What is a good rental yield?
"I've never heard of rent quoted per week. Are you in the US?  In general, after the down payment, one would hope to take the rent, and be able to pay the mortgage, tax, insurance, and then have enough left each year to at least have a bit of emergency money for repairs. If one can start by actually pocketing more than this each year, that's ideal, but to start with a rental, and only make money ""after taxes"" is cutting it too close in my opinion. The 19 to 1 ""P/E"" appears too high, when I followed such things I recall 12 or under being the target. Of course rates were higher, and that number rises with very low rates.  In your example, a $320K mortgage at 4% is $1527/mo. $400/wk does not cut it." You will find Joe.E, that rents have increased considerably over the last 4 to 5 years in Australia. You can probably achieve rental yields of above 5% more than 20km from major Cities, however closer to cities you might get closer to 5% or under. In Western Sydney, we have been able to achieve rental yields close to 7%. We bought mainly in 2007 and 2008 when no one was buying and we were getting properties for 15% to 20% below market rates. As we bought cheap and rents were on the increase we were able to achieve higher rental yields. An example of one particular deal where we bought for $225K and rented for $300/wk giving us a yield of 6.9%. The rent is now $350/wk giving us a current yield of 8%, and with our interest rate at 6.3% and possibly heading down further, this property is positively geared and pays for itself plus provides us with some additional income. All our properties are yielding between 7.5% to 8.5% and are all positively geared. The capital gains might not be as high as with properties closer to the city, but even if we stopped working we wouldn't have to sell as they all provide us income after paying all expenses on associated with the properties. So in answer to your question I would be aiming for a property with a yield above 5% and preferably above 6%, as this will enable your property/ies to be positively geared at least after a couple of years if not straight away. A good quick filter to see if a property is worth looking at is if the total rent for the property for the year is equal to 10% of the price of the property.  For example, if the property is valued at $400,000 then the rent collected should be $40,000 for the entire year.  Which is $3,333.33 per month. If the property does not bring in at least 10% per year then it is not likely all the payments can be covered on the property.  It's more likely to be sinking money into it to keep it afloat. You would be exactly right, as you have to figure in insurance, utilities, taxes, maintenance/repair, mortgage payments, (new roof, new furnace, etc), drywall, paint, etc. Also as a good rule of thumb, expect a vacancy rate of at least 10% (or 1 month) per year as a precaution. If you have money sitting around, look into Real Estate Investment Trusts.  IIRC, the average dividend was north of 10% last year.  That is all money that comes back to you.  I'm not sure what the tax implications are in Australia, however in Canada dividends are taxed very favourably.  No mortgage, property tax, tenants to find, or maintenance either. "Historically that 'divide by 1000' rule of thumb is what many people in Australia have thought of as normal, and yes, it's about a 5.2% gross yield.  Net of expenses, perhaps 3-4%, without allowing for interest. If you're comparing this to shares, I think the right comparison is to the dividend yield, not to the overall PE.  A dividend yield of about 3-5% is also about typical: if you look at the Vanguard Index Australian Shares Fund as a proxy for the ASX the yield last year was about 4%. Obviously a 4% return is not very competitive with a term deposit.  But with both shares and housing you can hope for some capital growth in addition to the income yield.  If you get 4% rental yield plus 5% growth it is more attractive. Is it ""good"" to buy at what people have historically thought was ""normal""?  Perhaps you are better off looking around, or sitting out, until you find a much better price than normal. ""Is 5% actually historically normal?"" deserves a longer answer." The rule of thumb I have always heard and what we rent our rental house at is 1% per month at the minimum (in the US). The rent has to cover the mortgage, the property taxes, the homeowners insurance, your income taxes (on the rent), the maintenance of the property and the times when the property is vacant. Even at 1% per month that doesn't leave a whole lot of profit compared to what you put in.  I have no idea why anybody would buy a rental property in Australia if all they could get is 5% per year before expenses. They couldn't possibly be making money in that investment, not to mention the aggravations of getting late night phone calls because something broke in the rental house. No way I would make that investment. Our two rentals have yielded 8.5% over the past two years (averaged). That is net, after taxes, maintenance, management, vacancy, insurance, interest. I am only interested in cash flow - expenses / original investment. If you aren't achieving at least 4.5-5% net on your original investment you probably could invest elsewhere and earn a better return on a similar risk profile. I would just like to point out that the actual return should be compared to your down payment, not the property price. After all, you didn't pay $400K for that property, right? You probably paid only 20%, so you're collecting $20K/year on a $80K investment, which works out to 25%.  Even if you're only breaking even, your equity is still growing, thanks to your tenants. If you're also living in one of the units, then you're saving rent, which frees up cash flow. Your increased savings, combined with the contributions of your tenants will put you on a very fast track. In a few years you should have enough to buy a second property. :)
