50 percent rule in my world

50 percent rule in my world

Real Estate Investor · Mount Pleasant, PA · Member since 2013 · 22 posts · 7 votes

In reviewing past threads, I admit being sent into a mild panic over this 50% percent rule of thumb, despite the fact that I am experienced and currently own and operate 41 units... single family and duplexes with one 4-unit. I am an absolute number crunching geek, and while my truck may get messy my accounting is spotless and meticulous. So my point is I know my numbers, track every dime collected and spent on Quickbooks, impose the numbers onto another Excel graph, etc. You get the idea.

Am I correct in assuming we are dealing with a general rule of thumb that applies to the entire country, and as such it may be a broad generality with wide variability? I question whether it applies to Small Town, rural America. The facts are that in my area, taxes are lower, the cost of housing is lower (thus cost of insurance), and I do not hire property management. These local facts lower my overall percent of expenses which end up looking like this...

A common duplex rents for 550 each side (tenants pay utilities)

+13,200 gross rent

-1000 repairs per year (every five years = a $5000 bomb hits the property!)

- 2000 annual taxes

- 500 insurance

- $600 vacancy (5%)

= 9100 net profit before taxes and insurance

So in this example, which is accurate reality in my accounting world, my expenses are 31 percent- not close to 50%. Am I missing something? Or is it just that I can cash flow higher because I live in a rural area with no real appreciation? Even with 10% property management fees my operating expenses would be 41 percent... and I suspect more trouble on the rental side which may account for added expenses.

To be clear, I am not bashing the 50% rule. Why NOT estimate high on expenses?

I love conservative rules that keep me from hurting myself. Real estate to me is a chess game in which one needs to be on the lookout for trouble in all forms. I believe it is a valuable general rule of thumb to keep an investor safe; i.e., it provides a margin of safety. If I misunderstand the concept, please advise. Maybe it's property management that is costing others so much, and adding to the expenses? The purpose of thread is just to clarify it all.

2Reply
42 views

Most Popular Reply

J ScottPro Member
Moderator
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
12y
Originally posted by @John Soforic:

My only question here, is whether it is possible for the 50 percent rule to vary greatly due to locality.

....

-1000 repairs per year (every five years = a $5000 bomb hits the property!)

To your first point above, certainly the answer is yes. But, by greatly, I would say that it's still unlikely that long-term you'll see expense ratios (including rent loss and capex) at less than 40%...and typically not less than 45% based on my experiences, my calculations and my discussions with other investors.

In your example property, you're estimating your expense ratio (inlcuding rent loss and capex) at 31%. If you add in 10-12% for property management, you're in the 41-43% range, which is certainly possible. But, given the numbers you use to support your estimates, my guess is that your actual expense ratio (including rent loss and capex) is actually closer to 50%.

Here's why...

FIRST REASON:

You commented above that your repairs were about $1000/year. You seemed to have lumped several things into repairs, as I didn't see them called out anywhere else. Specifically, it appears that you lumped the following into your $1000/year repair estimate:

- Actual Repairs

- Turnover Costs

- Capex

I think $1000/year is reasonable for any one of those categories, and perhaps 1.5 of those categories long-term. But, I seriously doubt your budget for repairs, turnover and capex is going to be $1000/year or less.

You pointed out that "every five years = a $5000 bomb hits the property!" Yes, that's called capital expenses. These are the big ticket items you'll need to depreciate, and the biggest expenses here are HVAC, roof and water heater. These aren't the only capex expenses you'll face, but they're the most common. In a typical 20 year period, you'll likely replace the HVAC once, the roof once and the water heater twice. I don't know how much you'll pay for those, but my guess is that it's at least $8000 over the 20 years (and potentially a lot more). That's $400/year right there, and that ignores other capex items you'll encounter over the lifetime of a property (siding/trim repairs, concrete issues, major plumbing/electrical upgrades, etc).

My guess is that your actually capex costs over the *long-term* are closer to $500-600 per year. You probably don't believe this right now, but let's have this discussion again after you've held those properties for 30 years.

