Solving the negative cash flow issue with LA rentals

Solving the negative cash flow issue with LA rentals

Professional · Brooklyn, NY · Member since 2017 · 624 posts · 147 votes

So you are told its impossible to cash flow in LA. Actually you can, it just requires slightly more cash down. You can also try lowering expenses, although that might barely make a difference.

If data from Zillow is correct, current median listing price for a home in LA is about $749,000. You can almost forget about a nothing down purchase... with a 20% down payment, 4.7% 30-year conventional mortgage rate and financing the principal of: $599,200, your monthly mortgage payment would equal: $3108. 

But median LA rent for a home appears to be about $3500. We already see some problems here. To break even, you would have to keep total expenses at 11.21% or $392 per month -- thats a long ways from 50% suggested by the 50% rule. Using estimated expenses of 45%, the result is a monthly negative cash flow of $1,182.68. 

So owner would have to incur an additional out of pocket expense of $14,192.13 per year, just to maintain property and hoping property appreciates in value in excess of this amount just to soften the hit.

Median LA Listing Price           $749,000
20% Down Payment           $149,800
Loan Principal           $599,200
Mortgage Rate                 4.70%
Term (months)                    360
Mortgage Payment                $3,108
Median LA Rent                $3,500
Avg Expense 45%               $1,575
Net Operating Income               $1,925
Gross Income Per Year             $42,000
Cap Rate            3.0841%
Cash Flow        $(1,182.68)

In order to break even, and we aren't even talking positive cash flow yet, you would need a down payment of about 50.45% of the property value to significantly reduce loan principal. 

Example: holding all else constant,  50.45% of the $749,000 in cash for the down would reduce loan principal to about $371,165 which then enables property owner to break even. 


Median LA Listing Price            $749,000
50.45% Down Payment            $377,835
Loan Principal            $371,165
Mortgage Rate                 4.70%
Term (months)                    360
Mortgage Payment               $1,925
Median LA Rent               $3,500
Avg Expense 45%               $1,575
Net Operating Income               $1,925
Gross Income Per Year            $42,000
Cap Rate            3.0841%
Cash Flow               $ - 0

Is a 50% down payment weird or normal in your market? 

So if you thinking about scooping up a rental in LA, the real question is, how much down you planning to play with?

3Reply
231 views

Most Popular Reply

Member since 2016 · 13k+ posts · 12k+ votes
9y

Only the most inexperienced of investors would invest on the assumption that the equity (DP) in a property increases cash flow.

True cash flow calculations can only be made based on a 100% financed property. That would be taking into consideration the prevailing mortgage interest rates to calculate cash flow. Once a investors throws cash into the deal that equity cost is calculated based on a assumed opportunity value of 10%. This is obviously much higher than prevailing costs of financing resulting in DP (equity) actually reducing cash flow on a property not increasing it. Equity is a extremely expensive way to purchase artificial cash flow.

Any investment property that can not show true positive cash flow with 100% financing can never have true positive cash flow. Equity will only make cash flow numbers worse assuming a investor actually understands and appreciates the value of money. 

For every 100K in equity it reduces any true cash flow on the property by $866/month.

See this reply in the discussion

46 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Rental Property Investor · Hong Kong, Hong Kong Island · Member since 2014 · 188 posts · 114 votes
    9y
    Originally posted by @Lesley Resnick:

    ...On the non institutional side under 1000 doors, money is not flowing into the gateway cities.  Currently it is net a outflow.

     Institutional and foreign money is still flowing into gateway cities, because of the scale, in NYC, you could spend 500m with out effecting the market.

    I take your point that people invested where they were comfortable. What is your data source concerning under 1000 doors investors?

  • Professional · Brooklyn, NY · Member since 2017 · 624 posts · 147 votes
    9y
    Originally posted by @Lesley Resnick:

    My persoanl goal is cashflow and cash preservation.  It feeds the machine and allows me to fund my next deal.  There are a million approaches and methods to make money in RE.  If it is right for the individual investor, who is to say otherwise.  The fact is no one will know who was right until it is too late.   

    And there is nothing wrong with pursuing a cash flow strategy... nothing guarantees the long run rate of return on any investment; which after adjusting for inflation and other opportunity cost may not be materially different anyway. If your primary goal is cash flow in RE, then you would probably buy in Detroit, Baltimore or areas with similar cash flow characteristics as opposed to say LA or SF.

  • Specialist · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    9y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @Alexander Monnin:

    Typically when I do internal rate of return calculations for properties in high appreciating areas, they have higher returns with LESS down payment despite being more cash flow negative.

