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.
California Real Estate Q&A Discussion Forum
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 3 years ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

11
Posts
3
Votes
Allen Scoging
3
Votes |
11
Posts

How much negative cashflow is tolerable?

Allen Scoging
Posted

The obvious answer is zero - it's a suicidal strategy! But, here's the full story:

I live in SoCal and currently rent but have a down payment saved and ready to buy. Unfortunately, property prices are currently detached from reality and competition is insane. It doesn't seem like a prudent move to knowingly pay over the odds just too seal a deal for a SFH. However, when my rent is almost as high as a mortgage payment, and I have a down payment saved, I can't see a reason not to buy, despite the record high prices.

I can either spend a lot for a SFH, or spend only a bit more for a duplex which I'd house hack. This would effectively give me 2 properties (units) at a much lower unit cost than I could purchase a SFH, or even two apartments/condos - with the benefit that someone else was (mostly) paying for the 2nd unit. Additionally, buying a duplex would mean I get to live in neighborhood I otherwise couldn't afford to live in. On top of that, there are the tax savings (deduct mortgage interest & property tax, depreciate 2nd unit, etc.)

If I can get hold of a duplex, I've run various scenarios through the BP calculators and the numbers never add up to be a good investment - they won't cash flow, CoC is dire etc. I've often heard people say, the California market is different, you wouldn't expect great cash flow or returns, and the investment is more about long term capital growth, in which case the conventional calculators are less applicable.

Can anyone suggest how I should analyze such a proposition to ensure I'm not committing financial suicide? As the post title suggests I'd be running a negative cashflow if the conventional assumptions are applied (% for vacancy, repairs, capex and so on). Is several hundred dollars OK? Any rules of thumb - a percentage of the price/rent? Some of my other posts have various scenarios for actual numbers I've modeled. 

Thanks!

Most Popular Reply

User Stats

1,830
Posts
3,390
Votes
Bill F.
  • Investor
  • Boston, MA
3,390
Votes |
1,830
Posts
Bill F.
  • Investor
  • Boston, MA
Replied

@Allen Scoging

Are you taking into account your own housing expense? Right now you re losing 100% of your money to rent. Say for instance you pay $2k/month in rent currently. That is your benchmark. If you can get a duplex where you have to cover $1k/month yourself, you have achieved a 50% savings. 

When you run the numbers on the duplex are expecting the duplex to be cash flow positive when you live in one unit or are you running the numbers with both units at market rent? If it is later case, what rent growth are you factoring in?  

Loading replies...