2% rule

2% rule

Real Estate Investor · chicago, IL · Member since 2012 · 1k+ posts · 231 votes

I have been looking @ this formula w/ real case scenarios. The only way you can make this work is with very low price homes in suspect area. Now, if you do that, what's the quality of the tenants going to be &, even more important, how much appreciation will you get, if any? Your home value could even go down.

Let's say you buy a $100k home. $2000/month rent? Not gonna happen. $1500/month? Possibly.

Now the power of leverage kicks in. When values come back, you're going to see some years within the next decade in double digits (what comes up must come down, however, what comes down must also come up).

That $100k home hits 10% increase in value, that's $10k; the $50k will be $5k (I highly doubt you will get a 10% rise in value in the 'hood but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). I'm $3800 ahead of your $50k home even with the "$100/door" profit.

I did find 1 property where I possibly could have hit 1.8% but you know what? I'd be risking my life...it's a block from 30 low rise housing projects. The agent didn't even want to take me there, proving my theory this property probably won't appreciate much in the future.

I'm sure, back in the glory days of double digit rise in values. many on here (not all) were ignoring the 2% rule & who could blame you? Ft Myers, FL had 32% increase in values one year.

1Reply
15 views

Most Popular Reply

Rental Property Investor · Mercer Island, WA · Member since 2008 · 22k+ posts · 14k+ votes
14y

Wrote this earlier today in another thread:

The 2% rule works OK for properties that rent for about $500 a month, that you manage with a property manager, finance with a 6% loan, and that you want immediate cash flow from. Any of those assumptions are false and you should ignore the 2% rule and actually do a detailed analysis.

The 2% rule is overly simplistic. I strongly advocate using the 50% rule to estimate expense (plus vacancy and capital), but not the 2% rule. Even the 50% rule can mislead you, but its a heck of a lot better than assuming taxes and insurance is all you'll have.

See this reply in the discussion

17 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Investor · Paradise Valley, AZ · Member since 2012 · 361 posts · 214 votes
    14y

    You are absolutely right, the 2% rule doesn't work in my area either unless you can find a 30k house in the hood and rent for 600. I buy houses in the 140-200k range in excellent middle class areas and am happy to get .9%. I do put 30-40% down so cash flow is great.

  • Real Estate Investor · chicago, IL · Member since 2012 · 1k+ posts · 231 votes
    14y

    AZ was another state that crashed. I think 20% return one year could happen for you.

    It's actually happened in some affluent pockets in Chicago suburbs already. That's right, people, some areas are already back to 2009 levels.

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

    Sorry... what's the point of this post?

    2% is an analysis tool that people who are looking to be cash flow investors use to get a set $$/door return on low cost rentals.

    Do you really want to open up the debate on cash flow versus appreciation? That's been beaten to death already... and btw, you're likely to lose.

    You can "think" all you want like Scott said in his post (btw, that's called "speculation" i.e. "guessing")... I "know" my properties will cash flow year in and year out.

  • West, MI · Member since 2012 · 674 posts · 182 votes
    14y

    Agreed, we can beat this to death but it is possible. Rents of $1,950/ mo with a pp of $90k including renovations, done it twice this year. In a stable area. I will say it takes quick action and all cash to make them happen when they pop.

    These aren't turnkey properties but as long as the area is doing well we can bring them up a little better than the surrounding buildings.

  • Real Estate Investor · chicago, IL · Member since 2012 · 1k+ posts · 231 votes
    14y

    @ Nathan Emmert - the point is I've read countless posts here insisting to stay away from investment properties unless you can hit 2%.

    @ Ryan M. Is this in west michigan where the economy's shot?

    I'm gonna bet that your $1950 is for a duplex (which BTW is still phenomenal revenue)? Of course you're gonna get that much revenue. Can you get $1950 for a SFH out there for that price? I doubt it.

    I'm not trying to be smart; pls forgive if it comes across that way; I read you posts and, believe me, I really respect your business acumen.

  • Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    14y

    I do not know of any SFR, any where in the US, that you can buy for $200,000 and rent it for $4,000. Not going to happen. Now, maybe a nice fourplex can do that.

    When looking at an investment, there are several ways to figure out what will work for you. First, consider paying all cash for a SFR rental. Then figure out your return. Next, look at putting 25% down and figuring your CoC return. In most cases, a leveraged property will bring better returns. But, get a month or two vacancy, and having a F&C house sure makes it easier to weather the storm.

    If you do finance your purchase, there are many considerations as well. Will the seller carry at a very low rate? Is there a short term balloon payment? Are you getting a fixed rate or an adjustable rate?

    There is no 2% rule. There is a 2% guideline that some investors try to achieve. But if you finance a property and 50% of the months rent covers the PI payment, in most cases you will make money. In six months, you can have three months of reserve payments and then start making repair reserves.

  • Rental Property Investor · Mercer Island, WA · Member since 2008 · 22k+ posts · 14k+ votes
    14y

    Wrote this earlier today in another thread:

    The 2% rule works OK for properties that rent for about $500 a month, that you manage with a property manager, finance with a 6% loan, and that you want immediate cash flow from. Any of those assumptions are false and you should ignore the 2% rule and actually do a detailed analysis.

    The 2% rule is overly simplistic. I strongly advocate using the 50% rule to estimate expense (plus vacancy and capital), but not the 2% rule. Even the 50% rule can mislead you, but its a heck of a lot better than assuming taxes and insurance is all you'll have.

