Have applicants w/o jobs but say they have enough savings. They are transplanting and will seek work. This doesn't meet my normal criteria but it makes sense if they have money in the bank they can pay rent which all I really care about. How much savings would you look for or how would you handle it?
Up to this point everyone has had jobs so new territory. Kind of reminds me of the banks not loaning to people who have a $1,000,000 in retirement but can't get a loan to buy a house because no job. They can rent from me any day.
I would ask to see their bank account showing the funds. Possibly ask them to take 6 months worth of rent and pay it in advance if they have enough.
Honestly while they could be great tenants. They would make me very worried. Being able to live and budget is not something that many people are very good at. Since eviction is on the tenants side. I would be very worried about getting someone in and than having them not be able to pay.
This post has been removed.
Thanks @Curt Davis and @Elizabeth C. Interesting 2 entirely different viewpoints. I was looking to see their accounts. Hey, if you have enough dough why work?
My criteria says 2 years of verifiable income. Hmmm.
Jeff, that is a problem with the current migration to Portland. Most of my inquiries have had jobs already, some haven't, but more than half had. 80ish% of the tenant inquiries I receive are out of state. I would hate to be a tenant looking in Portland right now.
Check their account, sign a limited lease term (3-6 mos) and make them pay it upfront. Extra motivation never hurts anyone. I didn't have to go that route on the units I recently rented, but would have for the right tenant (assets, good credit, home sale history, etc..).
@Jeff S. I agree with @Mike Nuss . I would not shy away from them as long as they have good credit and a large up front payment to go along with your gut feeling, they might be good tenants. Good luck with your decision.
I'm standing on the other side on this one. I would not rent to them based on no employment, (savings would not be a consideration.)
I would not rely on "gut". Since that will one day lead to discrimination or accusations of it. I would not trust applicant-provided statements of holdings. Since everyone has access to computer and printer. I'd trust verbal claims of funds even less.
Trouble happens when there is a different application process for different people. Having a clear application process and stated qualifications is invaluable to reduce what could be trouble in the future. Having a job or letter of employment from employer (as to when a job would start) should be one qualification.
Having no tenant is better than having a bad one. The prospective applicants are playing roulette with hopes of employment. Are you willing to play roulette with their employment and your money, too?
Thanks @Michael Nemeth I agree totally with what you are saying. I have a criteria and it says 2 years verifiable income. I also have had it recommended on other occasions that extra deposits and rent can take the place of that stability if they can prove they can pay the rent.
There has been a new development in that one applicant is a newly employed carpenter coming from the Women for Trades (or something to that effect) who is employed by a green female builder who is building ADU's (4 going now) in the Portland market. These are hot right now. At this point I am liking what I see.
Create Lasting Wealth Through Real Estate
Join the millions of people achieving financial freedom through the power of real estate investing