I am just now officially starting my journey into real estate.  I own two properties and neither of them are currently acting as investments other than mortgage pay down and whatever appreciation the market creates in the future.  

In this process of officially starting my journey I have defined my goals and my reasons for those goals which leads to the most important part of any real goal...a STRATEGY.  

With regards to a STRATEGY many questions arise.  My primary goals are Cash Flow oriented.  My primary question I seek to have answered by posting this post is fairly straight forward, yet I encourage debate concerning metrics and comparisons.  

For normative Investment Properties (properties that are Deals but not Steals), what percentage of rent is Positive Cash Flow?

      Example:  Investor wants $220 in Positive Cash Flow on 1 property.  

Here in Southwestern Missouri  a relatively inexpensive rent would be $650.  An expensive rent may be $1500.  In this scenario I suggest that the percentage of rent lies between 14% to34% non-respectively. If any of you have insight into local rents feel free to align my position with reality if it deviates from it in a consequential way.  

Agree or Disagree?

If this is the case and an Investor here in Southwest Missouri wanted $12,000 in monthly Positive Cash Flow his/her total Rent would need to be approx $36,000-$86,000?

Now for the stirring of "The Pot" (this is because I know some of you love to set the record straight...I've been watching you :)

All financial metrics are for comparison.  All metrics are either percentages or representations of relationships.  These metrics are used to compare.  Usually to compare "opportunities"  A $100,000 investment that makes $15,000 vs $12,000 yearly is definitively better.  If one were to chose a property based on a Metric they would take the one with the higher return all other things being equal (we know they are not equal).  

Example:

If an investor had only 2 options for eternity and he/she was only able to eat food purchased with the Cash Flow from the decision: 

1. Put all available funds into an investment that generated $400 Positive Cash Flow or 

2. Put zero money down on an investment that generated $200 Positive Cash Flow. 

Which is actually better?  All investors are seeking opportunities.  For someone new the number of opportunities would seem to likely be fewer than the more experienced and active investors.  If this is the case should the investor make his decision to begin his/her portfolio with properties that meet a Positive Cash Flow expectation or a Metric?

When debating statistical performances then the game becomes how to display the metrics. If one were debating Cash or Value then its not a matter of metrics, it is a fixed reality? This is a question, sort of. $100,000 in cash or Equity is better than $50,000 in cash or Equity even though the ROI, COC, NOI, ETC... may be higher...or lower NOI.. on the Deal that generated $50,000 in Cash or Equity.

"I value metrics and I hope you do too" to a room full of bored kids - Corey Cowan  jk

But seriously.  As new investors are attempting to map out a STRATEGY that is honorable enough to get Props from BP members where should the focus be?  I posit that Cash Flow and the relationship that Equity has as a function of Cash is where one's focus should be.  This is assuming that an individual is planning for Financial Freedom...vs "dominating the market" or shaming ones peers where ego is the actual value at hand.  

What do you make of all this?  Forgive me I am the new guy.  This is my first post.