Lending Terms:
25% down payment = $30,000.
$90,000 @ 4% over 30 years = $429.67/mo.
Each unit currently rented at $400/mo. NOI = $12,996/year. Positive cash flow before taxes: $653/mo.
----------- Disclosures to BP:
Property inspection has not happened. If it reveals issues, the numbers will have to change or the deal will be cancelled.
No. For $400 rent I would want to be under $20,000 per unit. A bit less really, given the low rent. And 1/1s aren't going to get good long term tenants. So you have more than typical turnover.
No. For $400 rent I would want to be under $20,000 per unit. A bit less really, given the low rent. And 1/1s aren't going to get good long term tenants. So you have more than typical turnover.
10% vacancy
30% operating and expense
10% management
You have then 9,600 a year.At a 10 CAP you have 96,000 purchase price.
1 beds have a lot more turnover than 2 beds do.The people get a boyfriend or girlfriend,get pregnant,family member or mom moves in and they now need a 2 bed.
Pay attention to if 400 is at market or below market rent.If it's below market you can keep tenants staying for a long time.If it's high for the area or at market people will move as soon as their income starts falling to a cheaper alternative which creates more turnover.
For each turnover you will have lost rent and re-condition costs.
The 96,000 purchase price does not include immediate fixes.Example the roof needs redone,mechanicals only have 1 or 2 years left before having to replace etc.,bad siding,galvanized pipe,knob and tube wiring.
Watch out for clay pipe or galvanized pipe from the meter at the street to the building.Could costs tens of thousands to over 100k to fix depending on the length of the run and if you have to cut open the parking lot to replace the pipe.
Look at how much land you get with this property.What year is it??
Joel, I question including management costs into the NOI, because that is a choice I make - not one the sale itself forces me to make. In this case, the seller manages it himself (he lives next door). So, I wonder how do you justify it to the seller when you tell them they have to sacrifice from their asking price for a choice you make to hire out management?
Even if you self-manage that is a cost because it takes your time you could be doing other income producing activities.
When I list properties for sellers I explain that most buyers do not self-manage which is true.So the buyers will include self-management when pricing.
You never want to exclude management expenses.If you self-manage when buying GREAT but if you get in their and after trying decide you want to hire a manager then you have not accounted for that cost.
It is one of the most single greatest mistakes I see investors make time and time again.You want it where if everything goes right you get an awesome deal but if things go wrong you can still have a good deal.
VERSUS
People talking themselves into good deals and when things go bad they now have a marginal to losing deal they can't get out of.
You don't know what the seller will take.Be conservative and throw a low number out.You can always go up later.
Joel, I question including management costs into the NOI, because that is a choice I make - not one the sale itself forces me to make. In this case, the seller manages it himself (he lives next door). So, I wonder how do you justify it to the seller when you tell them they have to sacrifice from their asking price for a choice you make to hire out management?
Always budget management regardless if you plan to get it or not. Otherwise you're skewing the numbers to make the deal work. You may not always want to manage this building and therefore may need to get management at some point in your life.
I have a number of SFRs that I've acquired for near $30k, all in, the same price you are looking at per unit. I would not consider anything in this price range that rented for less than $550 per month. My range of rents for @$30k units is $700-800.
Besides what Jon and Joel have said about high turnover in one bedrooms, I'd add that your tenant quality in the $400 range could be challenging.
Thanks for your experience and input. After I received another email from the agent, I discovered the water is paid for by the seller, too. This was disclosed as a tenant-paid expense. So, it ended up being an extra ~$115/mo hit to the cash flow, or 24%. I told the agent that would definitely impact the offer I made. The property sits on 0.3 acres and the roof is probably at half its useful age: 13 years. Still waiting to hear if the wiring is up to code.
The seller, I discovered, is trying to liquidate because he's moving to China! So, maybe that makes him motivated.
If anyone is interested in what it boiled down based on the adjustments I've made to my spreadsheet, here is a link to the spreadsheet:
You asked for advice, so here's mine: Based on the numbers you've given, and EXTRA especially in light of the water, I would only pay $60,000 for it nowhere near $120k.
Also - ask to see the water bill. I found out the hard way that "water" also includes garbage and sewer. For me that was a large unanticipated expense. Make sure you know who's responsible for it.
And management is an expense - even (in fact especially) if you're the one doing it. Never it out.
Statistics show that tenants use up to 40% more water when they do not pay for it.
Your options are usually to:
1.Have the total rent include water,sewer,and trash.
2.Sub meter out the units from the water company if they allow it
3.Prorate the amount of water usage for the building an bill each tenant.
4.Have a company bill them instead of you.
5.Have a private company install meters which is cheaper and they bill the tenant for what they use.
This avenue you are still responsible to pay the water to the city/county even if you bill the tenant and they do not pay.
On lower income housing I see about 60 to 65% pay their water you bill them for every month and the rest you have to chase for the money.You have to pay the water company regardless.
The other factor is tenants will let friends was cars with the outside spigot,take showers,do their laundry,etc. and the tenants will also usually not report leaks or drippy faucets as they do not pay for the water.
Another thing to look out for is what does the city/county charge for water and sewer rates.If you research a county you might find they have upped the water rates by 50% in the last 6 years.
So one county using 1,000 gallons costs you 100 and in another county it costs you 56.You have to really look at how old the water and sewer system is for the city/county etc. and look at all the costs.
I can tell you water is the talk of the town with buyers of multifamily.It can just crush your bottom line.
I understand the frustration when looking at multifamilys like this. Where I am, this sounds exactly like the kind of property you would find. Probably around 120k, needs some significant repairs, rent similar. The usually go for around $105-$115k. Its gets frustrating because they just dont go around here for $60k or even $80 or $90. Oh and where I live the taxes would be at least $3,000 a year. I really think real estate can be tough depending on where you live.
A majority of buyers overpay for a property and underestimate the expenses.
They are either a new or uneducated investor about that asset type.
The seller is hoping the buyer makes the same mistake they did and overpay for the property and bail them out.It is hard to find deals that pencil when buyers are purchasing bad deals.
Think of this.You would rather be in NO PROPERTIES than have money tied up into LOSER PROPERTIES you overpaid for. Those take all your cash,keep you up at night,and strain friendships,family,and marriages.
So, in the end I shot in a bid starting at $91,200. He goes to $105,000. I countered at $93K, he finals at $99K and a $5K seller's credit saying any less and he's in short sale territory.
It'd cost roughly $2,500 (if the numbers my agent collected are accurate) to split off the water and pin the utility to the tenants. 10% for management and another 12% for vacancy/repair reserves and I'm still looking at a 20% cash-on-cash return.
You guys are pros, and I'm not. I just look at my stock portfolio, my IRA, and my 401k and see my tiny returns and think: 20% whoa!