Why markets with low appreciation grow your net worth twice as fast

Why markets with low appreciation grow your net worth twice as fast

Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2014 · 208 posts · 137 votes

This post is for those who like digging into the details of how their investments work and optimizing their portfolios through math. TLDR: Your net worth will grow around twice as fast by passively investing in unsexy, low-appreciation markets in the South and Midwest than glitzy, high-appreciation ones in the Sun Belt or on the coasts.

The title might seem counterintuitive, but there's a firm basis for this claim. That's right--high-appreciation markets are not the ones to invest in if you want your net worth to grow passively. Your total return, specifically return on equity, is always lower in these markets, and therefore, your net worth grows more slowly. This is true even if the appreciation is eye-popping.

First, high-appreciation markets generally have low cap rates, meaning low cashflow. These are markets like Austin, Phoenix, Nashville. In Austin, for instance, a home purchased for $400k might rent for $2,200 a month. With a 30-year loan at 7%, a typical interest rate today, you'd have to put down around $255k, nearly 65% of the purchase price, to hit roughly $0 cashflow (at these round numbers, it comes out to around -$328). The upside is that if Austin continues appreciating at the same rate as the last decade, around 7% annually, you'll make $28,000 in appreciation and the principal paydown in the first year will be $1,473. That's a total gain of $29,145 on your equity of $255,000 or a total return on equity of 11.4%. Yes, in spite of the seemingly great appreciation rate of 7%, this return doesn't beat stocks by much, if at all. Again, 7% appreciation, total return of 11.4%.

Now, say you're in an unsexy market that lacks this eye-popping appreciation, but offers higher cap rates, meaning higher cashflow. We're talking places like Cleveland and Memphis. In Memphis, a single family home might sell for $150k and rent for $1500 a month. With a 30-year loan at 7%, you would have to pay the loan down to $115k (a down payment of $35k or around 23%) to keep the cashflow positive (it should end up at about $185). Memphis definitely appreciates, too--over the last decade, it actually appreciated as well as Austin, but since it has recently slowed, we'll use a more conservative rate of 4.5%. That makes for $6,750 in appreciation (4.5% of $150,000), principal paydown is $1,168, and the total gain here is $8,103 on equity of $35,000, or 23.2%. Yes, around 23% is a reasonable rate that you can expect your money to grow at in a place like Memphis--even with modest appreciation of 4.5%.

Though the specific figures will change, this pattern will hold true across any combination of high cashflow/low appreciation and low cashflow/high-appreciation markets. There are various things to be said about the merits of both, but for a passive investor interested in growth, the cashflow-intensive markets that don't appreciate as much are better.

I have assumed in these examples that you are not willing to take on negative cashflow. If you have very high income from other sources or very large reserves, you may be able to leverage yourself to the hilt and take on insane negative cashflow to profit from high appreciation. Also, if your goals are not maximum growth, you could think about parking your money in coastal or Sun Belt markets. I have not taken taxes into account--appreciation gains are not taxed until sale--nor volatility, which is greater for appreciation than cashflow. Also, to get the higher returns I've mentioned, you must be invested in more properties total, meaning more work for you or, preferably, your manager--that's what it takes to get this return. I'm sure that there will be quibbles with these numbers--I don't invest in either of these places and am interested in hearing from those who do if there are any small corrections. The point remains: for people looking for maximum passive growth, the less glamorous, low-appreciation, high-cashflow markets are the place to be.

Oh, to show the work:

Austin

Revenue

Annual revenue $26,400 ($2,200 x 12) less 7% vacancy ($1,848) = $24,552

Expenses

Property tax: $7,000 (1.75% of property value--Austin is high!)

Insurance: $2,300

Turns and maintenance: $4,000

Principal and interest on $145,000 (30 year loan at 7%) = $965 monthly/$11,580 annually

Cashflow: -$328

Principal paydown: $1,473

Appreciation (7% of $400,000): $28,000

Return on equity ($29,145/$255,000): 11.4%

Memphis

Revenue

Annual revenue $18,000 ($1,500 x 12) less 7% vacancy ($1,260) = $16,740

Expenses

Property tax: $1,275

Insurance: $1,100

Turns and maintenance: $5,000 (a little higher in Memphis due to rougher tenant base)

Principal and interest on $115,000 (30 year loan at 7%) = $765 monthly/$9,180 annually

Cashflow: $185

Principal paydown: $1,168

Appreciation (4.5% of $150,000): $6,750

Return on equity ($8,103/$35,000): 23.2%

24Reply
1,158 views

Most Popular Reply

Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
1y

couple holes in your thesis.

1. I suspect a 400k house in Austin will rent for more than 2500.

2. I suspect a 150k house in Memphis will rent for a tad less than 1500. Also prop taxs could be higher there is double tax in Memphis City and county.

3. Most folks dont buy 400 to 500k SFRs for rentals..

4. 150k home in Memphis is going to have bad debt at some point so your not going to get all that revenue.

Now dont get me wrong I agree on most areas of Texas for out of state owners Prop taxs insurance soil issue exteme weather those are killers on homes.. to me Texans need to buy Texas homes as they dont have any income tax.

See this reply in the discussion

310 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Real Estate Agent · Sisters, OR · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    1y

    In high appreciating markets the rents appreciate very quickly as well.  I think finding properties that you can make the numbers work in appreciating markets is the best strategy.  That being said all mom and pop investors such as yours truly are better off investing close to home.

  • Flipper/Rehabber · CA · Member since 2023 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    1y

    Lol, anyone who thinks interest rates are high, is high. They're actually rather moderate, Good God doesn't anyone understand that the artifical suppression of % rates was a component of inflation. Along with LOTS of $ printing aka QE, iNfLaTioN  reduction act etc al.

    Man o man "experts" lol

    • Dan H.Pro Member
      Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Alan F.:

      Lol, anyone who thinks interest rates are high, is high. They're actually rather moderate, Good God doesn't anyone understand that the artifical suppression of % rates was a component of inflation. Along with LOTS of $ printing aka QE, iNfLaTioN  reduction act etc al.

      Man o man "experts" lol


       They are high compared to the rates starting in 2010.   The property values in many/most markets still reflect the recent low interest rates.   The leveraged cost of RE in my market is the highest since the early 1980s and near the all time high.

      In my view rates are high.  I can see someone using the lifetime of rates and not consider them high but doing so is not looking at the entire picture.  it is my view looking at only the current rate versus lifetime of rates to judge if rates are high is ignoring a lot of factors.

      Note this does not mean that I am expecting the rates to go down significantly.  When rates started to rise there were many on this site speculating a large rate reduction in the near term (even my Florida loan broker stated this).  We likely would need a recession or depression to get the rates st or near 2010 through q2 2022.

      Best wishes

    • Flipper/Rehabber · CA · Member since 2023 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Dan H.:
      Quote from @Alan F.:

      Lol, anyone who thinks interest rates are high, is high. They're actually rather moderate, Good God doesn't anyone understand that the artifical suppression of % rates was a component of inflation. Along with LOTS of $ printing aka QE, iNfLaTioN  reduction act etc al.

