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
×
Try Pro Features for Free
Start your 7 day free trial. Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties.
All Forum Categories
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

All Forum Posts by: Peter W.

Peter W. has started 5 posts and replied 280 times.

Quote from @Aldo Fazio:
Quote from @Henry Clark:

How many offers have you made based on your numbers?  Not the asking price?  

Versus putting money into the deal have you looked at putting money into a cd or mm with the bank loaning the money to get a reduced interest rate?  Plus you earn. 

Since you're a GC versus looking for a nice 3/2 have you looked for a 2/1 that you can ADU to a 3/2 easily. Or subdivide a lot?

Basically what “angles” have you looked at?  


 Hi Henry and thanks for your response.

I've only made one offer based on my numbers, and I was accepted. The offer was 114,000 and the current tenants (of 13 years) were paying 1,350. It seemed great but there was a big red flag that my realtor and I missed. The house was only showing to an accepted offer. So, upon inspection, the house ended being a neglected lemon and the tenants were hoarders. As Kevin mentioned above, I probably could have renegotiated and dealt with the problems, but it seemed like way too much for me to do from out of state with so much construction work on plate already.

All my investing capital is in a money market account at 1.5%, but it's totally liquid. I've considered an online high interest savings account (5%), but I've never had an online only bank account, so I'm a bit nervous. It's probably no big deal though. My credit union offers CDs at 4.5% to 5%, but they have terms of 6 or 12 months and so on. I'm trying to keep my funds liquid in case I find a property or 2 or 3 to buy! Honestly, I'm having all kinds of ideas, but I don't have enough experience to know what to do. I've never had savings like i do now, and I want to do something smart with it.

I would love, love, love to find a property that I can work on myself. It's the only kind of experience I have in real estate, but Nor Cal and Cali in general is still out of reach for me.. 

I suppose I can put half of my capital in a 6 or 12 month CD to gain interest while keeping some available just in case. Or I can just pull the trigger on an online high interest savings account..

Any thoughts now that I've explained a little more? I'm all ears!

You should hold your money in 3mo to 1 year treasury bills. I think 6mo has the highest yield currently. You’ll earn almost 5.5% and the tbill market is so deep it’s as good as holding cash.
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @K S.:
Quote from @Nicholas L.:
You can google counter arguments to arguments but the truth is that I did a simple zillow search filter for Open Door in one zip code and it was 8% of all listings. Maybe another zip may show 0 but that's missing the point. Also condensing these purchases can give one a monopoly on rent control as well.


 Lol, uhm, lol, what you start with here actually kind-of IS the point. You did a search, in "A" zip code, at what "A" entity had for listings..... You just defined Selective Data Bias. 

And funny how you put your theory for a "monopoly" on rent control. Funny because, are you aware I am a Broker with, I believe we are now #2 in USA for the size of our SFR portfolio. In my personal home market, we have under management about the same/similar # of units as ALL the other SFR PMC's in market, combined. And we have 0 "monopoly" on rent control.

By the #'s, in general 74% of ALL SFR's in the USA are owned by small investors holding 1-7 total units. Yes, the industry is vastly controlled by Mom-and-pop operators. And I love that fact. I love small business. But the unique thing about Mom-and-pop Landlords is a very large % Self-manage, self-administrate. And than the next big chunk are transient in their operations, meaning the transition who and how they are administrating their Tenant Placement and PM operations. And that makes it near to impossible for anyone to get any foot-hold of "monopoly" in any manner beyond hyper-local.

BlackRock has been long at acquiring SFR's, is still at it today, and despite there gargantuan acquisition capital and now holdings, they are but a speck of market share.

All these fund level investors, COMBINED, make up less than 25% of market share. COMBINED. 

The amount of trillions needed for any 1 entity to obtain a market monopoly is just bizonkers, and mathematically impossible. BlackRock, the king of them all, would have to buy, them ALL. Than, would have to DOUBLE in size, and than, maybe, MAYBE would start entering territory of monopolistic controls in some market areas. 