    The IRR, has its issues -- especially when talking about negative cash flow situations that may generate multiple IRRs but that is digressing from the point.

    The purely cash flow oriented investor, typically invest to generate passive positive income -- usually monthly. They don't want to look at investments with negative monthly cash flow, regardless of actual cumulative returns 10 years from now.  

    If rent in LA is $3500 a month and half of that is expenses, that means I only have $1750 to service the mortgage. But mortgage payment itself is almost $3800 at a 4.7% rate. So instead of generating a positive passive income from this property, I would be generating a passive monthly expense of almost $2100 per month. 

    One thing you don't have to explain too hard to some investors is what income is and what expense is. A $2100 monthly expense for 10 years on a property or for however long the holding period is, is just not something they are looking at. It has nothing to do with whether they have the cash to spend. The philosophy is to let leverage do its job.

    It doesn't make LA a bad market, someone still has to live there. It just means an investor whose investment objective is generating positive passive monthly income, may better achieve that goal in say Detroit or Baltimore or may have to look into bonds or a dividend paying stock, as opposed to crossing your fingers and waiting on appreciation while getting hit with monthly cash outflow throughout the holding period.

    So if the number makes sense considerably in the long term... then as some way to avoid walking away from the market completely, the investor may then have to figure out just how much cash is needed for a down payment, to finance a lower principal balance, where they just break even and dont to incur a monthly cash outflow as previously discussed.

     Now I think you're just trolling.

    In your reply to me, you criticized data. Then, you criticized IRR. Both it those things are OBJECTIVE. The way an investor chooses to invest and where is purely subjective.

    It is not crossing your fingers or speculating to invest for appreciation. Not when data going back 40+ years supports it. It is much safer to invest for appreciation than cashflow. That is because if the property just barely keeps up with inflation, you need to sit there crossing your fingers that CapEx costs dont eat your hard earned cash faux 5 or 10 years from now.

    Here is another way to look at it. Look at BP. Now find the most successful cash flow investors, and the most successful appreciation investors. The former generally are happy after they achieve $5k per month in passive monthly income, are very frugal and generally save every penny to get there, and have like 30-50+ properties to worry about. The appreciation investors are "wealthy".. they are decamilliomaires that sit back and enjoy their equity and rent growth as it was a hedge against many unforseen things.

    Cash flow is not profit. I simply observe the folks on BP, now that I've been around longer. I have both types of investments... $200-300 of cash flow per month (that you hope will stay that way) is just not worth the squeeze I've come to realize.

  • Professional · Brooklyn, NY · Member since 2017 · 624 posts · 147 votes
    9y
    Originally posted by @Sebastien Hitier:

    I take your point that people invested where they were comfortable. What is your data source concerning under 1000 doors investors?

    Regarding institutional funds, that is a good question; although there are institutional investors with short term cash flow objectives, they typically can, if they want to, go long and wait on appreciation. Wouldn't be surprised if there are institutional players buying up in areas with negative cash flow. If they are exiting, its probably not because they cant wait.

  • Professional · Brooklyn, NY · Member since 2017 · 624 posts · 147 votes
    9y
    Originally posted by @Andrey Y.:
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @Alexander Monnin:

    In your reply to me, you criticized data. Then, you criticized IRR. Both it those things are OBJECTIVE.

    Perhaps I should say it again, using an IRR to evaluate an investment with negative cash flows has its problems. Go read up on multiple IRRs or find something better to do. If rental income doesn't cover expenses and mortgage, investment decision = NO if positive cash flow is the objective (not deferred cash flow). Any part of that you don't comprehend? Go back to kindergarten for petty talks! What a nut!

  • Real Estate Agent · Jacksonville, FL · Member since 2015 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    9y
    Originally posted by @Sebastien Hitier:
    Originally posted by @Lesley Resnick:

    ...On the non institutional side under 1000 doors, money is not flowing into the gateway cities.  Currently it is net a outflow.

     Institutional and foreign money is still flowing into gateway cities, because of the scale, in NYC, you could spend 500m with out effecting the market.

    I take your point that people invested where they were comfortable. What is your data source concerning under 1000 doors investors?

     1,000 doors is an arbitrary number.  It is large enough to be a corperation, where you have segregation of duties i.e. ceo,cio HR, operations, etc.  The California teachers pension fund is worth $197b.  25b is in real-estate in SF, LA and Ca.  One building is worth 460m.  Mostly what I was getting at is that institutional money would have a difficult time spending $25B billion dollars in a secondary market.  If they could find that volume to invest, it would also skew the market.  The gateway cities off scale that is not available in the secondary markets.          