This is not an answer to all of your questions but merely an eleaboration on one of your comments: Are there any other areas in the UK that would return rental yields   much above 10% net?   Shares. I could withdraw the money and buy shares for the dividend income, but it is hard to choose shares that yield more than about 6% and they are volatile. I wrote a post about using shares to invest a pension pot. http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/016/ You may find it of some interest. Of course, the investing would take place within the pension 'wrapper' so you'd only be paying tax on the income taken out each year. The other alternatives you mention suggest paying for the expertise and time of an IFA would be a very economical decision. £1,000 to best use £150,000 seems a bargain to me. Some of the avenues you mention seem very risky from my understanding so someone to determine your tolerances and propose a holistic solution is a good path forward. Best wishes! Whether it is better to buy or to rent depends on several factors.  Most of them are fairly uncertain, but calculations can be made to see how they play out in the long-term for insight into their impact. The results below are made on the basis that both the buyer and the tenant spend the same amount, in this case $1,480.03 per month.  The buyer pays his mortgage and when it's all paid for he switches to investing $1,480.03 per month at the fund deposit rate.  Meanwhile the tenant pays rent and invests whatever remains from $1,480.03 per month at the fund deposit rate. The amount $1,480.03 is set by the mortgage case and used by buyer and tenant for equal comparison. Taking some hopefully not too unrealistic rate estimates, these are the calculation inputs:- (All percentages are expressed as effective annual rates) Plot of buyer's and tenant's accumulated assets over time The simulation extends for twice the term of the mortgage.  If the investment fund can return 7% and a $900 rental is comparable to a $300,000 house then there isn't much of a compelling case either way. Lowering the expected fund return shows a different picture.  Sticking with the 5.0% fund return, lowering the rent brings the tenant's asset accumulation closer to the buyer's.  If there is a particular set of inputs you would like to see plotted I'm sure I could add another example to this post. There is also an interactive version of the calculation which you can find via this page.  However, unlike the examples above which include a deposit and grant, it just explores the simple case of a 100% mortgage. The aim is just to see how rate variations affect asset value over time. Yield is almost always the mean rate of return. Then 1.65% yield means that you will see that rate of return inclusive of any coupons.   The way I like think of is that yield is the discount rate used to value the instrument at market value. DONT CONFUSE THE COUPON RATE WITH YIELD. Those are two completely separate things. "is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index.  Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them.  Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these ""duds"". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now.  But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month.  No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate.  Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion.  Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income.  If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years.  The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers.  (Amongst many other possible measures.)  They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years.  Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example.  There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old.  Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses.   Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better.  I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments.  Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former.  In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns.  Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio.  Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though." "The value of getting into the landlord business -- or any other business -- depends on circumstances at the time. How much will it cost you to buy the property? How much can you reasonably expect to collect in rent? How easy or difficult is it to find a tenant? Etc. I owned a rental property for about ten years and I lost a bundle of money on it. Things people often don't consider when calculating likely rental income are: There will be times when you have no tenant. Someone moves out and you don't always find a new tenant right away. Maintenance. There's always something that the tenant expects you to fix. Tenants aren't likely to take as good a care of the property as someone who owned it would. And while a homeowner might fix little things himself, like a broken light switch or doorknob, the tenant expects the landlord to fix such things. If you live nearby and have the time and ability to do minor maintenance, this may be no big deal. If you have to call a professional, this can get very expensive very quickly. Like for example, I once had a tenant complain that the water heater wasn't working. I called a plumber. He found that the knob on the water heater was set to ""low"". So he turned it up. He charged me, I think it was $200. I can't really complain about the charge. He had to drive to the property, figure out that that was all the problem was, turn the knob, and then verify that that really solved the problem. Tenants don't always pay the rent on time, or at all. I had several tenants who apparently saw the rent as something optional, to be paid if they had money left over that they couldn't think of anything better to do with. You may get bad tenants who destroy the place. I had one tenant who did $10,000 worth of damage. That include six inches deep of trash all over the house that had to be cleared out, rotting food all over, excrement smeared on walls, holes in the walls, and many things broken. I thought it was disgusting just to have to go in to clean it up, I can't imagine living like that, but whatever. Depending on the laws in your area, it may be very difficult to kick out a bad tenant. In my case, I had to evict two tenants, and it took about three months each time to go through the legal process. On the slip side, the big advantage to owning real estate is that once you pay it off, you own it and can continue to collect rent. And as most currencies in the world are subject to inflation, the rent you can charge will normally go up while your mortgage payments are constant." I am sorry to say, you are asking the wrong question. If I own a rental that I bought with cash, I have zero mortgage. The guy I sell it to uses a hard money lender (charging a high rate) and finances 100%. All of this means nothing to the prospective tenant.  