Then you have turnover. Let's say you have to repaint every two years, get the carpets cleaned (and/or hardwoods refinished) every two years, replace the carpet every 5 years, fix broken cabinets/appliances/plumbing fixtures/light fixtures, etc. If you're doing this for less the $300-400/year, you probably haven't had the property long enough to have a tenant do any serious damage. You're lucky...but eventually your luck will run out.

So, I'm guessing that you're at the $1000/year mark with just capex and turnover, and that doesn't include straight repairs. Things like faucets breaking, toilets running, tubs dripping, windows cracking, etc. Maybe you'll get lucky and that's only half a months rent per year, but again, if you haven't been paying anything for repairs, you either haven't held the properties long enough and/or you've gotten very lucky.

At this point, you're over the $1000/year...probably closer to $1500/year for what you called "repairs"...and if you're not getting very inexpensive labor, you may be a lot higher than that.

And comes the...

SECOND REASON

Your analysis didn't include any of the following:

1. Legal Costs

2. Eviction Issues

3. Utilities

4. Lawn Care/Snow Removal

5. Other Amortized Costs

Let's take them in order:

For #1, I'm talking about dealing with evictions for the most part. Never had an eviction? I can promise you that won't last forever. And when it happens, you have two choices: hire and attorney or deal with the legal red tape yourself. Attorneys cost money and if you try to do it yourself, I'd suggest that you can't discount the opportunity costs, which ultimately translates into money. You *WILL* have attorney costs across 41 units long-term, or you'll be spending enough of your own time that you'll lose plenty of money not doing other income-generating tasks.

For #2, I'm talking about the ramifications of a tenant you need to evict. For one, your 5% vacancy isn't going to cover the times you have a tenant that holds over for 3 months while you're trying to legally get him out. Even if you do get him out quickly, there's a good chance he'll trash you place as retribution (and this will cost more than what you've budgeted for turnover costs, I promise). Tenants you need to evict can end up being your biggest expense in this business, and while you can minimize the chances of it happening, across many unit and many years, you will have this issue at some point, and the amortized costs across all units will likely not be insignificant.

For #3, I'm curious if you leave off all the utilities between tenants? I'm guessing not. And I'm guessing they're not free either.

For #4, do you require your tenants to handle lawn maintenance? How about snow removal? If you are expecting them to do snow removal, I highly recommend that you read #5...

For #5, I'm talking about stuff like liability insurance (which you'll want to have if you're expecting your tenants to do snow removal), CPA costs, advertising costs, etc. These are the little things that you consider "overhead" in your business, but if you didn't have rental properties, you wouldn't incur these expenses. So, realistically, they're a cost associated with having rentals, regardless of whether you choose to amortize them across your holdings or not (from an accounting standpoint, you should not...from an analysis standpoint, I think you're fooling yourself if you don't).

Anyway, my take is that you have a bunch of costs that you either haven't yet experienced (but will) or aren't acknowledging (and should). I could be completely wrong (it certainly wouldn't be the first time), and maybe none of these things above apply to your business, but if that's the case, hopefully others who are reading this will take these things to heart in their businesses.

See this reply in the discussion

27 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Investor · North Wales, PA · Member since 2013 · 116 posts · 44 votes
    12y

    I think the 50% is supposed to include the taxes and insurance. It's just a ballpark, if you're getting good rent or high demand / low vacancy for example, it could easily be more like 40%... Which it sounds like you may have here.

  • Real Estate Investor · Mount Pleasant, PA · Member since 2013 · 22 posts · 7 votes
    12y

    My example above includes taxes and insurance, and so do my real numbers. To be clear, when I say I am the property manager, my rule is to not engage in the labor. I hire it out, write up the punch lists, review the work... all of which takes time. But no painting for me. At least, I TRY no to do any work.

  • Involved In Real Estate · Hyattsville , MD · Member since 2011 · 298 posts · 256 votes
    12y

    @John Soforic you have to take into consideration that it is a general rule. Doesn't apply the same way to all areas across the US.