  • Contractor · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2015 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    9y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @Manolo D.:

    This is easy to solve, and I strongly believe that it will be true to all properties in CA. Put 100% down, and it surely WILL cash flow. Now, for the true test of cash flow, you need to assume you finance it 100%! including closing cosrs and everything before they give you the keys. 3.5, 5, 10, 20% DP is cheating! With that said, many will find it true also in a federal level that 50% of their "cash flow positive" is not actually cash flowing.

    Sure you buy a property 100% cash and chances are you have no debt service...that would be obviously obvious. A different case from an investor looking to invest in LA and wanting to know specifically exact cash debt mix to achieve a specific positive cash flow or income per month on a property.

     There is no mix, the question is, does it cash flow or does it not, and you need it to be 100% financed to achieve the real cash flow test, like I said, putting more or any down payment then do a test is cheating. If you want to compute a percentage down to achieve positive cash flow, then it is simple math juggled what is x and y, it is not a test on anything. You asked to solve a problem, I gave you a full proof solution that 100% down will cash flow, plain and simple. Some people put 20% down and once it cash flows, they think it is positive cash flow, half the time it doesn't. Anyone could do simple math, but benchmarks can't be altered to achieve personal satisfaction.

  • Contractor · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2015 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    9y

    @Lesley Resnick I agree, some are happy to gain 2% vs of 0.1% sitting in bank, and these hedge funds are in hopes of skyrockets or appreciation. When they hit 15 digits, they tend to be more playing their money safe than anything else. Try to build a flipping business with 100B as starting capital today and see where or what you spent and gained within 1 year with JUST FLIPPING houses. Sometimes you need to forget cash flow and focus on the bigger picture.

  • Investor · Orange County, CA · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    9y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @David Faulkner:
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    Interesting... the more you try to be civil... the more you have a loose nut try to start an unnecessary argument.

    If you are trying to brag about having some legendary imaginary investment skillz with a big Z to me, you barking up the wrong tree chuck... and if you dont have anything relevant or positive to add the discussion, find somewhere else to rant.

    Most multi family cash flow investors buy properties with cash or use debt from a lender for most transactions... so if you are referring to any other non main stream, private money route or pooling of investor funds as some sort of rocket science then feel free to give yourself a pat on the back... feel better now!

    The mere fact that you have to resolve to unusual or abnormal means to achieve normal results tells you there may be something fundamentally wrong. 

    Market rent is market rent -- has nothing to do with your "skillz". Market rent ultimately determines cap rate if expenses aligns with market norms. If you need a hammer try Lowes or HomeDepot.

    Interesting indeed ... the more I read your responses the more I'm tending to agree with @Andrey Y. ... I think you are just trolling. You ask a question, I try to answer you and give you examples and rationale. There is absolutely nothing abnormal about the means I'm suggesting. Forced appreciation, looking at all the factors including cash flow, making projections from entry to exit and an actionable plan to achieve results, hedging your bets and actively assessing and managing risk, maintaining multiple profitable exit strategies, tailoring your strategy to best take advantage of current market dynamics ... this is not abnormal means, it is not gambling, it is not bragging, and it is not rocket science ... it is all plain vanilla real estate investing 201 and is sound practice in any market, and these methods tailored properly work in any market regardless of whether it is a so called appreciation market or a so called cash flow market and each and every shade of grey in between. If you don't understand it, can't see it, or don't agree with it, that's fine ... 

  • Investor · Orange County, CA · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    9y
    Originally posted by @Lesley Resnick:

    There seems to be a visceral disagreement over gateway (NY,Sf,LA, Miami, etc)  cities or not.  Typically it is the people who live in these places who feel they must defend their city.  When it comes to investing who cares what city you live in and invest, It is about the numbers.  If you did not live there, would you still invest there? If you did not already own it, would you buy it today? 

    The gateway cities are among the coolest to live in, but not necessarily to invest.  There are certain themes that are reoccurring.  The notion that gateway cities always have the best appreciation.  It is not a fact, sometimes they do.  They are more expensive and actuals dollars will be larger.  There are time periods for every market that out perform others and to just make a blanket stament is not a fair assessment.  

    On the non institutional side under 1000 doors, money is not flowing into the gateway cities.  Currently it is net a outflow.

     Institutional and foreign money is still flowing into gateway cities, because of the scale, in NYC, you could spend 500m with out effecting the market.

