That 12% gross after tax is now 8.4% - so you are making 1.4% or $1400 per $100k for that risk?

Please have a little decency and stop being a gross poster.

And while travel is going to be expensive for any property, if you only have one in a market, the concept is the same with less rent: that $2,000 flight/hotel/rental car food for a one night visit, ties up a lot more of your gross when that gross is much lower. 

Far too man investors get into STR based on gross income numbers, not net income after paying all expenses.

I use to think PM cost 10% of gross income.

I work a side job for a friend and make 3-4k gross income.

Their free content isn't bad but for Guru #1 owns 10 SFHs worth $2 million and on her content claims she has gross rental income of $150,000.

The property features two 1,400 sq ft suites on the main level (one currently leased) and over 3,000 sq ft on the upper level, with 750 sq ft already occupied, 3 small office spaces (+/- 250 sq ft each), and a basement tenant with 1,400 sq ft of storage space.The building generates $6,000 in monthly gross income from its five tenants, but with full occupancy and market-rate rents, it has the potential to bring in $10,000+ per month.Given its historical significance, stunning architectural details, and location, I’m curious about your opinion: Would this property be more marketable for sale with or without the current tenants?

It doesn't bring the annual gross income which is huge in helping someone to decide if the deal is worth it.

@Ivana Ivanovic I would say 8% is low to cover both vacancy AND repairs.If you expect to incur just one month of rent lost every 12 months, you'd be looking at an 8.33% (1/12 of gross annual income) vacancy rate.And, even for a brand-new build, you're going to have some repair/maintenance costs as long as you've got human tenants.