      Man o man "experts" lol


       They are high compared to the rates starting in 2010.   The property values in many/most markets still reflect the recent low interest rates.   The leveraged cost of RE in my market is the highest since the early 1980s and near the all time high.

      In my view rates are high.  I can see someone using the lifetime of rates and not consider them high but doing so is not looking at the entire picture.  it is my view looking at only the current rate versus lifetime of rates to judge if rates are high is ignoring a lot of factors.

      Note this does not mean that I am expecting the rates to go down significantly.  When rates started to rise there were many on this site speculating a large rate reduction in the near term (even my Florida loan broker stated this).  We likely would need a recession or depression to get the rates st or near 2010 through q2 2022.

      Best wishes


       Lol, yup 15 year perspective...gotcha. 

      Cause and effect can take years to play out.

      Look Dan the subsidies are over, and i sincerely hope permanently. Its great you reaped the benefit of poor fiscal policy. Many did not

      Its been a heck of alot easier this time than in the 70's/80's. Just be thankful you caught the wave.

      Real estate is cyclical, so are economics, in fact they are an interwoven tapestry.

      Maybe it's time for producers to be rewarded rather than consumers. Maybe savers rather than borrowers. Maybe small businesses instead of corpratist's and stateist's 

      Your a very smart guy Dan, and helped many people on this forum, that being said maybe it's time to think of future generations and people that live a divergent life than you or I

      Isn't that why we're here on the forum? To help others?

      The only constant in life....is change.

      Best regards

    • Lender · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2015 · 270 posts · 217 votes
      1y
      Quote from @Dan H.:
      Quote from @Alan F.:

      Lol, anyone who thinks interest rates are high, is high. They're actually rather moderate, Good God doesn't anyone understand that the artifical suppression of % rates was a component of inflation. Along with LOTS of $ printing aka QE, iNfLaTioN  reduction act etc al.

      Man o man "experts" lol


       They are high compared to the rates starting in 2010.   The property values in many/most markets still reflect the recent low interest rates.   The leveraged cost of RE in my market is the highest since the early 1980s and near the all time high.

      In my view rates are high.  I can see someone using the lifetime of rates and not consider them high but doing so is not looking at the entire picture.  it is my view looking at only the current rate versus lifetime of rates to judge if rates are high is ignoring a lot of factors.

      Note this does not mean that I am expecting the rates to go down significantly.  When rates started to rise there were many on this site speculating a large rate reduction in the near term (even my Florida loan broker stated this).  We likely would need a recession or depression to get the rates st or near 2010 through q2 2022.

      Best wishes


      Yes interest rates are quite high if you compare them to some of the lowest interest rates in history. Or maybe the property values are high because as you yourself say they reflect interest rates that no longer exist.

    • Flipper/Rehabber · CA · Member since 2023 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Sam B.:
      Quote from @Dan H.:
      Quote from @Alan F.:

      Lol, anyone who thinks interest rates are high, is high. They're actually rather moderate, Good God doesn't anyone understand that the artifical suppression of % rates was a component of inflation. Along with LOTS of $ printing aka QE, iNfLaTioN  reduction act etc al.

      Man o man "experts" lol


       They are high compared to the rates starting in 2010.   The property values in many/most markets still reflect the recent low interest rates.   The leveraged cost of RE in my market is the highest since the early 1980s and near the all time high.

      In my view rates are high.  I can see someone using the lifetime of rates and not consider them high but doing so is not looking at the entire picture.  it is my view looking at only the current rate versus lifetime of rates to judge if rates are high is ignoring a lot of factors.

      Note this does not mean that I am expecting the rates to go down significantly.  When rates started to rise there were many on this site speculating a large rate reduction in the near term (even my Florida loan broker stated this).  We likely would need a recession or depression to get the rates st or near 2010 through q2 2022.

      Best wishes


      Yes interest rates are quite high if you compare them to some of the lowest interest rates in history. Or maybe the property values are high because as you yourself say they reflect interest rates that no longer exist.


       Yeah the only time they were lower was during ww2. 

      I don't remember buying war bonds in '08

      Feckless technocrats like Bernanke and especially Yellen aren't qualified to run a lemonade stand lol.

      Barney Frank; "maybe Dodd Frank was a mistake" Wow really? A policy for a problem that longer exists?

      Janet Yellen; "maybe inflation wasn't transitory " No s**t who'd a thunk 10 years of keynsian $ printing would cause inflation.

      Paul Voelker 2.0

      At least Americans got to buy cheap Chinese crap on their cc.

    • Lender · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2015 · 270 posts · 217 votes
      1y
      Quote from @Alan F.:
      Quote from @Sam B.:
      Quote from @Dan H.:
      Quote from @Alan F.:

      Lol, anyone who thinks interest rates are high, is high. They're actually rather moderate, Good God doesn't anyone understand that the artifical suppression of % rates was a component of inflation. Along with LOTS of $ printing aka QE, iNfLaTioN  reduction act etc al.

      Man o man "experts" lol


       They are high compared to the rates starting in 2010.   The property values in many/most markets still reflect the recent low interest rates.   The leveraged cost of RE in my market is the highest since the early 1980s and near the all time high.

      In my view rates are high.  I can see someone using the lifetime of rates and not consider them high but doing so is not looking at the entire picture.  it is my view looking at only the current rate versus lifetime of rates to judge if rates are high is ignoring a lot of factors.

      Note this does not mean that I am expecting the rates to go down significantly.  When rates started to rise there were many on this site speculating a large rate reduction in the near term (even my Florida loan broker stated this).  We likely would need a recession or depression to get the rates st or near 2010 through q2 2022.

      Best wishes


      Yes interest rates are quite high if you compare them to some of the lowest interest rates in history. Or maybe the property values are high because as you yourself say they reflect interest rates that no longer exist.


       Yeah the only time they were lower was during ww2. 

      I don't remember buying war bonds in '08

      Feckless technocrats like Bernanke and especially Yellen aren't qualified to run a lemonade stand lol.

      Barney Frank; "maybe Dodd Frank was a mistake" Wow really? A policy for a problem that longer exists?

      Janet Yellen; "maybe inflation wasn't transitory " No s**t who'd a thunk 10 years of keynsian $ printing would cause inflation.

      Paul Voelker 2.0

      At least Americans got to buy cheap Chinese crap on their cc.


      Do you mean to imply that a committee of bureaucrats isn't qualified to set the single most important price in the economy? I know conventional wisdom is that price fixing does not work but I have been assured that in this one very specific case it does in fact work.

    • Flipper/Rehabber · CA · Member since 2023 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Sam B.:
      Quote from @Alan F.:
      Quote from @Sam B.:
      Quote from @Dan H.:
      Quote from @Alan F.:

      Lol, anyone who thinks interest rates are high, is high. They're actually rather moderate, Good God doesn't anyone understand that the artifical suppression of % rates was a component of inflation. Along with LOTS of $ printing aka QE, iNfLaTioN  reduction act etc al.

      Man o man "experts" lol


       They are high compared to the rates starting in 2010.   The property values in many/most markets still reflect the recent low interest rates.   The leveraged cost of RE in my market is the highest since the early 1980s and near the all time high.