    In my area I'm 10 mins from DC- There is no way in hell I could ever cash flow or follow the 50% rule especially if I went into DC just not happening. So it really is just a general rule and some areas you will find your expenses are only 41% and other areas you will find your expenses are 70%. Taxes for a 125k property in PG county is right around 3k a year, insurance over 800 so the figures are different depending on where you are located.

    Its more to help a newbie or anyone to look at the area and say hey maybe my area is not a great one to invest in as far as rentals and then that person can research and expand to a little further that might cash flow better.

    I forgot to add that not everyone owns property free and clear so when mortgage is calculated it makes a difference as well.

  • Investor · Chelsea, MI · Member since 2013 · 350 posts · 138 votes
    12y

    @John Soforic , I think you meant to say "net profit <after> taxes and insurance" not <before>.

    Obviously having stable tenants and therefore low vacancy and turnover costs will go a long way toward minimizing expenses and you seem to have accomplished that.

    Yes, as you pointed out you aren't budgeting for property management and even if you intend to do it yourself, I agree with those who say you should consider it in the budget because (a) you might not want to do it forever and (b) you should account for compensating yourself for that activity separate from the investment return itself. Also, since the 50% rule is supposed to apply over a long period of time, it assumes a reserve fund for long-term capital expenditures. Maybe that was what you meant, but I've seen people say you should expect 10% for repairs and 10% for cap ex.

    Thanks for sharing your experience... I was actually worried as I look at some potential smaller town markets that expenses could end up being proportionately higher because material/labor costs to, say, replace a water heater in a $500/month apartment probably won't be 1/3 of the cost to do it in a $1500/month apartment.

  • Investor · Chelsea, MI · Member since 2013 · 350 posts · 138 votes
    12y
    Originally posted by Ophelia Nicholson:

    I forgot to add that not everyone owns property free and clear so when mortgage is calculated it makes a difference as well.

    @Ophelia Nicholson , actually the 50% rule is completely separate from debt service expenses. The debt service has to come out of the leftover 50% and then, if there is anything left, there is cash flow.

  • Real Estate Investor · Member since 2013 · 866 posts · 487 votes
    12y

    The 50% metric isn't a rule, it is a predictive indicator of how well the asset is performing in relation to its operating costs. Nothing more and nothing less.

    Some of the best real estate I ever purchased didn't meet the 50% metric or even the 2% metric when I bought them. But, from day one a plan was in place to use industry best practices to get them in line with the correct predictive metrics.

    Instead of trying to buy a property meeting the 50% metric (or even the 2% one) you should be looking for how you can take a non-performing property you can buy at a discount and turn it around within a reasonable period of time.

    Any schmo off the street can make money if they buy a property meeting the 50% and 2% metric. But, those of us who can turn a non-performing asset into a well performing one make much, much more.

  • Real Estate Investor · Mount Pleasant, PA · Member since 2013 · 22 posts · 7 votes
    12y

    Brett,

    I think you meant to say "net profit <after> taxes and insurance" not <before>.

    You are right on. My fault.

  • Investor · Willow Spring, NC · Member since 2009 · 5k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    12y

    If you say "expenses" are T+I, plus 5% vacancy and 7.5% repairs, then yes you will be below 50%.

    Run a QB report across all your properties for 2013 and include everything but T+I+Repairs, so: Advertising (includes internet access, web site, PPC, fax service...) , auto (dedicated (owned by LLC) and includes all costs for gas, registration, tires, etc.), cleaning between tenants, legal and professional (eviction filing, tax prep, etc.), management software costs, mailing costs (statements, etc.), capital reserve, utilities between tenants, HOA dues (if any), bank service fees, web site costs. Do you get $0.00? I did that and as a percent of revenue, that percentage was 26%.

    I incluide Capital Reserves (escrowed) for capitalized items like roof, water tank, appliance, HVAC, etc., replacement. Not sure if this is part of the 50% rule... but for sure your $0 expenses in the above categories are way below mine.

