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.
General Landlording & Rental Properties
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 11 years ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

12
Posts
0
Votes
Ben Kiekel
  • SFR Investor
  • Sarasota, FL
0
Votes |
12
Posts

Can SFRs really meet the 2% Rule?

Ben Kiekel
  • SFR Investor
  • Sarasota, FL
Posted

Hi everyone,

After doing lots of looking around in and around my area, it seems like getting 2%/month for rent is quite ambitious.

As I understand it, the rule/guideline basically suggests that if you spend $100k on a property, you should be getting $2k/month. I'm also assuming that any rehabs are included in the $100k for this valuation.

Are you guys really finding these deals? The problem I'm running into is that the cheaper properties that might get better percentages will require more upkeep (they're a reason they're selling cheap!) So I'm having some trouble believing that 2% is realistic; I'd love to hear what you all think about this.

Also, I'm new to the forum, so if this has been discussed somewhere else feel free to point me in that direction.

Ben

Most Popular Reply

User Stats

22,059
Posts
14,127
Votes
Jon Holdman
  • Rental Property Investor
  • Mercer Island, WA
14,127
Votes |
22,059
Posts
Jon Holdman
  • Rental Property Investor
  • Mercer Island, WA
ModeratorReplied

You're applying this (stupid) rule backwards. You start from the rent, which is the thing you have the least control over. So, if rent is $1000, then the most you can pay, according to this rule, is $50,000. If you can't buy the property for $50,000, don't buy it.

There are a bunch of assumptions in the rule. In particular, that the rent is about $500, that you're getting financing for around 6% and that you would like to have $100 in real cash flow if you financed it 100%. If any of those assumptions don't apply, the rule doesn't work. So, with today's lower rates, you can afford to pay more. If the rent is higher, you can afford to pay more.

Now, underlying this rule of thumb is the 50% rule. That says expenses, capital and vacancy will average out to about 50% of the gross scheduled market rent. That's been shown to be correct by a couple of very large datasets for 100,000's of apartments. For any particular property in any particular year, you may do somewhat better or quite a bit worse.

You can also earn a slice of that 50% if you do the management and minor maintenance yourself. New investors often say "boloney", it can't be that high. But it does appear this is a pretty solid rule, whenever anyone has offered up any significant amount of data.

Not the debt service, the P&I part of your payment, is NOT included in the 50%.

Loading replies...