      In my view rates are high.  I can see someone using the lifetime of rates and not consider them high but doing so is not looking at the entire picture.  it is my view looking at only the current rate versus lifetime of rates to judge if rates are high is ignoring a lot of factors.

      Note this does not mean that I am expecting the rates to go down significantly.  When rates started to rise there were many on this site speculating a large rate reduction in the near term (even my Florida loan broker stated this).  We likely would need a recession or depression to get the rates st or near 2010 through q2 2022.

      Best wishes


      Yes interest rates are quite high if you compare them to some of the lowest interest rates in history. Or maybe the property values are high because as you yourself say they reflect interest rates that no longer exist.


       Yeah the only time they were lower was during ww2. 

      I don't remember buying war bonds in '08

      Feckless technocrats like Bernanke and especially Yellen aren't qualified to run a lemonade stand lol.

      Barney Frank; "maybe Dodd Frank was a mistake" Wow really? A policy for a problem that longer exists?

      Janet Yellen; "maybe inflation wasn't transitory " No s**t who'd a thunk 10 years of keynsian $ printing would cause inflation.

      Paul Voelker 2.0

      At least Americans got to buy cheap Chinese crap on their cc.


      Do you mean to imply that a committee of bureaucrats isn't qualified to set the single most important price in the economy? I know conventional wisdom is that price fixing does not work but I have been assured that in this one very specific case it does in fact work.


       ROFLMAO! Thanks alot bro, just sprayed my craft beer!

  • Investor · Greenville, SC · Member since 2016 · 5k+ posts · 13k+ votes
    1y

    @Mike D. What are the current market values, rental rates, and zip codes for some of your properties in Indy?  I tried searching for them but it's a long thread.  We have a bunch of experienced investors on this thread, including you, with actual portfolios; so, let's use real properties.  Not looking for original purchase price or ROE on original purchase...looking at current values and rents to align with your OP...and no need to provide expenses...just values, rents, and locations.

    I own both high and low GRM properties.

    • Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2014 · 208 posts · 137 votes
      1y
      Quote from @Mike Dymski:

      @Mike D. What are the current market values, rental rates, and zip codes for some of your properties in Indy?  I tried searching for them but it's a long thread.  We have a bunch of experienced investors on this thread, including you, with actual portfolios; so, let's use real properties.  Not looking for original purchase price or ROE on original purchase...looking at current values and rents to align with your OP...and no need to provide expenses...just values, rents, and locations.

      I own both high and low GRM properties.

      Hey Mike, I am very private and try not to be super specific here, but this is something I’d buy. City of Indianapolis, $200k duplex renting for $1000/side. If purchased at today’s interest rates at 25% down I would expect to be breaking even on cashflow after paying the manager and initial ROE/ROI of 15-20% including appreciation and principal paydown. I put a lot of effort into cutting maintenance costs and without that there would be some negative cashflow.
    • Flipper/Rehabber · CA · Member since 2023 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Mike D.:
      Quote from @Mike Dymski:

      @Mike D. What are the current market values, rental rates, and zip codes for some of your properties in Indy?  I tried searching for them but it's a long thread.  We have a bunch of experienced investors on this thread, including you, with actual portfolios; so, let's use real properties.  Not looking for original purchase price or ROE on original purchase...looking at current values and rents to align with your OP...and no need to provide expenses...just values, rents, and locations.

      I own both high and low GRM properties.

      Hey Mike, I am very private and try not to be super specific here, but this is something I’d buy. City of Indianapolis, $200k duplex renting for $1000/side. If purchased at today’s interest rates at 25% down I would expect to be breaking even on cashflow after paying the manager and initial ROE/ROI of 15-20% including appreciation and principal paydown. I put a lot of effort into cutting maintenance costs and without that there would be some negative cashflow.

      That's a smokin PP, like 50% of ARV? What PM did you do? repipe? HVAC? Was it sweat equity? Maybe that's hedging ROE.

  • Real Estate Agent · Memphis, TN. · Member since 2018 · 175 posts · 101 votes
    1y

    We are based in Memphis and don't have tons of appreciation....rents are pretty stagnant....but you can still buy properties, rehab them, and refinance them.  We have landlord friendly rules and laws and a large renter pool.

  • Henry ClarkPro Member
    Developer · Member since 2020 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    1y

    OP. I would start back at your original post to help move the discussion further.  As you said by the numbers.

    In your example 

    Austin. $400,000 investment/ $2,200 rent

    Memphis. $150,000 investment/ $1,500 rent.

    Those figures automatically skew the discussion to low value areas.

    ******Austin and Memphis Folks ******** if you’re in these markets, how does the cost and the rent look to you?  
    .  
    *****All the rest of the discussions don’t matter ****** unless these beginning relationships aren’t correct.  

    The only other non financial factors are an A and a C property.   What are the dynamics of rent collection bad debts including time to evict and turnover costs
     to rehab.  Which become financial.

    My C market self storage 10x20 rent for $65 per month in Iowa.  My brothers B market same units south of San Antonio run for $130.  Both properties cost the same to develop except for the land.  Our land is $50,000 per acre and his is $100,000 per acre.   Land cost on an amortized basis is only about 1/4 of the revenue stream.  So more than happy to pay twice the cost of land for double revenue.

    For any new investors.  I would disregard this post.   Start small and make your big mistakes early.  Stay within your home market range.  You will have more buying power with your local team and better market understanding.

    Normally I wouldn't care about a post like this since we stay in a 40 mile radius. But my son is moving to San Diego with the Navy. Would like to get him to invest there. But any property with an HOA the fee is $800 to $1,200 just for the fee. Bottom end properties are around $600 to $800k. He would actually be better buying a piece of ground and building. Better value than old 60 to 70's houses. Will look for a trailer spot where he owns the lot. Use his Base Housing Allowance to buy it tax and cash free.

    • Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Henry Clark:

      OP. I would start back at your original post to help move the discussion further.  As you said by the numbers.

      In your example 

      Austin. $400,000 investment/ $2,200 rent

      Memphis. $150,000 investment/ $1,500 rent.

      Those figures automatically skew the discussion to low value areas.

      ******Austin and Memphis Folks ******** if you’re in these markets, how does the cost and the rent look to you?  
      .  
      *****All the rest of the discussions don’t matter ****** unless these beginning relationships aren’t correct.  

      The only other non financial factors are an A and a C property.   What are the dynamics of rent collection bad debts including time to evict and turnover costs
       to rehab.  Which become financial.

      My C market self storage 10x20 rent for $65 per month in Iowa.  My brothers B market same units south of San Antonio run for $130.  Both properties cost the same to develop except for the land.  Our land is $50,000 per acre and his is $100,000 per acre.   Land cost on an amortized basis is only about 1/4 of the revenue stream.  So more than happy to pay twice the cost of land for double revenue.

      For any new investors.  I would disregard this post.   Start small and make your big mistakes early.  Stay within your home market range.  You will have more buying power with your local team and better market understanding.

      Normally I wouldn't care about a post like this since we stay in a 40 mile radius. But my son is moving to San Diego with the Navy. Would like to get him to invest there. But any property with an HOA the fee is $800 to $1,200 just for the fee. Bottom end properties are around $600 to $800k. He would actually be better buying a piece of ground and building. Better value than old 60 to 70's houses. Will look for a trailer spot where he owns the lot. Use his Base Housing Allowance to buy it tax and cash free.


