The 76% rule

The 76% rule

Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes

Just wanting to point out the importance of analyzing repair costs before buying for a buy and hold. Assuming 50% expenses and spending the rest on PITI can get you in trouble.

In the last 5 yrs my duplex has averaged over 76% in expenses per yr including capital improvements. Nothing unusual, just the regular stuff.

Say you bought a building with a roof that was passable. That winter a windstorm took part of it off. Mine was 30 yrs old so time for a redo. With some dryrot and a large building, $12,000.

So maybe the paint isn't great but nothing immediate. Couple yrs and it is peeling. My building has lead paint and with fines for not using lead certified painters upwards of 30k the paint job tops 6k.

A little dryrot in my bathroom turns into a major job and with a licensed and bonded contractor, 4k+.

Add a few odds and ends and it adds up.

While the 50% rule holds up, don't use that instead of some good estimating and planning upfront.

I have owned this building for 20 yrs. For that time the expenses have averaged 50.1%. With all the repairs I've done I expect the overall to drop below 50% eventually.

0Reply
42 views

Most Popular Reply

Residential Landlord · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2010 · 592 posts · 138 votes
14y

I agree with Chris Calabrese, I have a capital expense projections spreadsheet for each property with all of the expected capital expenses with estimated costs and expected useful lives.

See this reply in the discussion

19 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Residential Real Estate Agent · Mt. Pleasant, SC · Member since 2010 · 257 posts · 130 votes
    14y

    Jeff, it sounds like you've proven the 50% rule, over time. That's why it's a good starting point for analyzing a long-term rental, but you still need to project major capital expenses based on the remaining life of each item. Clearly, over time, the number can vary. You must have had some very good years to still average out to 50%.

    It's kind of like how poker players remember their bad beats, but not the hands where they got lucky.

  • Residential Landlord · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2010 · 592 posts · 138 votes
    14y

    I started keeping track of the "% rule" for my properties. My average to date is 71%. That is based off of the net income compared to market rent starting with the first date the unit was available for rent, so it should come down with time. For the last 9 months it is 44%.

  • Residential Landlord · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2010 · 592 posts · 138 votes
    14y

    I agree with Chris Calabrese, I have a capital expense projections spreadsheet for each property with all of the expected capital expenses with estimated costs and expected useful lives.

  • Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    14y

    This building was a cash cow for a long time. When I got a load of what exterior paint jobs with lead paint cost, I thought all bets were off.

    This building is self managed and I pay water, sewer and garbage. Rents are low with almost no turnover, one tenant is original, 20 yrs.

  • Investor · San Ramon, CA · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 569 votes
    14y

    Windstorm damaged your old roof and you bypassed the opportunity to take advantage of your Dwelling coverage to get a brand new one for your deductible?

  • Investor · Round Rock, TX · Member since 2010 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    14y
    Originally posted by Jeff Sielicky:
    Assuming 50% expenses and spending the rest on PITI can get you in trouble.

    The TI is already accounted for. You only need to account for PI if you estimate using 50% for the long run.

    There certainly are properties that have 76% though! There are also some with less than 50% if managed properly. 50% is a RULE OF THUMB.

  • Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    14y

    Nathan,

    That roof was long gone. It had the original plus 2 additional layers, built in 1910. Not much left for insurance.

    Bryan,

    Of course, not TI.

    The rents were increased 80% over 20 yrs. Divided by 20 yrs is 4% per year. Pretty good rental appreciation.

    Property value increased $163,000 or $8150 per yr on a $52,000 purchase. Is that 15.6% annual or do you use compounding to figure that out? $215,000-52,000=$163,000/20yrs=8150/52,000=15.6%

  • Investor · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2011 · 92 posts · 25 votes
    14y
    Originally posted by Jeff Sielicky:
    Property value increased $163,000 or $8150 per yr on a $52,000 purchase. Is that 15.6% annual or do you use compounding to figure that out? $215,000-52,000=$163,000/20yrs=8150/52,000=15.6%

    Compounding. 7.35% annual.

  • Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    14y

    Thanks Joe,

    How about rental increases of 80% total over 20 yrs? And, how are you doing that?

  • Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    14y

    Another number for this propery is maintenance, repairs and capex at 18.6% for the 20 yrs. This compares with the widely viewed apartment data income and expense of 10%.

    Looks to me like while they are high on management fees they have avoided the big ticket items by having newer properties. Once they get older I'd bet expenses will exceed 50%.

  • Investor · San Ramon, CA · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 569 votes
    14y
    Originally posted by Jeff Sielicky:
    Nathan,

    That roof was long gone. It had the original plus 2 additional layers, built in 1910. Not much left for insurance.

    Not much left for insurance??? Your Homeowner's policy covers the entire house, you should have been able to file a claim to have a new roof put on.

