@Steve Crisp There are a lot of variables that go into play as to whether you could benefit from a cost segregation study or not.

And the reason why your "tale of two halves" will play out as you described.Demand:  This has actually been high almost all along, but rent growth hasn't materialized in response due to high levels of new supply. 

I completely understand your point about pricing adjustments driving faster leases, but my experience has shown that other factors play a significant role in a rental's performance over time.For example, I own three rentals with very different dynamics:1. 

we invest in value add plays (no major rehabs) 10-40 units.

HELOCs are much tricker than a closed end second - they don't typically allow you to close in an LLC and they are full doc qualification, meaning your FICO, employment history, income, DTI etc all come into play.

Since COVID, the demand for cash actually increased, so this is a recession resistant play.

That is the difference.The convertible equity play is just garbage.  

So if I am looking at an asset as a 10 year play - I look more at the location, schools and how has this market performed in the past excluding covid and 2008 which were extenuating circumstances.Reality is right now shorter term plays do not work based on numbers and cost of financing - we went through this same thing in 2001-2004ish timeframe where properties would appreciate 2-3% per year and after buying costs and closing costs - you were not making money on assets unless you performed the labor or found a really good deal.this is how real estate "typically" is - which is why everyone always says location location location - because after a decent holding period, you will win.

As it is when money is at play.

Role-playing.     . you paid $300k 10 years ago, it’s worth $660k, (so when you sell you net $600k to make math easy.)and your cpa determined that you owned zero land, so it’s all depreciatable. you owe 15% on the $300k gain plus 25% tax on $109k depreciation recapture, so you owe $70k in federal taxes, then California reaches out for another $30k?