      Henry, is he going to Pendelton? 

      That's where the best opportunity is. Leasing to the Marines. Oceanside. 

      There is some really REALLY nice housing on Pendelton but the dorms are...... well let's just say there something else. 

      So get a ton of Junior Marines on a very regular basis looking to lease places. Especially in/around Oceanside. 

      As far as finding land, good luck with that one. I did the whole "look for a deal" when Daughter was stationed there, there simply wasn't any to be found. Not by my standards. 

      I found nice condos on the water in Oceanside I was gonna pull trigger on, but never got the chance, nothing was ever available. Inventory was super tight for quality places. Like NY tight, where people all but will a place to next person. It was near the Top Gun house. 

    • Henry ClarkPro Member
      Developer · Member since 2020 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @James Hamling:
      Quote from @Henry Clark:

      OP. I would start back at your original post to help move the discussion further.  As you said by the numbers.

      In your example 

      Austin. $400,000 investment/ $2,200 rent

      Memphis. $150,000 investment/ $1,500 rent.

      Those figures automatically skew the discussion to low value areas.

      ******Austin and Memphis Folks ******** if you’re in these markets, how does the cost and the rent look to you?  
      .  
      *****All the rest of the discussions don’t matter ****** unless these beginning relationships aren’t correct.  

      The only other non financial factors are an A and a C property.   What are the dynamics of rent collection bad debts including time to evict and turnover costs
       to rehab.  Which become financial.

      My C market self storage 10x20 rent for $65 per month in Iowa.  My brothers B market same units south of San Antonio run for $130.  Both properties cost the same to develop except for the land.  Our land is $50,000 per acre and his is $100,000 per acre.   Land cost on an amortized basis is only about 1/4 of the revenue stream.  So more than happy to pay twice the cost of land for double revenue.

      For any new investors.  I would disregard this post.   Start small and make your big mistakes early.  Stay within your home market range.  You will have more buying power with your local team and better market understanding.

      Normally I wouldn't care about a post like this since we stay in a 40 mile radius. But my son is moving to San Diego with the Navy. Would like to get him to invest there. But any property with an HOA the fee is $800 to $1,200 just for the fee. Bottom end properties are around $600 to $800k. He would actually be better buying a piece of ground and building. Better value than old 60 to 70's houses. Will look for a trailer spot where he owns the lot. Use his Base Housing Allowance to buy it tax and cash free.


      Henry, is he going to Pendelton? 

      That's where the best opportunity is. Leasing to the Marines. Oceanside. 

      There is some really REALLY nice housing on Pendelton but the dorms are...... well let's just say there something else. 

      So get a ton of Junior Marines on a very regular basis looking to lease places. Especially in/around Oceanside. 

      As far as finding land, good luck with that one. I did the whole "look for a deal" when Daughter was stationed there, there simply wasn't any to be found. Not by my standards. 

      I found nice condos on the water in Oceanside I was gonna pull trigger on, but never got the chance, nothing was ever available. Inventory was super tight for quality places. Like NY tight, where people all but will a place to next person. It was near the Top Gun house. 


       Thanks James.  He is in the Navy, so don't know specifically which part of San Diego military complex he will be at.  Still has 2 months over in Sicily before he moves. He has $180,000 to invest (probably should leave it in Self storage), plus his BAH will be about $3,100 per month tax free.  Only did one search, so haven't really vetted the market.  Subject to zoning found two bare land properties about 1/2 to 3/4 acre close to the base priced right ($400,000 to $600,000), subject to zoning would build more than one unit on.

      Market looks really expensive. Most were old 60/70 properties in the $600,000 to $800,000 range. Or condos with $800 to $1,200 HOA monthly fees.

      Will probably see if he can find a trailer park where he can own both the lot and the trailer for say $60,000 to $120,000 if that is available.  He will make more money that away due to his BAH money than buying or building a $800,000 property.  Especially only being there for 2 to 3 years.

    • Dan H.Pro Member
      Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Henry Clark:
      Quote from @James Hamling:
      Quote from @Henry Clark:

      OP. I would start back at your original post to help move the discussion further.  As you said by the numbers.

      In your example 

      Austin. $400,000 investment/ $2,200 rent

      Memphis. $150,000 investment/ $1,500 rent.

      Those figures automatically skew the discussion to low value areas.

      ******Austin and Memphis Folks ******** if you’re in these markets, how does the cost and the rent look to you?  
      .  
      *****All the rest of the discussions don’t matter ****** unless these beginning relationships aren’t correct.  

      The only other non financial factors are an A and a C property.   What are the dynamics of rent collection bad debts including time to evict and turnover costs
       to rehab.  Which become financial.

      My C market self storage 10x20 rent for $65 per month in Iowa.  My brothers B market same units south of San Antonio run for $130.  Both properties cost the same to develop except for the land.  Our land is $50,000 per acre and his is $100,000 per acre.   Land cost on an amortized basis is only about 1/4 of the revenue stream.  So more than happy to pay twice the cost of land for double revenue.

      For any new investors.  I would disregard this post.   Start small and make your big mistakes early.  Stay within your home market range.  You will have more buying power with your local team and better market understanding.

      Normally I wouldn't care about a post like this since we stay in a 40 mile radius. But my son is moving to San Diego with the Navy. Would like to get him to invest there. But any property with an HOA the fee is $800 to $1,200 just for the fee. Bottom end properties are around $600 to $800k. He would actually be better buying a piece of ground and building. Better value than old 60 to 70's houses. Will look for a trailer spot where he owns the lot. Use his Base Housing Allowance to buy it tax and cash free.


      Henry, is he going to Pendelton? 

      That's where the best opportunity is. Leasing to the Marines. Oceanside. 

      There is some really REALLY nice housing on Pendelton but the dorms are...... well let's just say there something else. 

      So get a ton of Junior Marines on a very regular basis looking to lease places. Especially in/around Oceanside. 

      As far as finding land, good luck with that one. I did the whole "look for a deal" when Daughter was stationed there, there simply wasn't any to be found. Not by my standards. 

      I found nice condos on the water in Oceanside I was gonna pull trigger on, but never got the chance, nothing was ever available. Inventory was super tight for quality places. Like NY tight, where people all but will a place to next person. It was near the Top Gun house. 


       Thanks James.  He is in the Navy, so don't know specifically which part of San Diego military complex he will be at.  Still has 2 months over in Sicily before he moves. He has $180,000 to invest (probably should leave it in Self storage), plus his BAH will be about $3,100 per month tax free.  Only did one search, so haven't really vetted the market.  Subject to zoning found two bare land properties about 1/2 to 3/4 acre close to the base priced right ($400,000 to $600,000), subject to zoning would build more than one unit on.

      Market looks really expensive. Most were old 60/70 properties in the $600,000 to $800,000 range. Or condos with $800 to $1,200 HOA monthly fees.

      Will probably see if he can find a trailer park where he can own both the lot and the trailer for say $60,000 to $120,000 if that is available.  He will make more money that away due to his BAH money than buying or building a $800,000 property.  Especially only being there for 2 to 3 years.


