Is cash flow overrated?

[Greg R.]

While cash flow is great and I strive to cash flow as much as I can, in the long run could this strategy be less profitable than buying & holding in a market that will see high levels of appreciation?

I hear folks talk about investing in the mid-west in high cash flowing areas, but in general (don't look at the last 2 years), these properties appreciate very poorly compared to "high appreciation" areas. 

I'm curious if any investors have a high cash flowing property in a low appreciation area that they purchased +/- 30 years ago as well as a no/low cash flowing property that they purchased in a high appreciating market such as Coastal CA, Orange County, San Francisco, Coronado Island San Diego, Lower Manhattan, Miami beach, etc., that was purchased around the same time. 

I'd be interested to see an analysis at the end of, let's say 30 years later to see when the dust settled which property made more money. Assuming that both properties were purchased at approximately the same time and sold roughly 30-years later. I know there are a ton of variables, but could it be possible that the obsession for cash flow is instant gratification and will actually profit less than a high appreciation property in the long run? 

Also, I'm not arguing against cash flow or saying that people shouldn't be focusing on it. This question is very specific to a long-term analysis. 

[Joe Villeneuve]

How can cash flow be overrated if the goal is to make money?  Last time I checked, cash was still money.  If you don't have cash flow, you have negative cash flow, which means you are adding to your cost.

Also, collecting equity in the same property is actually losing money.

Bottom line is this, negative cash flow costs you money, and equity build up in the same property (as in the closer that property gets to 100% equity) is in fact losing money...not making it.  So, the combination of the two, is deadly...and bad math.