In general, one would look at the rent to buy ratio in the area, and decide whether homes are selling for a price that makes it profitable to buy and then rent out.  In your situation, I understand you are looking to decide on a rent based on your costs. That ship has sailed. You own already. You need to look in the area and find out what your house will rent for. And that number will tell you whether you can afford to treat it as a rental or would be better off selling.  Keep in mind - you don't list a country, but if you are in US, part of a rental property is that you 'must' depreciate it each year. This is a tax thing. You reduce your cost basis each year and that amount is a loss against income from the rental or might be used against your ordinary income. But, when you sell, your basis is lower by this amount and you will be taxed on the difference from your basis to the sale price.  Edit: After reading OP's updated question, let me answer this way. There are experts who suggest that a rental property should have a high enough rent so that 50% of rent covers expenses. This doesn't include the mortgage. e.g. $1500 rent, $750 goes to taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs, etc. the remaining $750 can be applied to the mortgage, and what remains is cash profit.  No one can give you more than a vague idea of what to look for, because you haven't shared the numbers. What are your taxes? Insurance? Annual costs for landscaping/snow plowing? Then take every item that has a limited life, and divide the cost by its lifetime. e.g. $12,000 roof over 20 years is $600. Do this for painting, and every appliance. Then allow a 10% vacancy rate. If you cover all of this and the mortgage, it may be worth keeping. Since you have zero equity, time is on your side, the price may rise, and hopefully, the monthly payments chip away at the loan. A 20% dividend yield in most companies would make me very suspicious. Most dividend yields are in the 2-3% range right now and a 20% yield would make me worry that the company was in trouble, the stock price had crashed and the dividend was going to be cut, the company was going to go out of business or both. "Started to post this as a comment, but I think it's actually a legitimate answer: Running a rental property is neither speculation nor investment, but a business, just as if you were renting cars or tools or anything else. That puts it in an entirely different category. The property may gain or lose value, but you don't know which or how much until you're ready to terminate the business... so, like your own house, it really isn't a liquid asset; it's closer to being inventory. Meanwhile, like inventory, you need to ""restock"" it on a fairly regular basis by maintaining it, finding tenants, and so on. And how much it returns depends strongly on how much effort you put into it in terms of selecting the right location and product in the first place, and in how you market yourself against all the other businesses offering near-equivalent product, and how you differentiate the product, and so on.  I think approaching it from that angle -- deciding whether you really want to be a business owner or keep all your money in more abstract investments, then deciding what businesses are interesting to you and running the numbers to see what they're likely to return as income, THEN making up your mind whether real estate is the winner from that group -- is likely to produce better decisions. Among other things, it helps you remember to focus on ALL the costs of the business. When doing the math, don't forget that income from the business is taxed at income rates, not investment rates. And don't forget that you're making a bet on the future of that neighborhood as well as the future of that house; changes in demographics or housing stock or business climate could all affect what rents you can charge as well as the value of the property, and not necessarily in the same direction. It may absolutely be the right place to put some of your money. It may not. Explore all the possible outcomes before making the bet, and decide whether you're willing to do the work needed to influence which ones are more likely." &gt; The paper, which is yet to be published, found that a 10 percent increase in Airbnb listings can create an average 0.39 percent increase in rents and an average 0.64 percent increase in home prices, the Wall Street Journal reported.  In the long term, rents and property value go up at the same rate. So if they're saying that one is almost double the other, the margin of error here could be very large. "Probably the most important thing in evaluating a dividend yield is to compare it to ITSELF (in the past). If the dividend yield is higher than it has been in the past, the stock may be cheap. If it is lower, the stock may be expensive. Just about every stock has a ""normal"" yield for itself. (It's zero for non-dividend paying stocks.) This is based on the stock's perceived quality, growth potential, and other factors. So a utility that normally yields 5% and is now paying 3% is probably expensive (the price in the denominator is too high), while a growth stock that normally yields 2% and is now yielding 3% (e.g. Intel or McDonald'sl), may be cheap." Will buying a flat which generates $250 rent per month be a good decision? Whether investing in real estate is a good decision or not depends on many