Those are purely the numbers on the lease documents.

Will that be a house hack or pure investment?

I'm a real estate investor and own a bookkeeping & CFO firm that purely serves real estate investors.

We'll be keeping a close eye on rental rates and vacancies, but for now we haven't had issues with either of those even in the cheaper areas like Riverview, Normandy, and Berkeley (we will not buy anything in Castle Point, but that's about the only place we really don't like at any price).Most of these rentals will pay back all equity within 6-8 years (even if not refinanced) and after that it's pure profit for as long as people are going to be around to rent in the area, which will be a long long time because nothing ever seems to change quickly in St.

I don't think anybody disagrees with this principle, either.Bottom line: the only thing to change in regards to the PM payments is the bank account where net proceeds are sent.However, changing ownership to an LLC likely triggers other formalities that are NOT tax-related but are purely legal compliance.

The key to Jame's post was that the property would need to be "owner occupied" not a pure investment property to get 3.5% down. 

If it just so happens to be over a Home game weekend this fall...it would be purely coincidental of course.Glad you posted this as it would be great to connect with other Academy grads on here and network ideas/experience.

Pure conjecture of course but that is a really busy area during the school year with Granada High right around the corner as well.

$145,000/1222 = 118$sqft so correct$195,000/1818 = 107$sqft not $161Generally you'll find the larger the sqft the _lower_ the $/sqft.So assuming your #2 is correct, your average is (147+113+118+107)/4 = 121 not $111Technically an appraiser will not just average, and will weigh each comp based on likeness to the subject, but averages come close enough for most people.In this case I would remove the 147 as it's not even close to your subject and is skewing your comps significantly, in which case your average becomes (113+118+107)/3 = 112 which is by pure coincidence close to your original mistaken $/sqft of 111.

Pure BS.