Skip to content
×
Pro Members Get
Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
ANNUAL Save 54%
$32.50 /mo
$390 billed annualy
MONTHLY
$69 /mo
billed monthly
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
×
Take Your Forum Experience
to the Next Level
Create a free account and join over 3 million investors sharing
their journeys and helping each other succeed.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
Already a member?  Login here
San Francisco Real Estate 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 7 years ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

14
Posts
5
Votes
Sagar Mata
  • Oakland, CA
5
Votes |
14
Posts

San Francisco or Oakland

Sagar Mata
  • Oakland, CA
Posted

Hello there-

I'm looking for some perspective from the forum:

I currently own a SFH in Temescal Oakland and have purchased another SFH also in the Bay Area that will become my primary residence.

My original plan was to rent the Oakland house, but now I'm wondering if it would be a better deal to sell and buy one (or two) condo(s) in San Francisco. My plan is to hold for long term appreciation, but also want some positive cash-flow day one and I think I can easily do that in either Oakland or SF.

Here are a few more details and things I'm considering:

 Oakland:

The house is old (1920s) but in good condition. 

I would not be able to afford a property management company at this time. I'm ok to manage day to day tenant requests but as time goes on, I'm not sure I want to be managing a new roof installation, furnace, etc as those become necessary.

SF:

I understand HOAs can eat a lot into my potential profit, but from what I've seen, the rents are such that they would cover all my costs (small mortgage, HOA and management fees). Cash flow would be bit less than Oakland but I would not have to deal with managing anything (plan would be to buy in a building where management is included in the fees).

Looking for opinions/thoughts on what would be a best deal.

As always, thank you in advance for your time and advice.

Most Popular Reply

User Stats

544
Posts
298
Votes
Sean Walton
  • Wholetailer & Architect
  • San Francisco, CA
298
Votes |
544
Posts
Sean Walton
  • Wholetailer & Architect
  • San Francisco, CA
Replied

Are you sure you are factoring in all the costs? Capital expenses, maintenance, insurance, vacancy. The new condo probably won't have much of these int eh beginning but toilets and drains still clog in new buildings. Washers break after a while. The 1920s house even if it is in good condition will have a lot more maintenance

I'm not sure from your post but it appears you may be buying for cash? If this is the case, yes you will cashflow, but would you get better cash on cash returns in another market? If you are financing a deal, in the bay area bought off the MLS with minimal work needed, it probably will not cashflow day one. If you've got a high paying job and you are buying in an area you think will appreciate then go ahead.

Loading replies...