       I like the San Diego market but consider it challenging at present.  For anything as short as 5 years without a value add or alternative financing, I  believe virtually always you will be better off renting than buying.   Even 5 to 10 year hold is far from certain that buying will be better than renting.  At 10 year hold I have confidence buying will be better than renting virtually always.

      the rent to value ratios are bad in San Diego. On SFH, often below 0.5% monthly ratio. There is large negative cash flow at high LTV purchase. It improves with time but will take a while to hit cash neutral.

      In addition the prices you quoted seem a bit low. Average SFH in San Diego is about $1m. Condos will be lower but with their HOA fees, the monthly payment may exceed the SFH payment but typically includes exterior maintenance. 2021 the cash flow would have been far better on high LTV purchase that today.

      Good luck

    • Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Henry Clark:
      Quote from @James Hamling:
      Quote from @Henry Clark:

      OP. I would start back at your original post to help move the discussion further.  As you said by the numbers.

      In your example 

      Austin. $400,000 investment/ $2,200 rent

      Memphis. $150,000 investment/ $1,500 rent.

      Those figures automatically skew the discussion to low value areas.

      ******Austin and Memphis Folks ******** if you’re in these markets, how does the cost and the rent look to you?  
      .  
      *****All the rest of the discussions don’t matter ****** unless these beginning relationships aren’t correct.  

      The only other non financial factors are an A and a C property.   What are the dynamics of rent collection bad debts including time to evict and turnover costs
       to rehab.  Which become financial.

      My C market self storage 10x20 rent for $65 per month in Iowa.  My brothers B market same units south of San Antonio run for $130.  Both properties cost the same to develop except for the land.  Our land is $50,000 per acre and his is $100,000 per acre.   Land cost on an amortized basis is only about 1/4 of the revenue stream.  So more than happy to pay twice the cost of land for double revenue.

      For any new investors.  I would disregard this post.   Start small and make your big mistakes early.  Stay within your home market range.  You will have more buying power with your local team and better market understanding.

      Normally I wouldn't care about a post like this since we stay in a 40 mile radius. But my son is moving to San Diego with the Navy. Would like to get him to invest there. But any property with an HOA the fee is $800 to $1,200 just for the fee. Bottom end properties are around $600 to $800k. He would actually be better buying a piece of ground and building. Better value than old 60 to 70's houses. Will look for a trailer spot where he owns the lot. Use his Base Housing Allowance to buy it tax and cash free.


      Henry, is he going to Pendelton? 

      That's where the best opportunity is. Leasing to the Marines. Oceanside. 

      There is some really REALLY nice housing on Pendelton but the dorms are...... well let's just say there something else. 

      So get a ton of Junior Marines on a very regular basis looking to lease places. Especially in/around Oceanside. 

      As far as finding land, good luck with that one. I did the whole "look for a deal" when Daughter was stationed there, there simply wasn't any to be found. Not by my standards. 

      I found nice condos on the water in Oceanside I was gonna pull trigger on, but never got the chance, nothing was ever available. Inventory was super tight for quality places. Like NY tight, where people all but will a place to next person. It was near the Top Gun house. 


       Thanks James.  He is in the Navy, so don't know specifically which part of San Diego military complex he will be at.  Still has 2 months over in Sicily before he moves. He has $180,000 to invest (probably should leave it in Self storage), plus his BAH will be about $3,100 per month tax free.  Only did one search, so haven't really vetted the market.  Subject to zoning found two bare land properties about 1/2 to 3/4 acre close to the base priced right ($400,000 to $600,000), subject to zoning would build more than one unit on.

      Market looks really expensive. Most were old 60/70 properties in the $600,000 to $800,000 range. Or condos with $800 to $1,200 HOA monthly fees.

      Will probably see if he can find a trailer park where he can own both the lot and the trailer for say $60,000 to $120,000 if that is available.  He will make more money that away due to his BAH money than buying or building a $800,000 property.  Especially only being there for 2 to 3 years.

      While Pendelton is most associated with Marines, there is a lot of Navy there too. Most navy things are on N side. 
      Pendelton is really nice, I love it there. It's the best place to live in the area. The beaches on-base are by far the best in the area. 
      On base living really is the best, only reason to live off-base is to do things and get into things one shouldn't be. 

      As your finding it's crazy expensive, and the crime and what-not, to my midwest eyes, was shocking. And when my Daughter got stationed at Pendelton, I was already used to Fayetteville/Bragg, so that's really saying something.

      You know what they really need on Pendelton Henry, a developer who knows how to make dorms that don't get mold issues.

      I'd tell him to stay on base for 1st yr, deploy his $ back home in IA, it's gonna get a lot more bang for the buck. If/when he goes to fleet he's gonna be God knows where anyways, right. 
  • Real Estate Agent · Memphis, TN. · Member since 2018 · 175 posts · 101 votes
    1y

    In Memphis you can buy a $150K home and it would rent for probably $1300-$1600 (if you are lucky). You could also buy a $130K home though and it would rent for $1150 or so....the trick is to buy it as low as possible where the numbers work for you (cash flow wise) but it is also not over priced. Very seldom do our clients "pay top dollar" we try and buy houses that are at least 3 bedrooms and at least 1.5 bathrooms because they rent out easier plus you do get more appreciation....you can definitely ask more (resale wise) if it is a 3/1.1 or a 3/2. We do a lot of BRRRR deals where buyers convert the half bathroom in to a full bathroom....or they make a rear den in to a 4th bedroom or office. Most of our clients buy properties for under $120K with cash, hard money, or conventional loans.

  • Charles ClarkBusiness Member
    Real Estate Broker · Milwaukee, WI · Member since 2020 · 307 posts · 209 votes
    1y

    @Mike D.

    This is a masterclass in ROI logic — totally agree. Appreciation looks sexy, but when you break it down, high-cashflow markets offer far better return on equity and scale faster passively. The numbers don't lie — Midwest > Sun Belt for true wealth building.

    Raise the Standard RE LLC55 Reviews
    View Page
  • Flipper/Rehabber · CA · Member since 2023 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    1y

    "90% likelihood " 😆

  • Member since 2025 · 12 posts · 16 votes
    1y

    Thank you this answered a question of mine, I've been heavily debating on if I should just stick with stocks. I was leaning toward a nicer SFR with low maintenance but yeah, 7% is not worth it, that will not beat stocks

  • Charles ClarkBusiness Member
    Real Estate Broker · Milwaukee, WI · Member since 2020 · 307 posts · 209 votes
    1y

    @Mike D.

    Thanks for breaking this down—super insightful comparison. The math really highlights how cashflow-focused markets can quietly outperform on ROI. Definitely rethinking the "glamour" of appreciation plays!

    Raise the Standard RE LLC55 Reviews
    View Page
  • Julie KnutsonBusiness Member
    Real Estate Broker · Watertown, SD · Member since 2024 · 24 posts · 7 votes
    1y

    It's hard to argue with the numbers!! Love the detail you provided. 

