This is something I never understand above foreclosure, and today I have a good example to illustrate it....Say, in the highly desirable/competitive market such as San Francisco, there is this one condo that owner bought for $400K back in 2010...Took out mortgage of $392K at the time....

4) Tell her to look in your penny-saver for a bit of an older SUV5) Go through a pro & con list (weighted) and illustrate all the other things that money can buy.

Now, I don’t say any of this to brag, I’m using this to illustrate a point.

It's easy to grasp a big loss because the market went to hell, easy to imagine a tenant tearing a house apart, because we're in a house every day and we pay a mortgage every day, and go through buying and selling homes every decade or so.The numbers you can use to illustrate, though, they aren't real and they aren't certain.

Quick example with illustrative numbers: $250,000 house payment is $1600 (est) or a $325,000 house the monthly payment is $2300 but you are getting $1000 in rent from the adjoining unit so before expenses you are out of pocket $1300 for property that has a higher loan amount.

See chart below illustrating this between 1970 and 2014.My point is twofold.

The only purpose of this thread is to illustrate that cash flow is king when properly structured.

I don't understand how you believe NPV is illustrating equity at period 0.

As I illustrated above, a 0.8% rule in more expensive markets will do better than the 1% rule in the lower markets, and we haven't even talked about the rent growth between the more expensive and cheaper markets.

Based on their over-the-top Zestimates and recent house buying program failure, it illustrated that even these large groups don't necessarily understand the market.