  • Real Estate Investor · Mount Pleasant, PA · Member since 2013 · 22 posts · 7 votes
    12y

    Chris,

    Nice response. I need to run to go to work, but I will have time to crunch these numbers later. It will not be too difficult. My initial thought is that allocating $1000 per year for "repairs" does serve (for me) as a bucket for many of the aforementioned costs, but if I was sure I wouldn't have started this thread, right? I know my gross and my net, and you make a very good point to validate the real facts.

  • Investor · Willow Spring, NC · Member since 2009 · 5k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    12y

    I thought the $1000/year was for repairs? I call repairs (which I didn't list above) to include service calls, inspections, replacement of old/defective smoke detectors, appliance parts/repairs, floor/carpet cleaning and repair, broken fixture replacement, rekey service(s), HVAC service calls, labor (painting, drywall repair, handyman svcs, plumbing services, etc.), tool rental, supplies/raw materials (paint, caulk, ...) and that's only about 25% of the list.

    So if you have a person vacate, your cost to turn the property is $0? Just painting a property is several hundred for me. That $1000 goes in a hurry.

  • Real Estate Investor · Mount Pleasant, PA · Member since 2013 · 22 posts · 7 votes
    12y

    Not arguing with you, Chris. Recall that I am the one who asked the question, so I will respond humbly... I value your questions.

    I can tell you my repairs for last year were less than 1 percent of gross profit, and I don't want to hear about deferred maintenance. I know all about it. I can also tell you that my vacancy rate is always extremely low- nowhere near 5 percent. I can tell you also, due to high quality units and tenants, I almost always show and rent my units during the last month of the exiting tenant (zero vacancy, little painting). In my humble opinion, when an investor has a fleet of rentals, all performing as expected, it's like a convoy of ships cruising across the ocean. Yes, occasionally a ship gets in trouble and needs money thrown its way. But the rest of the fleet are cruising and helping to pay for the injured ship, and the injured ship is a rarity.

    My only question here, is whether it is possible for the 50 percent rule to vary greatly due to locality. And I will look into the numbers more closely.. I thank you for the input. But I can assure you that the above example of a typical rental is not out of a fiction novel.

  • Investor · Grand Rapids, MI · Member since 2012 · 74 posts · 8 votes
    12y

    I'm in the same situation as you, I have 34 units, self manage some of them, and run about 40-45% operating expenses. It definitely varies by locality. 31% self managed seems reasonable.

  • Investor · Grand Rapids, MI · Member since 2012 · 74 posts · 8 votes
    12y

    Actually this is good timing to reflect on the year since i'm just wrapping up 2013 tax prep. The self managed properties were at 38% operating expenses. That includes some big repairs due to a tenant who I had to evict and she trashed the house. Excluding this I was at about 35% for the self managed group.

    The non self managed group was at about 49% also including some big repair items.

    Your 31% might be light, but it seems reasonable. My property taxes total about 12% of revenue- I'm sure this could vary significantly by where your property is located.

  • Justin PiercePro Member
    Rental Property Investor · Woodbridge, VA · Member since 2008 · 543 posts · 121 votes
    12y

    It's good to be safe with costs estimates but you can also miss out on some good deals if you're over estimating your costs too much. Missing out on a good deal is an opportunity cost and opportunity costs are real and painful.

    General rules are normally pretty worthless. You have to know your numbers.

    Your accounting sounds pretty good to me. Although, I think I would still plug in a management cost even if you're managing the properties yourself.

  • Real Estate Consultant · Camarillo, CA · Member since 2010 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    12y

    Just to add to mix, I was looking at a mf property in Midland Texas. The property was running at 25%. It was not at 25% due to an efficient running of the property, but the rents were outrageous. The oil gold rush happening in parts of the country will skew the numbers.

    @Jeremy D. You are correct, location is important. Apartment Associations sometimes have local reports that address the cost of expenses and the %.

    The 50% rule helps to decide whether or not to look further at the property.