    My persoanl goal is cashflow and cash preservation.  It feeds the machine and allows me to fund my next deal.  There are a million approaches and methods to make money in RE.  If it is right for the individual investor, who is to say otherwise.  The fact is no one will know who was right until it is too late.   

    Some good view points and questions here. I invest in a gateway city because I live here, love living here, and do not wish to move from here. If I did not live here, no I would probably not invest here ... that has nothing to do with one market being better than another in my mind but rather my belief and observation over the years that the advantages of being a skilled local investor tend to trump any perceived or actual advantages of investing remotely in some other far away market. If you have the capital, experience, and systems in place (normally developed investing locally 1st) and scale way up to achieve more control, then you can succeed more reliably from afar, but that is not a vast majority of folks here on BP ... I personally have no need or desire to do this since my local market serves my investment needs quite well. 

    If I did not already own, would I buy it today ... yes, I would still invest today, but I would use a different strategy today as I did in 2009-2012 ... I would still buy distressed property at a discount (which is what my properties were when I bought them), not turnkey property at retail (which is what my properties are today if they were to go on the market) ... so in that regard no I would not necessarily buy the exact properties I own in the exact condition that I own them today ... if you took the transaction costs and capital gains taxes that it would cost me if I sold, and subtracted that from the purchase price, heck yes I would buy them ... that is the real comparison and why I hold them. 

    I don't agree that there is a net outlfow of money in the gateway cities ... if that were true, then prices would be going down, and they or not on the residential or commercial side, at least not in LA currently. The reason I feel the need to defend is because not a day goes by that I don't see a newbie from CA claiming that there is no way to make money in their local market, and about how you absolutely have to be a speculator to invest here, how cash flow is impossible in this market, and so many out of state marketers spreading hype & misinformation, and it just isn't true ...

  • Investor · Orange County, CA · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    9y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @Alexander Monnin:

    Typically when I do internal rate of return calculations for properties in high appreciating areas, they have higher returns with LESS down payment despite being more cash flow negative.

    The IRR, has its issues -- especially when talking about negative cash flow situations that may generate multiple IRRs but that is digressing from the point.

    The purely cash flow oriented investor, typically invest to generate passive positive income -- usually monthly. They don't want to look at investments with negative monthly cash flow, regardless of actual cumulative returns 10 years from now.  

    If rent in LA is $3500 a month and half of that is expenses, that means I only have $1750 to service the mortgage. But mortgage payment itself is almost $3800 at a 4.7% rate. So instead of generating a positive passive income from this property, I would be generating a passive monthly expense of almost $2100 per month. 

    One thing you don't have to explain too hard to some investors is what income is and what expense is. A $2100 monthly expense for 10 years on a property or for however long the holding period is, is just not something they are looking at. It has nothing to do with whether they have the cash to spend. The philosophy is to let leverage do its job.

    It doesn't make LA a bad market, someone still has to live there. It just means an investor whose investment objective is generating positive passive monthly income, may better achieve that goal in say Detroit or Baltimore or may have to look into bonds or a dividend paying stock, as opposed to crossing your fingers and waiting on appreciation while getting hit with monthly cash outflow throughout the holding period.

    So if the number makes sense considerably in the long term... then as some way to avoid walking away from the market completely, the investor may then have to figure out just how much cash is needed for a down payment, to finance a lower principal balance, where they just break even and dont to incur a monthly cash outflow as previously discussed.

    Factoring the average property, at the average cost, and average rent, with average down payment, and average loan terms, but ignoring average appreciation, average tax savings, and average amortization, therefore the conclusion is that nothing cash flows unless you put 50%+ cash down (that is the only possible way to make it happen) and nothing is a good investment in this market. Am I understanding your logic and argument correctly?

  • Real Estate Broker · Chicago, IL · Member since 2015 · 1k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    9y

    Those who only see the cash-flow side of things frequently ignore that cash flow is as much a gamble as appreciation is. Rents fluctuate just like prices do. And it takes a ton of research and study to accurately predict where it'll end up in the future, just like with appreciation.

  • Professional · Brooklyn, NY · Member since 2017 · 624 posts · 147 votes
    9y
    Originally posted by @Matthew Olszak:

    Those who only see the cash-flow side of things frequently ignore that cash flow is as much a gamble as appreciation is. Rents fluctuate just like prices do. And it takes a ton of research and study to accurately predict where it'll end up in the future, just like with appreciation.

