Skip to content
×
PRO
Pro Members Get Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
$0
TODAY
$69.00/month when billed monthly.
$32.50/month when billed annually.
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
Starting Out
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated about 2 years ago,

User Stats

8
Posts
7
Votes
Evan Rumble
7
Votes |
8
Posts

Calculating cashflow for a house hack

Evan Rumble
Posted

Obviously, house hacking is going to have a negative effect on cash flow, as opposed to renting out all of the units to tenants; but.... 

When using the 1 & 2 percent rules to predict cashflow for a house hack; should I add in the rent I would "pay myself" into the equation, or should I only consider the rent of  tenants? The former would mean I am considering the rent I pay, as contributing to cash flow. Is that a good, or bad practice? If a deal only has positive cashflow because I am paying myself, is it really cashflow? I am really looking for decent cashflow, as a necessity for the investment property I want; so I want to know if I am looking at this all wrong. 

Thanks!

 

Loading replies...