​I am ok to be below the "1% rule" in high cost markets

​I am ok to be below the "1% rule" in high cost markets

Investor · Tenafly, NJ · Member since 2016 · 3 posts · 1 vote

I have found very little discussion in the forum on buy & hold in expensive markets, which is what I have been doing for the last 2 years, so want to share my rational and returns. Would love to hear from other people who operate in high market areas.

Properties:

Located in norther NJ, Tenafly and Closter. Average house price in these markets is 750K and 620K respectively. Located about 50 min to 1 hour from NYC. Schools are A+

The cost of the land in my houses represent on average 75% of the total cost. For instance, one of my houses is value at $700K, but the value of the land alone (0.3 acres) is worth $550K.

I cannot reach the 2% or even 1% and I am ok with that:

Houses (construction) decay over time and eventually are worth zero. So a $300K multiplex in Indiana might generate great cash flow, but eventually building will decay and be worthless and residual value is just the land, which might only be worth $25K. On the other hand, a house in NJ might be worth $500K, have lower cash flow than the multiplex in IN, but residual value for the land is $350K. So the return metrics can never be the same.

Specifics for my houses:

House cost $700K. Land value $550K. Structure value: $150K.

Rent $4,100. Taxes: $1,100. Insurance: $65. Repair allocation: $250. Net: $2,700.

Return metric #1:

I see holding land comparable to holding gold, not decaying and zero risk of been destroyed by tenants. Also over time value stays current with inflation. So one way to calculate return is to say I am getting $2,700 a month in return for a building worth 150K, which actually is a 22% return a year. And for the other $550K (land), I am just holding value to inflation like I would if I were to buy gold.

Return metric #2:

A different way to calculate it is to add to the net profit from the rent the long term appreciate of the land (2.5% inflation rate). So in this case appreciate is $550K X 2.5% / year = $1140. Net profit is $2,700 (rent) + $1,145 (appreciate) = $3,845 / month over a $700K investment = 6.6%

My other houses have a slightly better return since the smaller the house, the better the return ration:

House #2: SFH worth $500K, land worth $375K so return is 7.4%

House #3: 2 family house, worth $450K, land worth $320K and the return is slightly better at 8%.

Other benefits:

My vacancy rate is zero. Show houses for 2 days and get 3+ offers.

Have to deal with small amount of tenants. 1 tenant paying $4K rent is easier to deal with than 4 tenants paying $1K each.

Tenants pay 100% on time and take great care of property.

Conclusion:

1% return is not present in high cost market, which does not mean they are a bad deal. Lower return is offset by lower risk (established neighborhoods, low vacancy, no evictions) and most of the investment been tied to the land which does not decay over time.

1Reply
29 views

Most Popular Reply

Russell BrazilBusiness Member
Moderator
Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
9y

I'm a big believer in investing in high cost metro areas. However in DC you can hit 2% if you want, but that is indicative to me of an extremely high risk property. Most of my properties are in the $400-450k range and rent from  $2400 to $2800. I find these to be the sweet spot in my market, and those don't come close to touching the 1% rule.

See this reply in the discussion

9 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Russell BrazilBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
    9y

    I'm a big believer in investing in high cost metro areas. However in DC you can hit 2% if you want, but that is indicative to me of an extremely high risk property. Most of my properties are in the $400-450k range and rent from  $2400 to $2800. I find these to be the sweet spot in my market, and those don't come close to touching the 1% rule.

  • Real Estate Broker · Naples, FL · Member since 2013 · 9k+ posts · 6k+ votes
    9y

    I am not sure I agree with your assessments but we all have our ideas as to what is best individually. You refer to the depreciation of the structure. Yes they all wear out over time. However, I get much larger writeoffs due to land value being 5% of the cost of the property. If your land value is 80% of your purchase price, you get much lower depreciation which is a tax benefit. I too am in an appreciating market with strong growth. We both have little problem with vacancies. We both can get wonderful tenants OR we could end up with problems. Not all "bad" tenants start out bad. Anyways, thanks for the post. There are different ways each investor values their investment strategies, etc. 

