Lease expiry modeller
Renew, or re-let for more?
When a lease is up you can keep the current tenant on at a modest increase, or let the property go vacant and re-lease it to a new tenant at a higher rent. This models both side by side so you can see which one actually leaves you better off.
The property today
What the current tenant pays now ≈ A$650 per week.
Renew the current tenant
The existing tenant stays on and signs a new lease at a modest increase. No vacancy, no re-letting costs.
New rent
A$657 / week
- Weeks let (of 52)
- 52
- Vacancy loss
- A$0
- Re-letting costs
- A$0
- Net rent, year 1
- A$34,138
Re-let to a new tenant
The property sits vacant for a while, then re-leases to a new tenant at a higher rent — after covering the empty weeks and re-letting costs.
Letting fee, advertising, and any make-good between tenants.
New rent
A$670 / week
- Weeks let (of 52)
- 49
- Vacancy loss
- − A$2,009
- Re-letting costs
- − A$1,500
- Net rent, year 1
- A$31,306
Cash collected over the first 12 months
Running total of rent received after lease expiry. Re-letting starts below zero — the re-letting costs — and stays flat while the property is vacant, then climbs on the higher rent. Where the teal line crosses the grey one is when re-letting pulls ahead.
Year 1 verdict
Renewing nets A$2,833 more in the first year
Renewing wins the first year because the vacancy and re-letting costs (A$3,509 in total) outweigh the higher rent early on. The new tenant pays A$13 more per week, so re-letting only draws level about 5.2 years after the lease expires — before that point, renewing is in front.
This compares net rent over the 12 months following lease expiry. It doesn't attempt to price in the risk of a longer-than-expected vacancy, the quality or reliability of a new tenant, or wear and tear — all of which can matter as much as the headline rent. Figures update as you type.
The trade-off at lease expiry
A higher rent sounds like the obvious win — but getting it usually means an empty property for a few weeks and some cost to re-let. The question is whether the extra rent makes up for that, and how quickly.
Renewing the tenant
New rent × 52 weeks
The current tenant signs a new lease at a small increase. There's no empty period and nothing to pay to find someone new, so every week of the year earns rent. The trade-off is that you usually can't push the rent as hard with a sitting tenant.
Re-letting to someone new
Higher rent × (52 − vacancy) − re-letting costs
You aim for a bigger jump in rent, but the property sits empty while you find a tenant, and you pay a letting fee and advertising. The higher rent has to first claw back those lost weeks and costs before you're actually ahead.
A worked example
A tenant pays $650 a week. Renewing at 1% lifts it to about $657 a week — roughly $34,138 over the year with no gaps. Re-letting at 3% gets $670 a week, but with 3 weeks vacant and $1,500 in re-letting costs you collect about $31,306 in year one. Renewing wins the first year by roughly $2,830. The new tenant only pays about $13 more a week, so it takes around five yearsfor that small premium to pay back the lost weeks and costs — a good illustration of why a modest rent bump often isn't worth a long vacancy. Push the re-let increase higher, or shorten the vacancy, and re-letting pulls ahead far sooner.
What the numbers don't show
- Vacancy is a guess — if the property takes longer to let than expected, the re-let case gets worse quickly.
- A reliable sitting tenant who pays on time and looks after the place has real value beyond the rent figure.
- A higher rent resets your baseline for every future year, which is why re-letting often wins over the long run.
- Frequent turnover means more wear, make-good and letting fees than a long, stable tenancy.
Akweno tracks the rent, lease dates and income for every tenancy in your portfolio, so you can see what each property earns and plan ahead for lease expiries. Start free.