  • Flipper/Rehabber · CA · Member since 2023 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    1y

    There weren't any building codes, the CSLB was founded in 1929 and it's the oldest in the USA

  • Joe S.Pro Member
    Investor · San Antonio · Member since 2020 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    1y

    So after following this thread for sometime, I thought about popping my head back into it…. 

    Several years ago, I bought a number of properties in Mississippi. I was able to pull all of my money back out on the refi.
    what I didn’t bargain for is the higher turnover and repairs along with higher contractor fees for an area that you would’ve thought would have been lower Contractor fees. The PM stuck a 10% markup on all the repairs as well. Most of the properties hit the one percent rule.. 

    Most of my properties in Texas the rent has not kept up with the appreciation. The tax authorities jack your taxes up as fast as possible so the rent increases Do not automatically keep up with the tax increase. 😱

    Overall, the appreciation in Texas has outpaced the out-of-state properties in Mississippi. Maybe if I lived in Mississippi and could be more hands-on things would be different. 

    I will say in defense of the OP as far as him not wanting to post his properties. I would say that is a privacy issue that I would not personally post my properties to approve point one way or another.

    P.S I have one of my Mississippi properties for sale right now.

  • Chris ClothierBusiness Member
    Rental Property Investor · memphis, TN · Member since 2009 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    1y

    @Mike D. - This feels entirely like a "... I have to get the last word in..." thread.

    There are some really smart individuals commenting on here with so much experience and solid advice that people spend money to spend time getting advice on real estate investing topics. They have a lot to offer. You don't seem very interested in hearing it. In fact, you seem to argue with other investors a lot in other threads as well, some of the same investors in this thread, when they point out "...the holes in your thesis" as Jay Hinrichs put it.

    I'm not implying you're not smart or that you may have felt slighted by some responses.  You have, however, received and left some unusual responses on here (in my opinion), and I even wondered if you were trying to troll me. I concluded you weren't.  I think you might be closed off to other opinions, which is perfectly fine.

    You have posted about your portfolio many times here on BP. From the prices you paid for two duplexes in Indy to the trouble you've had refinancing your portfolio, and the specific needs you are looking for from a lender. Your very first post was roughly 11 years ago, when you asked for advice on contract language as you prepared to sell your first property. Your posts suggest that you have some experience, and based on the timing and some of the advice you've given to other investors over the years, I think you've probably done quite well. I'll also note that you've had no trouble in the past sharing that your primary strategy was BRRRR, and that you deal primarily in multi-family properties. It sounded like you have either fixed and flipped a property in California or at least invested in a property there before focusing on the Midwest.

    I would not call that luck. We are all fortunate to have had the opportunity to invest over the past 15 years, but you had to take the necessary steps, make informed decisions, and chart a course. Congratulations on how your portfolio likely looks right now.

    For me, from the first response I made on here, nothing has changed. The most voted-for post is from @Jay Hinrichs, and it disputes the numbers used to justify the headline. I have posted twice and will post it again to clarify that you are incorrect in stating that investors will double their net worth in a traditional cash flow market twice as fast as they will in a traditional appreciation market.

    Could we cherry-pick an exact property in a precise location at an exact point in time and compare it with a cherry-picked property on the opposite side and make your statement true based on a particular set of facts? I would say yes. We can all fabricate whatever data we need to support our point. However, what does not exist is real data to support your claim. 

    Real data shows the opposite.  

    I brought my AI team together and had them work on a model. You started the conversation without a portfolio you were willing to share to back it up. You also aren't willing to listen to investors like me who have told you that we have invested in both markets, and appreciation markets outperformed cash flow markets for building net worth/wealth faster.

    So, I built the model.  Here are the inputs.  I'll share the results on the next post.

    We had one of our agents (an AI LLM custom-built) run an analysis on 10 different markets.  Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, Indianapolis, Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Diego, San Jose, and Phoenix.  We allocated $250,000 to each city for the model to spend on July 31, 1995.  The instructions were to finance 80% over 30 years and build a portfolio of as many median-priced homes as possible.  The model could not be refinanced or sold until July 31, 2025.  The agent was instructed to utilize all available empirical data sources to determine the performance of each portfolio.  

    The agent was also told to break the analysis down to three 10-year periods and choose the proper metrics to show results.  It used over 150 sources for data and cross-referencing. This is a quick analysis, not perfect, but thoroughly worked through with prompting to utilize the best available data and produce a result based on facts rather than conjecture.

    I will point out, before I post the results, that no market has shown you can double your net worth in half the time compared to any of the other markets.  However, there were clear winners from 1995 to 2005 and from 2005 to 2015.  The period from 2015 to 2025 showed remarkable aggregation to the middle with all the markets performing similarly, but there is still a winner, and it is not a cash-flow market.  

    Finally, every market was a winner.  Proving what many on here have said.

    Pick a strategy.  In this case, long-term hold.  Pick a market. Select a team to manage your investments, allowing you to be as passive as possible. Make your decisions and wait.  Real estate is remarkably predictable over time. 

  • Chris ClothierBusiness Member
    Rental Property Investor · memphis, TN · Member since 2009 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    1y

    * I forced the model to include ROE with my final prompt and asked it to include San Diego after seeing a lot of discussion about that market in particular.

    If you don't want to read to the end, it says: 

    1.  Phoenix is the top performer
    2.  You can make money in every market!  

    Choosing Between Total ROI, IRR, and ROE for Your Buying Decision

    To inform your investment decision today, prioritize IRR for evaluating historical performance over the past 30 years (1995–2025). Here's why:

    • IRR (Internal Rate of Return): Accounts for the time value of money and cash flow timing, making it ideal for long-term real estate investments with uneven returns (e.g., early rental income vs. later appreciation). It annualizes returns, enabling consistent comparison across markets.
    • ROE (Return on Equity): Measures the annualized return on the initial $250,000 equity, factoring in leveraged cash flows, appreciation, and mortgage paydown. It's similar to IRR but explicitly focuses on equity returns, making it valuable for assessing leveraged investments. However, IRR is preferred for its broader applicability across investment types.
    • Total ROI: Measures total net profit relative to initial equity but ignores cash flow timing, overemphasizing back-loaded appreciation. It’s better for short-term investments, not 30-year holds.

    Historical metrics provide context, but past performance doesn’t guarantee future results. Current conditions (e.g., ~6.5% mortgage rates in 2025, 3-5% annual appreciation projections from Zillow/Realtor.com) should guide decisions, with historical data as a reference.

    Adjusted Analysis Including San Diego with ROE

    Per your request, I’ve included San Diego and added ROE to the analysis, evaluating a $250,000 equity investment leveraged to purchase $1,250,000 in median-priced single-family homes in each city (80% leverage, 20% down). The portfolio is held from 1995 to 2025, with a sale at the end (mortgage fully paid off at 9.15% fixed rate). As before, I’ve weighted vacancies and maintenance heavier for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis due to their older housing stock and higher historical averages for these costs. San Diego, with newer housing stock similar to Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, and San Jose, uses the standard expense ratio.

