question on property age when buying for long term hold and rent

[Sergey Chub]

Hi,

I am new member from the Pacific NW, looking for the first single family house purchase out of state.

I have contacted a few turnkey providers in TX/TN/FL, and looking through the stock it appears that most of the houses are originally built a while back (in sixties/seventies).

I could image the property would have positive cash flow for like 5-10, or even 15 years, but then at some point the repair costs would increase to the point when it would need another major rehab.

This concerns me because I am planning to buy as a long-term investment with a conventional 30 years mortgage (20% down) and use the positive cash flow to pay off the principal faster (15-20 years) with the goal of using the rent to compliment the retirement after the house is paid in full.

Obviously, I would need to have more than 1 property (more like 6-10) to add up to some reasonable amount, and the properties would have to keep renting without a lot of costly repairs for another 20-30 years for the plan to make sense.

The only way I could see this working is to buy newer properties (built less than 5-10 years ago) in the first place.

So I was wondering if it makes sense to stay in the same properties for that long. What is the usual time horizon you consider when making buy-and-hold investments like this and how old of the house you would consider as an investment?

I hope that if I diversify well enough across the country (or even across the world) and purchase reasonably new houses I would only have to make minor adjustments to the overall portfolio in the next 30+ years.

Does it actually sound reasonable to you?

Sergey