  • Russell BrazilBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
    9y
    Originally posted by @John Thedford:

    I am not sure I agree with your assessments but we all have our ideas as to what is best individually. You refer to the depreciation of the structure. Yes they all wear out over time. However, I get much larger writeoffs due to land value being 5% of the cost of the property. If your land value is 80% of your purchase price, you get much lower depreciation which is a tax benefit. I too am in an appreciating market with strong growth. We both have little problem with vacancies. We both can get wonderful tenants OR we could end up with problems. Not all "bad" tenants start out bad. Anyways, thanks for the post. There are different ways each investor values their investment strategies, etc. 

     One thing to keep in mind is not everyone actually wants depreciation. If I could choose not to take it I would because that depreciation has to be recaptured on a sale. If too much depreciation has been taken over time you are forced to decide between a 1031 or a hefty tax bill on a sale. I just sold a property and hated having that depreciation added back into the equation.

  • Mark S.Pro Member
    Rental Property Investor · KY · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 539 votes
    9y
    Martin S. , interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.
  • Sonny RuckstuhlPro Member
    Investor · Reno, NV · Member since 2013 · 39 posts · 41 votes
    9y

    Martin and Russell,

    I am thankful for your thoughts about this.  I am new to investing and looking at places that are in high demand but with corresponding price tags.  With all of the comments on the podcasts about doing a deal but looking for "great" deals, there was little talk of how to look at the value of deals other than the 2% rule.  I am in escrow on a 4 unit and feel it is a solid single and will cash flow easily.  Your thoughts about depreciation and land values are appreciated as another evaluation of real estate.

    And, I have a question.  The MF is in an area I plan to spend time in retirement.  What happens to any depreciation if I live in it for 2 years?

  • Real Estate Broker · Naples, FL · Member since 2013 · 9k+ posts · 6k+ votes
    9y

    @Russell Brazil

    My current strategy is to hold until the end and then pass on the properties to my children. Right now I want all the tax benefits I can get. Death is an exit strategy that will always work:)

  • Developer · Nashville, TN · Member since 2016 · 484 posts · 406 votes
    9y

    I'm not sure I agree. I'd always go for the lesser priced properties with a MUCH higher ROI. As an example, we typically work on the 2% rule, not the 1%. When the @#$% hits the fan in the US (yes, there WILL be another one...everything is cyclical), how much is your $750K investment worth? $400-500K?. Our $45K properties are now worth $40-42K? ..much less risk, and we've made a lot more return on our cash. Moreover, we use excellent property management, and don't ever deal with renters.

  • Investor · Tenafly, NJ · Member since 2016 · 3 posts · 1 vote
    9y

    I am not saying high cost properties are better, I am saying they need to be evaluated differently. Junk bonds gives you better interest than treasury bonds, but that does not mean they are better.

    The way I see it, for every house I have 2 investments: One is a very low risk for the land (like a treasury bond) giving me a return comparable with inflation. Then I am getting a high return for the utilization of building structure and the service I provide in maintenance.

    If the 1% or 2% rule was gospel, then there would be absolutely no houses for rent in the coast, just apartments and owner occupied which obviously is not the case. 

    As far as price fluctuation, establish areas in NJ with excellent school systems don't drop much in value. When Nevada and Florida was dropping in price by 50%+, the areas where I invest dropped by 15% the most.

    As far as depreciation, it is true you get a low depreciation but it is ok because I have ton of credit from mortgage interest and taxes, so my tax bill is not that high.

    The ultimately math is that I am putting 20% down and the rent covers mortgage, taxes, repairs and still leaves me with $500 in profit (for a $500K house). The profit actually goes up about $50+ every year as I raise rents. But the most important part is that 30 years from now I can knock down the properties and I will have lots of land worth millions. So the best comparison is I am buying bullion of gold where I pay only 20%, but in 30 years I get to keep it all. I know other very wealthy people in my area that operate under the same calculations. They don't have 40 property, maybe only 7 or 10, but those are worth many millions

  • Member since 2019 · 1 post · 0 votes
    7y

    Thanks for sharing the thought. Living in the are, I find this idea quite intriguing. 

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.