Skip to content
×
Try PRO Free Today!
BiggerPockets Pro offers you a comprehensive suite of tools and resources
Market and Deal Finder Tools
Deal Analysis Calculators
Property Management Software
Exclusive discounts to Home Depot, RentRedi, and more
$0
7 days free
$828/yr or $69/mo when billed monthly.
$390/yr or $32.5/mo when billed annually.
7 days free. 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.
Multi-Family and Apartment Investing
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 almost 2 years ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

400
Posts
277
Votes
Justin Moy
  • Investor
  • Kansas City, MO
277
Votes |
400
Posts

A Small Underwriting Detail That All Passive Investors Should Understand

Justin Moy
  • Investor
  • Kansas City, MO
Posted

One of the most common oversights I see that passive investors don’t question enough is the relation between loss to lease and vacancy rates.

Loss to lease is the difference between what the sponsors feel market rents are and actual rents. If you have a 100 unit apartment building with all 1 bedroom units and comparable floorplans and units are renting for $800 and your building is renting for $600, that would equate to a $200 loss to lease.

A big loss to lease can often mean huge opportunities for a property because that’s $200 of additional rent you can capture across 100 units, which is an enormous impact on both cash flow and overall evaluation.

But, there’s a key balance that needs to be struck between capturing loss to lease and vacancy that many passive investors don’t pull into question when analyzing a sponsor's underwriting.

When there’s a large loss to lease amount, especially in class C properties, oftentimes burning off that loss to lease too quickly will lead to higher vacancy rates, at least in the short term.

We’ve seen many marketing packages where there’s a year 1 elimination of a 3 figure loss to lease with no adjustments in vacancy rates. Typically we like to see some type of balance in loss to lease and vacancy, and if you’re going to push all the tenants at once in year 1, we’d typically expect vacancy to be a bit higher that year.

Or some operators would like to avoid higher vacancy rates in the early years so they may project to burn off loss to lease over a 2 or 3 year period to maintain a more normalized vacancy rate.

This is a huge determination of strategy, if rents are shooting up that much that fast but part of capturing loss to lease also means renovations need to take place, you also want to consider rehab times and work capacity to turn units.

If you have higher vacancies due to pushing rents too far too fast and a bottleneck in being able to turn units you could expect to see higher vacancy rates especially in those early months of ownership and if the sponsor group isn’t well capitalized enough to carry those expenses and debt payments, it could put the property in jeopardy.

Loading replies...