things, including the current and future supply/demand for rental units in your particular area. There are many questions on this site about this topic, and another answer to this question which already addresses many risks associated with owning property (though there are also benefits to consider). I just want to focus on this point you raised: I personally think yes, because rent adjusts with inflation and the rise in the price of the property is another benefit. Could this help me become financially independent in the long run since inflation is getting adjusted in it? In my opinion, the fact that rental income general adjusts with 'inflation' is a hedge against some types of economic risk, not an absolute increase in value. First, consider buying a house to live in, instead of to rent:  If you pay off your mortgage before your retire, then you have reduced your cost of accommodations to only utilities, property taxes, and repairs. This gives you a (relatively) known, fixed requirement of cash outflows. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - it doesn't cost you anything extra, because you already own your house. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, then you don't save anything, because you already own your house. If you instead rent your whole life, and save money each month (instead of paying off a mortgage), then when you retire, you will have a larger amount of savings which you can use to pay your monthly rental costs each month. By the time you retire, your cost of accommodations will be the market price for rent at that time. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - you will have to pay more on rent. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk. This is called a 'natural hedge', where two competing risks can mitigate each-other just by existing. This doesn't mean buying a house is always the right thing to do, it is just one piece of the puzzle to comparing the two alternatives [see many other threads on buying vs renting on this site, or on google]. Now, consider buying a house to rent out to other people:  In the extreme scenario, assume that you do everything you can to buy as much property as possible. Maybe by the time you retire, you own a small apartment building with 11 units, where you live in one of them (as an example), and you have no other savings. Before, owning your own home was, among other pros and cons, a natural hedge against the risk of your own personal cost of accommodations going up. But now, the risk of your many rental units is far greater than the risk of your own personal accommodations. That is, if rent goes up by $100 after you retire, your rental income goes up by $1,000, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes up by $100. If rent goes down by $50 after you retire, your rental income goes down by $500, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes down by $50. You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market. In the case of property, each investment is so large that you are often 'undiversified' if you invest heavily in it (you can't just buy a house $100 at a time, like you could a stock or bond). Of course, my above examples are very simplified. I am only trying to suggest the underlying principle, not the full complexities of the real estate market. Note also that there are many types of investments which typically adjust with inflation / cost of living; real estate is only one of them. I'd recommend you use an online tax calculator to see the effect it will have. To your comment with @littleadv, there's FMV, agreed, but there's also a rate below that. One that's a bit lower than FMV, but it's a discount for a tenant who will handle certain things on their own. I had an arm's length tenant, who was below FMV, I literally never met him. But, our agreement through a realtor, was that for any repairs, I was not required to arrange or meet repairmen. FMV is not a fixed number, but a bit of a range.  If this is your first rental, you need to be aware of the requirement to take depreciation. Simply put, you separate your cost into land and house. The house value gets depreciated by 1/27.5 (i.e. you divide the value by 27.5 and that's taken as depreciation each year. You may break even on cash flow, the rent paying the mortgage, property tax, etc, but the depreciation might still produce a loss. This isn't optional. It flows to your tax return, and is limited to $25K/yr. Further, if your adjusted gross income  is over $100K, the allowed loss is phased out over the next $50K of income. i.e. each $1000 of AGI reduces the allowed loss by $500. The losses you can't take are carried forward, until you use them to offset profit each year, or sell the property.  If you offer numbers, you'll get a more detailed answer, but this is the general overview. In general, if you are paying tax, you are doing well, running a profit even after depreciation. The yield on Div Data is showing 20% ((3.77/Current Price)*100)) because that only accounts for last years dividend. If you look at the left column, the 52 week dividend yield is the same as google(1.6%). This is calculated taking an average of n number of years. The data is slightly off as one of those sites would have used an extra year. One lender's explanation of getting permission to rent out.  The implication is that it is straightforward with a 1% extra interest to pay.  However, there is no guarantee that permission would be given, so there might be a risk. http://www.nationwide.co.uk/support/support-articles/manage-your-account/letting-your-property/letting-your-property-overview Definitely renting out a property with a residential mortgage is not a good idea. I would not hold any company stock for the company that provides your income.   This is a too many eggs in one basket kind of problem. With a discounted stock purchase plan, I would buy the shares at a 10% discount and immediately resell for a profit.   If the company prevents you from immediately reselling, I  don't know if I would invest. The risk is too great that you'll see your job lost and your 401k/investments emptied due to a single cause.