    Originally posted by Jeff Sielicky:
    How about rental increases of 80% total over 20 yrs? And, how are you doing that?

    In a 20 year span, your rents should have gone up about 148%, more than doubling. Here's data for the US:

    Median Gross Rents: Unadjusted

    2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940

    United States $602 $447 $243 $108 $71 $42 $27

    http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/grossrents.html

    If your rents have gone up 80% over 20 years, that's about 3% a year which I'm guessing has been less than inflation (1.8^(1/20) is the calculation).

    Don't pay for things you don't need to and keep your rents up. I'm guessing your percentages will look better.

  • Investor · San Jose, CA · Member since 2011 · 355 posts · 90 votes
    14y

    Nathan, he might have a "cash value" insurance policy rather than a "replacement cost" insurance policy. They pay you a depreciated amount based on how much useful life it had left. In his case, that probably wasn't much.

    Why would you want a cash value policy?" Because it's cheaper and you're willing to bear more risk. I have one like that.

  • Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    14y

    There were probably a half dozen shingles missing. To repair would have looked tacky being on the front. Doubt they would give me a new roof because of that. Interesting question though so will check with my company.

    The rents certainly could be higher but there are benefits to my lifestyle not having much turnover. I pay a price to keep my life (weekends and nights) free and to not deal with a property manager that would end up renting to anyone that would tear up the property.

    I currently work a lot of hours and the lost revenue in rental income allows me freedom to work overtime and earn much more than higher rents would. I could probably get another $300 per mo but this is after years of no problem tenants. When they move rents go close to market. With only 5 units total the cost is worth the reduction in hassle.

    Anymore properties I buy will need to be professionally managed with an eye on income.

  • Birmingham, AL · Member since 2009 · 60 posts · 7 votes
    14y

    on average, with 6 SFH that I own, the first 10 months were actually around 100%! They were vacant REOs so it took a bit of time to get all of them rented, and I had one very bad tenant. Right now I have 5 rented, to some very good tenants, 4 of which have been in for more than a year, and the expenses have been slowly but steadily going down. For 2011, it was 80%, but for the past 6 months it has been around 60-65%, and that is where I expect it to remain until I get all 6 rented, in which case, judging from current expenses, I will arrive at around 55%. It will take a while for the whole thing, from inception, to converge below 60%, but the rents satisfy the "3% rule" so I really don't mind :)

    As for compounding interest, Einstein didn't call it the 8th wonder of the world for nothing :)

  • Real Estate Investor · Alpharetta, GA · Member since 2011 · 28 posts · 1 vote
    14y

    Kyle anyway you could share the capital expense projection sheet? Thanks

  • Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    14y

    Chris, being a rehabber you are very qualified to know what is going to happen coming up. With a rehabbed property expenses should be very low for a long time, assuming you don't get a really bad tenant.

    Kyle, what you are doing is really cool. It is like the reserve study used by condominium complexes. The numbers here are your calling.

    When I started I took every cent I had and bought fixer properties and only had the rent to fix them up with. It is amazing how creative one becomes when they don't have any money. I never did all those things everyone recommends but when I was able to get a creditline life got a lot better.

    Sharon, the 3% rule is something to die for. It sounds like you are handling the situation. I like that 100% expenses. That is pretty funny. Interested to hear more about how you do in the future. If you have 55% fully rented and are getting 3% you must have heavy repairs or something unusual happening.

  • Residential Landlord · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2010 · 592 posts · 138 votes
    14y

    Kevin Barker, I just uploaded it to the file place. The first sheet is a summary and then there is a sheet for each property you have. Enter all the components with their useful lives, remaining lives, and expected replacement costs. Then the spreadsheet formulas will create a timeline for each component and each property as well as for your entire portfolio. Let me know if you see anything I can improve on it.

    Jeff Sielicky, I actually used a similar spreadsheet to do the reserve study for my condo HOA. I had just made it for my properties and the HOA was looking for someone to do a quick analysis of their reserves without getting the professional study done again.

  • Specialist · Portland, OR · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    14y

    Kyle, was the treasurer in 2002 and in 2006 for our 340 unit condo here in Portland. The reserve study is an amazing thing but very easily manipulated.

    It sounds like you are all set up to go big. Very impressive. It takes a real numbers person to enjoy doing a reserve study.

    There are careers made around here by people doing those. One local CPA has made a name for himself by using a minimum balance model that requires less reserves than the typical 100% funding model. It is called a cash flow analysis and is based on maintaining the least possible balance at all times. Needless to say people love it and he is doing amazingly well for himself.

  • Property Manager · Livonia, MI · Member since 2011 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    14y

    kyle, thanks for the upload. i will look at that sheet as well.

    :highfive:

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.