  • Real Estate Investor · chicago, IL · Member since 2012 · 1k+ posts · 231 votes
    14y

    @ jon Holdman - as usual, excellent stuff. many thx.

  • West, MI · Member since 2012 · 674 posts · 182 votes
    14y

    I don't buy sfh. These are duplexes, my bread and butter. Sfh can show some decent returns as a % but I'm interested in the amount of actual cash a year.

    The grand rapids suburbs economy is shot, haha

    $950/month for a Duplex is down but is going up fast around here which will turn it in to 2.3% range.

  • Real Estate Investor · chicago, IL · Member since 2012 · 1k+ posts · 231 votes
    14y

    @ Ryan M - aha, knew it! Yes, everyone has different strategies; this is your niche; nothing wrong w/ that.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    14y

    Just because something doesn't work in your market doesn't make it a bad rule (and also doesn't mean that it isn't possible in other markets). I routinely see houses in my area that are less than 15 years old, in very decent neighborhoods, that meet the 2% ratio being discussed.

    That said, the guideline doesn't say, "You need 2% to make it a decent deal." Instead, it basically says, "At 2%, it should be a decent deal." In a logic class, it would be deemed a sufficent, but not necessary, condition.

    In terms of your 10% appreciation example, why 10%? Why didn't you choose a 20% appreciation number? Or 50% appreciation? If you're going to pick a value that has absolutely no substantiation behind it, you might as well choose one that REALLY helps your argument... :)

  • Residential Real Estate Agent · Costa Mesa, CA · Member since 2008 · 1k+ posts · 380 votes
    14y

    The 2% rule is just a simplification of the concepts of supply and demand, combined with socioeconomic norms in a given area.

    In XYZ market, the average person lives paycheck to paycheck (if they have a job at all). Those that aren't employed live off of government subsidy. This makes homeownership a long shot at best. What's more, traditional owner occupant financing is unavailable because purchase prices are so low, lenders do not find it worthwhile to lend in this market. Thus, the market of buyers is comprised solely of cash buyers, the majority of which are non-owner occupants. In a market that is so heavily swung towards tenants who are not future homeowners, there is a heavy supply of tenants, homeless, and criminals. Homeless and criminals can be difficult to avoid, for a number of reasons, but with a little research and practical application of behavioral tendencies, you can be right more than wrong in picking your rental locations.

    So, given a low rate of homeownership, a strategic acquisition model that attempts to minimize crime and vagrancy, and a large supply of tenants, you can expect their to be high demand for your units, if you keep them in good shape. This will typically produce impressive yields, so long as you can keep the criminals from burning your units to the ground.

    Lastly, homes in this type of market are not $100K or $50K. They are between $4K and $15K. This is where the 2% rule works best.

  • Real Estate Investor · chicago, IL · Member since 2012 · 1k+ posts · 231 votes
    14y

    @ J Scott - i just threw a number out there for 10% appreciation, however, it's a fact - pockets of my area are back to 2009 levels. There's one town where literally the appreciation is split in half. One part is back, the other one is struggling. Why? one part is blue collar & lost their jobs turned foreclsorure/SS yada yada.

    Point I'm trying to make is once the inventories of foreclosures are minimized, you will see some years of steep appreciation given the huge drop in recent years.

    Most people were all giddy over their big appreciaton during the boom days yet now run for the hills & some are even afraid to buy thinking more declines could be on the horizon.

    Irrational pessimism I call it. :)

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    14y
    Originally posted by Scott W.:

    Point I'm trying to make is once the inventories of foreclosures are minimized, you will see some years of steep appreciation given the huge drop in recent years.

    You say that as if you believe that's a foregone conclusion.

    Truth is, many (most?) experienced investors don't agree. There are many reliable indicators that tell us that the prices of the past few years (though 2008) were highly inflated, and if that's true, there's absolutely no reason reason to believe that we'll see prices return to that level any time soon.

    If you'd like to factor appreciation into your model, feel free. But, if your version of due diligence is going to be the assumption that things will quickly return to pre-2008 levels, you may be in for a not-too-fun surprise.

  • Investor · Hampton Bays, NY · Member since 2009 · 907 posts · 258 votes
    14y

    Jake Kucheck, has captured the essence of my market in Dayton Ohio. I am sure there are many more markets that will fit this strategy. I am a buy and hold investor and live off rental income. As with most investors I hope for appreciation in rent and in value but I need money now. All of my properties meet or exceed the 2% guide line. and yes They all rent from 550 to 625 monthly with an average cost including rehab of about 20,000 dollars.

  • Real Estate Investor · chicago, IL · Member since 2012 · 1k+ posts · 231 votes
    14y

    You say that as if you believe that's a foregone conclusion.

    @ J Scott J, I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong & certainly not trying to prove the experts wrong (after all, they certainly know more about real estate than I do). The fact is, U.S. real estate was up 10% last year. That's double digit growth in one year right there.

    So, yes, high growth has already rebounded. Will it continue? Who knows but high appreciation can occur.

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    14y
    Originally posted by Scott W.:
    The fact is, U.S. real estate was up 10% last year. That's double digit growth in one year right there.

    So, yes, high growth has already rebounded.

    Good luck with your plan...let us know how it goes!

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