    Assumptions and Adjustments
    • Base Model:
      • $250,000 equity buys $1,250,000 in properties (5:1 leverage).
      • 30-year fixed mortgage at 9.15% (Freddie Mac, 1995). Annual debt service: ~$97,635.
      • Appreciation uses FHFA HPI piecewise CAGRs (1995–2005, 2005–2015, 2015–2025).
      • Gross rental yields are constant (sourced from ATTOM, Rentometer, 2025 estimates):
        • Cleveland: 10.2%
        • Memphis: 10.0%
        • Detroit: 10.5%
        • Indianapolis: 9.5%
        • Dallas: 7.0%
        • Houston: 7.5%
        • Austin: 7.5%
        • Phoenix: 7.0%
        • San Jose: 3.0%
        • San Diego: 3.5%
      • Base operating expenses (vacancy, maintenance, taxes, insurance, capex) = 25% of gross rent for Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego.
      • Debt service: Fixed across markets.
      • Final sale proceeds = final property value (mortgage paid off).
    • Vacancy and Maintenance Adjustment for Older Markets:
      • Rationale: Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis have older housing stock (50+ years, pre-1970s, per Census ACS and Redfin data), with higher maintenance (1.5-2% of property value vs. 1% national average) and vacancy rates (8-12% vs. 5-6% in newer markets, per HUD and Rentometer). Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego have newer stock (~25-45 years).
      • Adjustment: Expense ratio increased to 30% for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis (adds ~5% for elevated vacancies/maintenance). Others remain at 25%.
      • Impact: Reduces net operating income (NOI) in older markets, lowering cash flows, IRR, and ROE.
    • Metrics:
      • Total ROI: (Cumulative net cash flows + net sale proceeds) / $250,000 × 100%.
      • IRR: Annualized rate where NPV of cash flows (initial -$250,000, annual NOI minus debt service, final sale proceeds) equals zero.
      • ROE: Annualized internal rate of return on equity, explicitly accounting for leveraged cash flows (NOI minus debt service), appreciation, and mortgage paydown over 30 years. ROE aligns closely with IRR in this context but emphasizes equity performance.
    Historical Data and Results

    Using FHFA HPI for appreciation (indexed to Q1 1995 = 100) and rental yields from ATTOM/Rentometer, here are the results for the 30-year hold (1995–2025):

    MarketGross Rental YieldTotal Appreciation Multiplier (1995–2025)Total ROI (%)IRR (%)ROE (%)
    Phoenix7.0%5.12x3169.8913.013.1
    Austin7.5%5.13x3265.0812.712.8
    Dallas7.0%4.20x2603.4512.512.5
    Houston7.5%3.76x2378.1212.312.4
    San Diego3.5%4.92x2417.5311.811.8
    Cleveland10.2%2.49x1592.3611.811.9
    Memphis10.0%2.77x1740.2211.711.8
    Indianapolis9.5%2.65x1618.6711.611.7
    Detroit10.5%2.20x1398.9411.311.4
    San Jose3.0%5.58x2610.168.58.6

    Best Market: Phoenix, AZ (13.0% IRR, 13.1% ROE). Phoenix leads due to strong appreciation (notably 9.1% CAGR in 2015–2025) and moderate yields (7%), unhindered by the higher expense ratios applied to older markets. ROE closely mirrors IRR, confirming Phoenix's edge in leveraged equity returns.

    Period-Specific Appreciation CAGRs (for Context)
    Market1995–2005 CAGR2005–2015 CAGR2015–2025 CAGR
    Phoenix7.5%0.4%9.1%
    Austin4.6%4.7%7.5%
    Dallas3.2%2.8%6.8%
    Houston3.5%3.0%6.5%
    San Diego8.2%0.8%6.1%
    Cleveland4.1%-1.4%6.8%
    Memphis3.7%0.0%6.7%
    Indianapolis3.0%0.5%6.3%
    Detroit4.8%-2.1%5.9%
    San Jose10.3%2.0%5.6%

    Recommendation for Investing $250,000 Today

    • Choose Phoenix: Its historical IRR (13.0%) and ROE (13.1%) are the highest, driven by consistent appreciation and stable yields. Recent data (Zillow, Realtor.com, FHFA) supports Phoenix's momentum, with 3-5% annual price growth projected for 2025–2029, low vacancies (~5%), and newer homes minimizing maintenance costs. Population growth and build-to-rent trends bolster its outlook.
    • Why Not Others?
      • Austin (12.7% IRR, 12.8% ROE) and Dallas (12.5% IRR, 12.5% ROE): Strong growth markets with slightly higher yields than San Diego, but Phoenix edges out due to higher recent appreciation.
      • Houston (12.3% IRR, 12.4% ROE): Solid but lower appreciation than Phoenix/Austin/Dallas.
      • San Diego (11.8% IRR, 11.8% ROE): High appreciation but low yield (3.5%) leads to negative early cash flows, reducing IRR and ROE compared to higher-yield growth markets.
      • Cleveland (11.8% IRR, 11.9% ROE), Memphis (11.7% IRR, 11.8% ROE), Indianapolis (11.6% IRR, 11.7% ROE), Detroit (11.3% IRR, 11.4% ROE): High yields (9.5–10.5%) are offset by the 30% expense ratio for older homes (8-12% vacancies, 1.5-2% maintenance), and lower appreciation (2.20–2.77x multipliers) reduces sale proceeds.
      • San Jose (8.5% IRR, 8.6% ROE): Lowest due to very low yields (3%), despite high appreciation, as negative cash flows early in the period hurt leveraged returns.
    • Current Context (2025): Phoenix’s tight rental market (~5% vacancy) and newer housing stock align with projections of 3-5% growth (RealWealth, Reventure App). Current mortgage rates (~6.5%) improve leverage compared to 1995’s 9.15%. Cleveland/Detroit could appeal for cash flow, but higher expenses temper returns.
    • Risks: Growth markets like Phoenix are volatile (e.g., flat 2005–2015). Older markets offer cash flow stability but face cost pressures. Verify 2025 conditions with local data (Redfin, Zillow) and consider diversifying across markets.
    • V.G JasonPro Member
      Investor · Member since 2022 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Chris Clothier:

      * I forced the model to include ROE with my final prompt and asked it to include San Diego after seeing a lot of discussion about that market in particular.

      If you don't want to read to the end, it says: 

      1.  Phoenix is the top performer
      2.  You can make money in every market!  

      Choosing Between Total ROI, IRR, and ROE for Your Buying Decision

      To inform your investment decision today, prioritize IRR for evaluating historical performance over the past 30 years (1995–2025). Here's why:

      • IRR (Internal Rate of Return): Accounts for the time value of money and cash flow timing, making it ideal for long-term real estate investments with uneven returns (e.g., early rental income vs. later appreciation). It annualizes returns, enabling consistent comparison across markets.
      • ROE (Return on Equity): Measures the annualized return on the initial $250,000 equity, factoring in leveraged cash flows, appreciation, and mortgage paydown. It's similar to IRR but explicitly focuses on equity returns, making it valuable for assessing leveraged investments. However, IRR is preferred for its broader applicability across investment types.
      • Total ROI: Measures total net profit relative to initial equity but ignores cash flow timing, overemphasizing back-loaded appreciation. It’s better for short-term investments, not 30-year holds.

