even get a mortgage, he had to pay cash for a house; now a trader can not even rent. It is a lonely business. :D
 
In 2005 I had to pay 6 months rent in advance (plus deposit) to get someone to rent me a house. That was in Arizona back when I was trading at Bright. When I moved to California, I was told I couldnt rent without a stable job, even when I offered to pay the entire 1 year lease up front in cash. I seriously think people who rent properties in CA are idiots that they would rent to someone living paycheck to paycheck, but wont rent to someone when they know they are guaranteed the entire lease for 1 year with proven money in the bank.

Oh thats another thing that is annoying in CA. If you are NOT living paycheck to paycheck and you have plenty of savings in the bank, many people think you are a drug dealer. Like only drug dealers have money! Idiots.
 
Quote from peilthetraveler:

In 2005 I had to pay 6 months rent in advance (plus deposit) to get someone to rent me a house. That was in Arizona back when I was trading at Bright. When I moved to California, I was told I couldnt rent without a stable job, even when I offered to pay the entire 1 year lease up front in cash. I seriously think people who rent properties in CA are idiots that they would rent to someone living paycheck to paycheck, but wont rent to someone when they know they are guaranteed the entire lease for 1 year with proven money in the bank.

Oh thats another thing that is annoying in CA. If you are NOT living paycheck to paycheck and you have plenty of savings in the bank, many people think you are a drug dealer. Like only drug dealers have money! Idiots.

I had to stop and comment on this. My father is a sociologist by education. While that degree made him virtually no money. It left a lot of books around that I read while I was very young.

If you go out, and take a look around you with purposeful eyes, you will see that America is basically one enormous workfarm. The indentured servants on this farm have a certain mindset, and the farm sets out to indoctrinate children early.

The farm seeks to guarantee the service of it's workers by encouraging debt, and sexuality( which will eventually lead to debt, unless you are very careful, in which case you will be an administrator on the farm, if not an outright owner/partner eventually.)

When people see you piel, the workers are looking at an owner to be.( You not have yet acquired the trappings associated with ownership)

Since you are not in that Maybach, and you still mingle with the workers, you confuse them, immensely so.

Thoughts?
 
Quote from bearmountain:

We own a rental property in the city, an apartment which we rent out. Our long time tenant moved out, so we held a open house to screen new applicants.

We had this nice young couple come by, his wife is a nurse and he said a self employed trader. In talking with the trader, he said he has been trading for couple of years with 'mixed' results, he said. What raised a flag for me, was when he mentioned they just sold their apartment to raise money for his trading.

They would qualify based on his wife's income, but their budget would be tight.

So, would you rent an apartment to a trader? I am not interested in the rental aspect of it, but the psychological aspect of a trader. The gamblers tendency, the instability, the unpredictability of our profession. Thank you.

PS. I am a part time trader. Despite years and years of effort, never made enough money to make it a full time profession.(sigh)

You as a rental property owner should already know whom (which person) in the couple is applying for the rental...if the spouse name is only on the application...of course you rent to them if her income qualifies her regardless if the spouse is a trader, unemployed, her teenage son or whatever.

However, if they are putting both their names on the rental...then you must include his income with hers even if he's only making a few bucks per month.

Also, you said they just sold their apartment to raise money for his trading...how's that possible. I meant, did you meant they sold their condo or were property owners themselves ?

Mark
 
Quote from peilthetraveler:

In 2005 I had to pay 6 months rent in advance (plus deposit) to get someone to rent me a house. That was in Arizona back when I was trading at Bright. When I moved to California, I was told I couldnt rent without a stable job, even when I offered to pay the entire 1 year lease up front in cash. I seriously think people who rent properties in CA are idiots that they would rent to someone living paycheck to paycheck, but wont rent to someone when they know they are guaranteed the entire lease for 1 year with proven money in the bank.

Oh thats another thing that is annoying in CA. If you are NOT living paycheck to paycheck and you have plenty of savings in the bank, many people think you are a drug dealer. Like only drug dealers have money! Idiots.

My take is what you experienced is a general bias beyond the ability to pay the rent. Lots of landlords prefer to let to people having a "professional" job. It assumed that people in such jobs have a higher level of integrity and care better about preserving the condition of rental property.

A student or someone having a year-long break in the career is thought to be more likely to "destroy" the property and annoy neigbours by partying all night.

Similarly, in the UK many landlords are reluctant to let to "council" tenants (those whose rent is paid off benefits) even though the rantal agreement will normally be with the local authority, who are normally very reliable payers, and is very likely to be renewed for many years.
 
Quote from wrbtrader:

However, if they are putting both their names on the rental...then you must include his income with hers even if he's only making a few bucks per month.
The reasonable assumption is the combined income should be sufficient to pay the rent comfortably. So, adding a person with zero income to teh rental agreement shouldn't make financial standing conditions less favourable. If anything, it improves the position of the landlord as the second person is liable for whatever may have been left unpaid by the first person.

Quote from wrbtrader:

Also, you said they just sold their apartment to raise money for his trading...how's that possible. I meant, did you meant they sold their condo or were property owners themselves ?
It probably was a "mortgaged" property. So, the cash sum from the sale may not have been as large as one may assume.
 
Quote from peilthetraveler:

...When I moved to California, I was told I couldnt rent without a stable job, even when I offered to pay the entire 1 year lease up front in cash...

Some states have laws against this or something in place were the person that wants to rent can take the landlord to court.

It happen to me once when I lived in Seattle and first starting my trading career +20 years ago...try to pay for all 12 months with deposit all at once on a 12 month rental lease. Got turned down because I was self-employed.

Anyways, took it to the rental organization that stops that crap...had my apartment by the end of the month. Regardless, I started thinking about all the folks in america that work for themselves...must be tough even when paying with cash.

Funny thing was that when I bought a car...pay for with cash (check)...the dealer didn't ask me what I did for a living and then called me to come get my car when the check cleared the bank.

Mark
 
RCG Trader, you are offering an original take on this. So, the morale is mortgages, credit cards and home ownership are all ways to get people to buy into the society structure...

Quote from RCG Trader:

When people see you piel, the workers are looking at an owner to be.( You not have yet acquired the trappings associated with ownership)[/B]

What word should have been there instead of "piel"? I must have had too much sleep thsi week-end: can't guess.
 
Back
Top