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.
Buying & Selling Real Estate
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 9 years ago,

User Stats

36
Posts
8
Votes
Ricky Stafford
  • Newland, NC
8
Votes |
36
Posts

B&H: If you can't get 1% rent/PP, is it even worth the hassle?

Ricky Stafford
  • Newland, NC
Posted

Should clarify: >1%.

It's a lot harder than I though to find an actual deal. I haven't found anything yet that I'm comfortable buying. This would be my first LTR buy & hold purchase.

For the area I want to buy in, I was looking at houses that had a 0.7% rent to purchase price ratio, which was about the best I could find. When accounting for all expenses (including PITI), 20% down, I was calculating anywhere from a 6-10% return. That is definitely not using the 50% rule. With the 50% rule, I'd be negative cash flow in a heartbeat.

In some ways, I have trouble believing the 50% rule because in our own house that my dad has owned for 35 years, he literally hasn't done anything but file a few insurance claims and replace a roof and HVAC system. He replaced a water heater too but found later that it was unnecessary. The HVAC system also wasn't really necessary to be honest. No, it hasn't been updated in 35 years either but unless the place is really thoughtfully designed then most places look pretty much the same in my opinion. I understand that this is with him owning the house, but are tenants really THAT much harder on the house? I would think the higher quality tenant would be about the same. And if they do damage, there is a security deposit for a reason, not to mention most honest people are going to own up to anything they damage. 

Anyway, if we do use the 50% on even a 1% purchase price in this hypothetical situation: $1k/$100k yields a return of about ~7% (probably less) with 20% down. With as much work and headache as it takes to even acquire a property like that in today's market, 7% is pretty discouraging. I'd rather put my money in MLPs and REITs at that point. Do people fear the word "stock" so much that they're seriously willing to settle for a measly 7% return given all the work (at least initially) involved?

So, if the 50% rule is pretty likely over a long period of time, then there is no way I'd accept anything less than a 2% rent/PP. And in this market, good luck, even in the cash-flowing midwest. Find that ratio definitely takes some hard work in today's market.

Am I missing anything?

Loading replies...