You had mentioned something to the effect that the 50% rule does not account for the timing of the expenses and a big expense in the initial years is different from a big expense later on due to the time value of money.I agree with you about the need to do a present value analysis on any major investment to account for timing issues.

We are just concered that the lose concrete might effect the hardwood somehow.

I have 3 houses, none have enough equity to refi. through circumstances(arms) and repairs I cant afford them all. Selling cost would be keep me from selling them for what is owed. I am getting behind in one of them....

My state, New York, has a new law on the books (HETPA) which effectively closed the door on short sales.

I'm not advocating unethical behaviour.

I've been thinking about this - it seems to me that even if it was more cost effective, I may not want to live in a construction zone for a few months.

I haven't found HOPING to be very effective in business.What if there is 30% equity BUT after careful consideration of ALL expenses it losses money each month?

I get what you guys are saying, but if you purchase a negative cashflow property and live in one unit, you are effectively just overpaying rent.

The effectiveness is suspect as you are actually going to be slower off the mark than the local wholesalers.Consider a local partner who can be your eyes and ears.

I could make further arguments about the disparity in value creation, real estate as an effective inflation hedge and the differences between a hard asset and a paper one or the differences in violitiliy and speculation.