  • Investor · Clairemont, CA · Member since 2011 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    12y
    Originally posted by @Jeremy D.:
    Actually this is good timing to reflect on the year since i'm just wrapping up 2013 tax prep. The self managed properties were at 38% operating expenses. That includes some big repairs due to a tenant who I had to evict and she trashed the house. Excluding this I was at about 35% for the self managed group.

    The non self managed group was at about 49% also including some big repair items.

    Your 31% might be light, but it seems reasonable. My property taxes total about 12% of revenue- I'm sure this could vary significantly by where your property is located.

    I think this is ultimately a HUGE take away from this discussion. While good PMs do their job, and serve a function, they do in the end cost more than just their normal estimated 12% fee cost( 1 month lease up and 10%/mo). A self managed portfolio will likely have fewer costs due to more efficient addressing of maintenance and repair issues. And IMO lower vacancy and turnover since you have a better opportunity to keep tenants happy and desiring to live in your units for longer periods of time. So when you are not self managing you will likely see higher expenses in other categories not directly associated with the PM cost.

  • Real Estate Broker · Cypress, TX · Member since 2013 · 822 posts · 468 votes
    12y

    Also @John Soforic you need to factor in landscaping/snow removal, as well as any utilities you as the landlord pay for, since this is a MF.

    I use the 50% rule simply as a really quick way to tell if I want to take a closer look at a property. If, however, you know that your number is lower for your area/market/property type, then by all means, adjust the number for your new qualifying rule.

  • Real Estate Broker · Mount Olive, IL · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 310 votes
    12y

    @John Soforic Great topic. Here is my 2 cent.

    The average expense ratio for a multifamily property is between 40% to 60%. There is NO one expense ratio that will apply to all properties in the nation. Let's not forget one of the fundamentals of real estate investing that "real estate is local".

    There is no silver bullet when it comes to real estate investing. 50% is just a rule of thumb and can't replace actual numbers.

    As far as your post is questions is concerned, these are my bones to pick with you.

    1. Isn't your time worth something? You said you don't perform any actual work, but kind of oversea it. Doesn't it take time to manage or see a property? Assessing an issue, calling and arranging a meeting with a handyman / contractor, meeting up at the property, etc. All of this takes time, and TIME IS MONEY. Property management is usually between 6% to 10%.

    2. I don't see replacement reserve in your calculation. Things will fall a part or require repair and maintenance in a long run. Have you allocated any amount for it? Roof alone could cost somewhere from $3000 to $5000 (roughly speaking). Funded reserve is usually between 8% to 12%.

    3. Insurance appears kind of low for an investment property.

    4. There is a term that is called "uncollected funds" and that is different from vacancy. Sometimes you have a place rented, however you never see your rent because of a variety of reasons. There are all kinds of tenants out there. Uncollected funds are usually 5% of the rental income.

    I hope I make sense here for you.

  • Investor · Willow Spring, NC · Member since 2009 · 5k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    12y

    Don't get me wrong, I think it is great that your expenses are very low. Fantastic! I just wonder if you are missing an expense or two. Maybe your vehicle. My company owns vehicles for exclusive use on company property and those costs are non-zero. Over $20K in operational costs in the past 3 years. But if you "contribute" (expense $0) with your personal vehicle, then costs are certainly lower. Ditto for management, showings, accounting costs, etc. There may be a few expenses that should be counted on taxes....

  • J ScottPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
    12y
    Originally posted by @John Soforic:

    My only question here, is whether it is possible for the 50 percent rule to vary greatly due to locality.

    ....

    -1000 repairs per year (every five years = a $5000 bomb hits the property!)

    To your first point above, certainly the answer is yes. But, by greatly, I would say that it's still unlikely that long-term you'll see expense ratios (including rent loss and capex) at less than 40%...and typically not less than 45% based on my experiences, my calculations and my discussions with other investors.