I probably shouldn't get dragged into this, because I tend to agree with you, but here we go devil's advocate.  The counter argument is if the fund investors go from 5 to 10% of the market share what does that do to prices assuming that supply is fixed and demand from other parties is relatively inelastic.  On the high school level economics guess, you would see prices spike.  You would also expect to see returns from real estate after management fees to drop to levels expected from other forms of investment (e.g. stocks and bonds).  A 5% increase due to institutional investors could cause a 20-25% increase in prices even without monopolistic practices.  As I have said before, I think it's more explainable by population shifts and inflation than an increase in investors, but on the surface even with the data you have provided it doesn't negate the K.S.'s thesis.
I would guess it's mostly population growth and general inflation.  With a small amount due to tools which make it easier for institutions to scale rather than gurus, but it's all guessing on my part. I was just correcting the analogy to make it align with the argument.
Quote from @Account Closed:
Quote from @K S.:
Herein lies the rub with me, you do consulting and you're an agent. Many of these comments are sellers of something. I'm just trying to be realistic with my actual experience. The reason why real estate has become unaffordable for the middle class is because we have too many consultants, books, seminars, videos, websites like this etc. It's almost no different than pumping up a stock. We probably don't need more resources
Your comment: "The reason why real estate has become unaffordable for the middle class is because we have too many consultants, books, seminars, videos, websites"

That's like saying

"The reason why bread has become unaffordable for the middle class is because we have too many bakers, cook books, bakeries, videos of making bread &  websites selling bread."

I'm not quite sure of the reasoning
That's because your conflating supply and demand.  It would read more like,

"The reason why bread has become unaffordable for the middle class is because we have too many nutritionists and life coaches espousing the ability of bread to improve your life.  It'll defeat cancer (bread's intense healing powers give you the best chance to overcome cancer*), give you energy (you'll feel like tiger after eating a slice of bread*) and help you get laid (an elegant slice of bread with wine is the perfect way to a potential lover's heart*)."

*Results compare eating bread vs. eating nothing.

Unlike bread, real estate has limited supply (especially good real estate). So if you are creating more demand by convincing people it's the best investment vehicle, it'll drive prices higher.

Quote from @K S.:

Advice from my own experience to the casual buyer with their own 9-5 job. Success is low because everyone listens to these books that say you just need to

1) Buy a house with near zero down
2) Cashflow.

This is not true especially at 8% rates. You need at least 50% down in states like CA, Austin or Tampa just to break even. These books don't tell you that they're investing in the ghetto and need to collect rent with a shotgun just to cash flow. Even if it appreciates and you sell, you're paying 10% off the top in fees, then another 28% federal and 13.3% state tax rate if you're in Cali. You can 1031 exchange but you're never realizing those gains and you can't draw from it in retirement unless you do a reverse mortgage which is reserved for elderly retirees that won't outlive their equity. Additionally, the casual buyer buying debt will not cash flow for 30 years and even then it may not cashflow because a turd doesn't get better with time because any rent appreciation is negated by the aging house maintenance and property taxes such as Texas or HOA fees like some condos which saw HOA fees go up faster than rents even 10 years later.

If you're not being biased, you will realize that only a small percentage of people will have enough properties paid off by retirement age to actually retire on its passive income alone and even then, you're constantly managing these properties, selling old troubled ones for new ones possibly taking on new higher rate mortgages in the process. Even 10 properties is a headache trying to streamline everything and reduce risk. A tree in a storm almost crushed my tenants cars and could have killed someone and taxes are a pain at the end of the year trying to find my deleted bookmarks and what the HOA changed their management company to or mortgage that was sold off without telling me thus nearly destroying my credit.

Put it this way, If the average person started in real estate 20 years ago, those properties may have tripled in value, but the S&P 500 has gone up like 1000%. I did the math and the S&P would have put me in retirement much faster with zero hasle. Just something to think about. The exception here is a huge salary that can afford the down payments that will allow them to at least break even which only the top 5% of the population has and if you're lucky, know the area and nothing changes over the decades.

What I always recommend is this, buy your own house to live if you're married and having kids, then later, buy just 1 low maintenance investment condo that you can eventually sell after retirement for play money and projects. My fathers house tripled and is paid off but he can't just rent it or sell it because he wouldn't have anywhere to live so the equity is forever unrealized and might as well be fake. You're much better off maxing out a401k employer matching + Roth ira for 20 years and retire early. My father started late, in his 50s and just over 10 years later has grown to around half a million. Imagine starting in your 20s instead of struggling to pay for that mortgage that will keep you in debt for 30 years.

I mean this is a good question.  Is the juice worth the squeeze.  I suspect a lot of people find the answer is no.  I'm a new investor looking for my first property.  I run the numbers and I'm looking at probably $0 to slightly negative cash flow initially accounting for capital expenses and vacancy rates at 200/month and 25/month (10% rent and 1.25% rent).  At 3% rent and house appreciation, the returns are still pretty good probably 15% or so (thanks leverage).  On the other hand, microsoft and google have return on equity in the 15-20% over the past 6 years (that's as far back as I looked).  It's hard to imagine that real estate should be the primary investment vehicle and rather a diversification tool considering it's very hands on and my time is at premium.  While, there is still significant upside on the properties with larger appreciation (I'm buying in the same place I live and the price has gone up about 50% in the 5 years I have lived here) and refinancing into lower rates, there is also pretty large downsides with problem tenants, problem governments and unexpected repairs.