    Sometimes its not about what you see but what you need. Investors have varying needs. Sure, it may be cheaper to travel by greyhound from LA to New York (if there were no time constraints). But if I just got a call that I have 8 hours or less to get to New York to close a deal, I'll probably be on the next flight because that is what I need to do. Whether or not there are other (slower) ways of getting there would be immaterial.

  • Professional · Brooklyn, NY · Member since 2017 · 624 posts · 147 votes
    9y
    Originally posted by @David Faulkner:
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @Alexander Monnin:

    You can understand this.... if we are dealing 100% cash only without using any leverage, I count a few markets that outperforms LA when you look at both cash flow and appreciation. It cant be further simplified. 

    Investors often are extremely biased towards either strategy based on whatever they are utilizing; so its nothing new that they are those that would profusely argue for appreciation over CF or for LA over other markets built for CF.

    You can try to describe a zillion ways you can get creative in LA to outperform other markets but if you apply same to other markets the effects cancel out. 

    Sometimes you just let the numbers say what it says without trying to be too creative.

  • Professional · Brooklyn, NY · Member since 2017 · 624 posts · 147 votes
    9y
    Originally posted by @David Faulkner:
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    Obviously your projections are skewed... because if I compare LA with a few of the other markets (removing leverage from the equation), there are multiple markets outperforming LA when you combine cumulative aggregate CF and Appreciation. LA values may grow at 7% per year but some markets are cash flow cash cows. You do what works for you though.

  • OH · Member since 2017 · 45 posts · 38 votes
    9y

    @Account Closed

    Removing leverage from the equation doesn't make sense.  As I mentioned in earlier post, more leverage will decrease cash flow but increase returns.  

    If someone were trying to decide between two properties, one an appreciation investment and the other a cash flow investment, it logically makes sense to compare them with whatever leverage gives the highest return for each property.

    Also, you have been stressing that many investors need the cash flow now.  That goes against your suggestion of putting a 50% down payment of 375,000.  If instead you put 20% down payment of 150,000, well then you saved 225,000 upfront and could easily cover the monthly expenses.

    I believe most people who say they need cash flow NOW don't really need it.  They use that said cash flow to fund their next deal.  They need to fund their next deal because cash on cash return is only an annual yield IF you reinvest the cash flow.  Next thing you know they have 5, 10, 20+ properties.  The cycle never ends because they always have to reinvest the cash flow for their cash on cash return to be an annual yield.

    Why not just by an appreciation play with a conservative IRR of 10% or more?

  • Professional · Brooklyn, NY · Member since 2017 · 624 posts · 147 votes
    9y

    @Alexander Monnin I should start answering some of your questions with a question.... So if we really have to get into the theory of things... there is a reason why you use the Cap Rate to evaluate rentals. Debt service is excluded on purpose and the NOI is utilized as the numerator. Want to guess why that is?

  • OH · Member since 2017 · 45 posts · 38 votes
    9y

    @Account Closed

    I would say debt service is different for everyone.  People can have different payments even if they put the same amount of money down.

    I think cap rate should be used to tell if you are over/under paying for a property.  If you buy at a 6% cap rate in a neighborhood that has a 4% cap rate, then you payed less than what the property is worth.

  • Professional · Brooklyn, NY · Member since 2017 · 624 posts · 147 votes
    9y
    @Alexander Monnin

    I would say debt service is different for everyone.  People can have different payments even if they put the same amount of money down.

    I think cap rate should be used to tell if you are over/under paying for a property.  If you buy at a 6% cap rate in a neighborhood that has a 4% cap rate, then you payed less than what the property is worth.

     Some might say it represents the comparative income generating strength of an investment compared to its price. So the gross revenue generated by a rental property has nothing to do with whether or not property is financed.

  • OH · Member since 2017 · 45 posts · 38 votes
    9y

    @Account Closed

    I don't see how that is related to anything I said earlier.

  • Investor · Willow Spring, NC · Member since 2009 · 5k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    9y

    I'm not sure how much value there is in these west coast vs. everywhere else posts. You can pick a time frame that works for a lot of different markets. In literally 60 seconds, I did a reality check of a slow growth market (Raleigh) vs. LA over the last 10 years. Graph below. I know that in Raleigh I can find fully leveraged rental property that will be net income positive after all expenses plus debt service. Tougher today than 3 years ago. But a few years back, I could find rentals that are net income positive after debt service and depreciation expense. These are Class B properties, generally outside the city. But change the timeframe to 5 years or 20 years, and the equity return is better in LA. And go back to 1995, $1 is $3.29 in LA and $1.92 in Raleigh. But that $1... I leveraged and still got cash flow... I think the answer is 'there are multiple good answers'

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