    In your example property, you're estimating your expense ratio (inlcuding rent loss and capex) at 31%. If you add in 10-12% for property management, you're in the 41-43% range, which is certainly possible. But, given the numbers you use to support your estimates, my guess is that your actual expense ratio (including rent loss and capex) is actually closer to 50%.

    Here's why...

    FIRST REASON:

    You commented above that your repairs were about $1000/year. You seemed to have lumped several things into repairs, as I didn't see them called out anywhere else. Specifically, it appears that you lumped the following into your $1000/year repair estimate:

    - Actual Repairs

    - Turnover Costs

    - Capex

    I think $1000/year is reasonable for any one of those categories, and perhaps 1.5 of those categories long-term. But, I seriously doubt your budget for repairs, turnover and capex is going to be $1000/year or less.

    You pointed out that "every five years = a $5000 bomb hits the property!" Yes, that's called capital expenses. These are the big ticket items you'll need to depreciate, and the biggest expenses here are HVAC, roof and water heater. These aren't the only capex expenses you'll face, but they're the most common. In a typical 20 year period, you'll likely replace the HVAC once, the roof once and the water heater twice. I don't know how much you'll pay for those, but my guess is that it's at least $8000 over the 20 years (and potentially a lot more). That's $400/year right there, and that ignores other capex items you'll encounter over the lifetime of a property (siding/trim repairs, concrete issues, major plumbing/electrical upgrades, etc).

    My guess is that your actually capex costs over the *long-term* are closer to $500-600 per year. You probably don't believe this right now, but let's have this discussion again after you've held those properties for 30 years.

    Then you have turnover. Let's say you have to repaint every two years, get the carpets cleaned (and/or hardwoods refinished) every two years, replace the carpet every 5 years, fix broken cabinets/appliances/plumbing fixtures/light fixtures, etc. If you're doing this for less the $300-400/year, you probably haven't had the property long enough to have a tenant do any serious damage. You're lucky...but eventually your luck will run out.

    So, I'm guessing that you're at the $1000/year mark with just capex and turnover, and that doesn't include straight repairs. Things like faucets breaking, toilets running, tubs dripping, windows cracking, etc. Maybe you'll get lucky and that's only half a months rent per year, but again, if you haven't been paying anything for repairs, you either haven't held the properties long enough and/or you've gotten very lucky.

    At this point, you're over the $1000/year...probably closer to $1500/year for what you called "repairs"...and if you're not getting very inexpensive labor, you may be a lot higher than that.

    And comes the...

    SECOND REASON

    Your analysis didn't include any of the following:

    1. Legal Costs

    2. Eviction Issues

    3. Utilities

    4. Lawn Care/Snow Removal

    5. Other Amortized Costs

    Let's take them in order:

    For #1, I'm talking about dealing with evictions for the most part. Never had an eviction? I can promise you that won't last forever. And when it happens, you have two choices: hire and attorney or deal with the legal red tape yourself. Attorneys cost money and if you try to do it yourself, I'd suggest that you can't discount the opportunity costs, which ultimately translates into money. You *WILL* have attorney costs across 41 units long-term, or you'll be spending enough of your own time that you'll lose plenty of money not doing other income-generating tasks.

    For #2, I'm talking about the ramifications of a tenant you need to evict. For one, your 5% vacancy isn't going to cover the times you have a tenant that holds over for 3 months while you're trying to legally get him out. Even if you do get him out quickly, there's a good chance he'll trash you place as retribution (and this will cost more than what you've budgeted for turnover costs, I promise). Tenants you need to evict can end up being your biggest expense in this business, and while you can minimize the chances of it happening, across many unit and many years, you will have this issue at some point, and the amortized costs across all units will likely not be insignificant.

    For #3, I'm curious if you leave off all the utilities between tenants? I'm guessing not. And I'm guessing they're not free either.

    For #4, do you require your tenants to handle lawn maintenance? How about snow removal? If you are expecting them to do snow removal, I highly recommend that you read #5...