I have one friend whose brother did it for a while got up to 17 properties and then called quits and sold them all because the time commitment and stress wasn't worth it (even if the returns were there).  I have two other neighbors who do this pretty successfully full time, one is semiretired with a stay-at-home wife and 3 kids under 5, the other is still petal to the metal and runs a construction/rental company with 19 employees.  I'm really only looking because I luckily managed to leverage the pandemic to make Denver wages while living in Rochester, NY so I have 20-30k a year I don't want to spend on lifestyle, and my retirement age is primarily determined by rate of return rather than savings rate.  So, it's a good time to take risks.

I suspect the reason people don't make it are three fold.

1.) They find the work of managing the investment properties to be too stressful and time consuming compared to the returns.
2.) Bad luck--my in laws lost a lot of money in real estate due to expenses being much, much higher than expected (cheap houses and cheaper tenants) and investing right before the 2008 crash.  As I mentioned earlier, I am going to need some luck to do better than investing in MSFT or GOOG. If things go awry (market rents go down, job loss, a busted furnace and/or roof early on), I could easily end up with negative returns on the first investment which would probably stop me from buying more.
3.) Insufficient cash flow from other sources to cover emergencies and buy a sufficient number of properties.  I think people plan on everything go right on the first property and go near all in on the first property to get started.  Where I am investing the single family homes are about 200,000.  By the time you have a 20% down payment, closing and escrow costs and a 10k emergency fund per property, each property requires you to come up with 70k in cash.  That's a lot of money and if you are buying slower than every other year you won't "make it" (which is probably 10-15 houses paid off or equivalent equity with mortgages).

I am not a pro. I am looking at buying my first investment house myself, but losing an extra 5000 on the front end is very clear reason why most people would shy away from double financing

It might make sense in your situation. There are exceptions to many rules.

Because you pay closing costs twice.  For a 200k home in my area you end up paying 5-6k each time you close.  So doing it this way costs an extra 5-6k.

I'm a newbie too, so take my advice with a grain of salt, and considering doing the opposite of you (in Upstate New York, thinking about investing in Florida and moving back to family down there).

A couple of thoughts to share. If you don't have kids yet a lot of folks (most famously Chip and Joanne Gaines) BRRRR by living in the house while it is being renovated. This can work if you are low on cash and allows you to take advantage of primary residence financing, although I guess it isn't technically BRRRR, but similar enough. It allows you to allow schedule slips without too much additional pain because you were paying the mortgage to live their regardless (although living in a house being remodeled can be a stressor).

Real estate investing, renting, and rehabbing are skills so expect things to be more expensive and take longer than expected. Try to play on easy mode as much as possible to begin with even if it cuts into your returns. I suspect investing long distance is not playing on easy mode so I agree with your husband on that.

In my case, I'm buying turn key in a B+ area of town, while I pick up the landlording skills.  Of course, it means my returns are likely going to be lower than the stock market, but it's about getting the skills on house 1 and seeing if I am cut out for this business (especially while working full time job and with small kids).

Powell tends to mention he wants housing costs to go down. In the stock market they say don’t bet against the fed. I expect interest rates to remain high unless housing seems a substantial decline. With that said labor and materials costs suggest new housing can’t go down in price (and old housing as well)

With that said I expected a recession between now to q1 2025 and that doesn’t seem to be shaping up.

In my market (Rochester, ny) the economy is primarily driven by defense and healthcare so I expect to be largely unaffected by the broader economy. (We didn’t feel as much of a pinch in 2008 as the rest of the country).


Post: Property Manager on First Rental

Peter W.Posted
  • Posts 282
  • Votes 277

Folks I've heard contradictory advice on whether you should start with property manager or not.  I am hoping to get advice or stories to help me figure out my path.

Do it yourself
You need to do it yourself in order to develop the skills to make a good hire (and potentially train?) a property managers in the future.
The 10% of rent paid to the property manager hinders the ability to redeploy capital into the next project (where as with a few properties the time savings of the property manager is more important than the cost).

Hire a property manager
Using people who know what they are doing will prevent mistakes which cost $$$ (especially with regards to local laws).

Details of my situation
Have a young family so time is limited.
Intend to buy first property about at the end of this year (building up an extra cash buffer for things which could go wrong).  Intend to buy about 1 single family or du/tri/quadplex a year for 3 years and then reevaluate goals and plan.
Reasonably handy and will live close (<10 minutes) to the property.