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 over 7 years ago,

User Stats

3,034
Posts
2,019
Votes
Brian Garrett
  • Real Estate Investor
  • Palm Beach County, FL
2,019
Votes |
3,034
Posts

Question about the 70% rule

Brian Garrett
  • Real Estate Investor
  • Palm Beach County, FL
Posted

So I know the "standard" way to calculate the 70% rule of thumb is to take the ARV x 0.70% and then subtract the rehab costs to come up with your MAO.

My question is why wouldn't you take the ARV and subtract the rehab costs from that and then multiply by 0.70% to get your MAO?

For example let's say the ARV on a property is $100k for arguments sake. Let's also assume that it requires $20k in rehab to reach the ARV of $100k.

The "standard" way would give you an MAO of $50k.

The "other" way would give you an MAO of $56k.

If a property is worth $100k AFTER it has had $20k in work done that essentially means the property is only worth $80k as it sits TODAY.  Why wouldn't you base the 70% off the $80k value?

I know it results in a higher number this way ($6k in the given example) but I'm just curious on the logic behind this and why it works out differently.  Hopefully someone can help clarify.  Thank you!

Loading replies...