    For #5, I'm talking about stuff like liability insurance (which you'll want to have if you're expecting your tenants to do snow removal), CPA costs, advertising costs, etc. These are the little things that you consider "overhead" in your business, but if you didn't have rental properties, you wouldn't incur these expenses. So, realistically, they're a cost associated with having rentals, regardless of whether you choose to amortize them across your holdings or not (from an accounting standpoint, you should not...from an analysis standpoint, I think you're fooling yourself if you don't).

    Anyway, my take is that you have a bunch of costs that you either haven't yet experienced (but will) or aren't acknowledging (and should). I could be completely wrong (it certainly wouldn't be the first time), and maybe none of these things above apply to your business, but if that's the case, hopefully others who are reading this will take these things to heart in their businesses.

  • Real Estate Investor · Kirkland, WA · Member since 2012 · 480 posts · 116 votes
    12y

    @John Soforic

    In case you haven't seen it, the 50% rule was discussed at length here:

    http://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52/topics/17612-where-does-the-5-rule-come-from-

    Just about everything about it is discussed and taken into consideration.

  • Will BarnardPro Member
    Moderator
    Developer · Santa Clarita, CA · Member since 2008 · 15k+ posts · 10k+ votes
    12y

    In reading the first page of this thread, I would say that Chris did a great job addressing some items I too feel were left out so I was going to post my thoughts. Then I got to the second page and read J Scott's. I would not have typed it so eloquently, but I would have stated the exact same thing!

    Yes, 50% is an average over many properties, over many areas, over a long period of time, so while some may experience 55% and others 45%, the average will likely be darn close to 50. Could one investor have 50 units, own them for 50 years all in one area and do better? Yes, and another investor could do the same thing in the same area and do worse.

    Ditto to all the expenses that you ARE incurring but not accounting for like legal, accounting, gasoline, car expenses, phone, and the list goes on. . . and on . .

  • Real Estate Investor · Mount Pleasant, PA · Member since 2013 · 22 posts · 7 votes
    12y

    I have just returned home from work, and am overwhelmed by the many responses. Had I realized this post would generate so much debate, I may have been more cautious in the numbers I used for my initial question. As it is, I hear the power of BiggerPockets loud and clear! Very impressive bunch (IMHO) and it is evident that this group has experience in these real estate. It is also evident that the overwhelming majority believes that given the averages, the 50 percent rule will eventually win the day. I will eat humble pie and dig deeper to see if I may in fact be understating my true expenses per property.

    Ophelia Nicholson, Brett Russell, Duncan Taylor, Chris Martin, Jeremy D., Justin Pierce, Jeff Greenberg, Matt Devincenzo, Sharon Tzib, James Syed, J Scott, Gerald K., Will Barnard, Fran Flanagan

  • Will BarnardPro Member
    Moderator
    Developer · Santa Clarita, CA · Member since 2008 · 15k+ posts · 10k+ votes
    12y

    No need for the pie eating, you posed a valid and legit question and got some legit answers backed from experience. Better to learn here via threads then make mistakes in acquisitions.

    One other tidbit I want to clarify, someone here stated they have deals that did not "meet the 50% rule". I have heard this statement before on BP as well and I think it is important to point out that there is no such thing as any deal "meeting the 50% rule" as opposed to "meeting the 2% rule". It either does or does not in the event of the 2% rule, but when considering the 50% rule, it merely states what your overall expenses will be so there is nothing to meet. If one states there operating expenses average say 40%, that does not mean that property did not meet the 50% rule, it just means that property either did not account for all expenses, or it had a higher cash flow BECAUSE the expense ratio was lower than the average.

  • Jerry W.Pro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Thermopolis, WY · Member since 2012 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    12y

    @John Soforic , great thread BTW. I would chime in and point out a few more things. First putting a roof an a house receiving $500 per month and putting a roof on a place that earns $900 per month may be the same cost. There will be a little variance between properties based upon neighborhood rent rates. Also some properties bought that have been recently rehabbed will take less to maintain for the first 10 or 12 years, but eventually repairs will come your way. For me the 50% rule is like the first hurdle a property must clear before I look at buying it. There are more hurdles.

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