      Historical metrics provide context, but past performance doesn’t guarantee future results. Current conditions (e.g., ~6.5% mortgage rates in 2025, 3-5% annual appreciation projections from Zillow/Realtor.com) should guide decisions, with historical data as a reference.

      Adjusted Analysis Including San Diego with ROE

      Per your request, I’ve included San Diego and added ROE to the analysis, evaluating a $250,000 equity investment leveraged to purchase $1,250,000 in median-priced single-family homes in each city (80% leverage, 20% down). The portfolio is held from 1995 to 2025, with a sale at the end (mortgage fully paid off at 9.15% fixed rate). As before, I’ve weighted vacancies and maintenance heavier for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis due to their older housing stock and higher historical averages for these costs. San Diego, with newer housing stock similar to Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, and San Jose, uses the standard expense ratio.

      Assumptions and Adjustments
      • Base Model:
        • $250,000 equity buys $1,250,000 in properties (5:1 leverage).
        • 30-year fixed mortgage at 9.15% (Freddie Mac, 1995). Annual debt service: ~$97,635.
        • Appreciation uses FHFA HPI piecewise CAGRs (1995–2005, 2005–2015, 2015–2025).
        • Gross rental yields are constant (sourced from ATTOM, Rentometer, 2025 estimates):
          • Cleveland: 10.2%
          • Memphis: 10.0%
          • Detroit: 10.5%
          • Indianapolis: 9.5%
          • Dallas: 7.0%
          • Houston: 7.5%
          • Austin: 7.5%
          • Phoenix: 7.0%
          • San Jose: 3.0%
          • San Diego: 3.5%
        • Base operating expenses (vacancy, maintenance, taxes, insurance, capex) = 25% of gross rent for Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego.
        • Debt service: Fixed across markets.
        • Final sale proceeds = final property value (mortgage paid off).
      • Vacancy and Maintenance Adjustment for Older Markets:
        • Rationale: Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis have older housing stock (50+ years, pre-1970s, per Census ACS and Redfin data), with higher maintenance (1.5-2% of property value vs. 1% national average) and vacancy rates (8-12% vs. 5-6% in newer markets, per HUD and Rentometer). Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego have newer stock (~25-45 years).
        • Adjustment: Expense ratio increased to 30% for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis (adds ~5% for elevated vacancies/maintenance). Others remain at 25%.
        • Impact: Reduces net operating income (NOI) in older markets, lowering cash flows, IRR, and ROE.
      • Metrics:
        • Total ROI: (Cumulative net cash flows + net sale proceeds) / $250,000 × 100%.
        • IRR: Annualized rate where NPV of cash flows (initial -$250,000, annual NOI minus debt service, final sale proceeds) equals zero.
        • ROE: Annualized internal rate of return on equity, explicitly accounting for leveraged cash flows (NOI minus debt service), appreciation, and mortgage paydown over 30 years. ROE aligns closely with IRR in this context but emphasizes equity performance.
      Historical Data and Results

      Using FHFA HPI for appreciation (indexed to Q1 1995 = 100) and rental yields from ATTOM/Rentometer, here are the results for the 30-year hold (1995–2025):

      MarketGross Rental YieldTotal Appreciation Multiplier (1995–2025)Total ROI (%)IRR (%)ROE (%)
      Phoenix7.0%5.12x3169.8913.013.1
      Austin7.5%5.13x3265.0812.712.8
      Dallas7.0%4.20x2603.4512.512.5
      Houston7.5%3.76x2378.1212.312.4
      San Diego3.5%4.92x2417.5311.811.8
      Cleveland10.2%2.49x1592.3611.811.9
      Memphis10.0%2.77x1740.2211.711.8
      Indianapolis9.5%2.65x1618.6711.611.7
      Detroit10.5%2.20x1398.9411.311.4
      San Jose3.0%5.58x2610.168.58.6

      Best Market: Phoenix, AZ (13.0% IRR, 13.1% ROE). Phoenix leads due to strong appreciation (notably 9.1% CAGR in 2015–2025) and moderate yields (7%), unhindered by the higher expense ratios applied to older markets. ROE closely mirrors IRR, confirming Phoenix's edge in leveraged equity returns.

      Period-Specific Appreciation CAGRs (for Context)
      Market1995–2005 CAGR2005–2015 CAGR2015–2025 CAGR
      Phoenix7.5%0.4%9.1%
      Austin4.6%4.7%7.5%
      Dallas3.2%2.8%6.8%
      Houston3.5%3.0%6.5%
      San Diego8.2%0.8%6.1%
      Cleveland4.1%-1.4%6.8%
      Memphis3.7%0.0%6.7%
      Indianapolis3.0%0.5%6.3%
      Detroit4.8%-2.1%5.9%
      San Jose10.3%2.0%5.6%

      Recommendation for Investing $250,000 Today

      • Choose Phoenix: Its historical IRR (13.0%) and ROE (13.1%) are the highest, driven by consistent appreciation and stable yields. Recent data (Zillow, Realtor.com, FHFA) supports Phoenix's momentum, with 3-5% annual price growth projected for 2025–2029, low vacancies (~5%), and newer homes minimizing maintenance costs. Population growth and build-to-rent trends bolster its outlook.
      • Why Not Others?
        • Austin (12.7% IRR, 12.8% ROE) and Dallas (12.5% IRR, 12.5% ROE): Strong growth markets with slightly higher yields than San Diego, but Phoenix edges out due to higher recent appreciation.
        • Houston (12.3% IRR, 12.4% ROE): Solid but lower appreciation than Phoenix/Austin/Dallas.
        • San Diego (11.8% IRR, 11.8% ROE): High appreciation but low yield (3.5%) leads to negative early cash flows, reducing IRR and ROE compared to higher-yield growth markets.
        • Cleveland (11.8% IRR, 11.9% ROE), Memphis (11.7% IRR, 11.8% ROE), Indianapolis (11.6% IRR, 11.7% ROE), Detroit (11.3% IRR, 11.4% ROE): High yields (9.5–10.5%) are offset by the 30% expense ratio for older homes (8-12% vacancies, 1.5-2% maintenance), and lower appreciation (2.20–2.77x multipliers) reduces sale proceeds.
        • San Jose (8.5% IRR, 8.6% ROE): Lowest due to very low yields (3%), despite high appreciation, as negative cash flows early in the period hurt leveraged returns.
      • Current Context (2025): Phoenix’s tight rental market (~5% vacancy) and newer housing stock align with projections of 3-5% growth (RealWealth, Reventure App). Current mortgage rates (~6.5%) improve leverage compared to 1995’s 9.15%. Cleveland/Detroit could appeal for cash flow, but higher expenses temper returns.
      • Risks: Growth markets like Phoenix are volatile (e.g., flat 2005–2015). Older markets offer cash flow stability but face cost pressures. Verify 2025 conditions with local data (Redfin, Zillow) and consider diversifying across markets.

      Sheesh, literally every markets I and some others said would be the case. Again, this ROE metric is going too far but sad it actually sums up his own issue he was fighting against.  Also, not a fan of backtesting but again his assumptions. All off.

       

      Just to add to it, especially about the Phoenix part.

    • Dan H.Pro Member
      Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Chris Clothier:

      * I forced the model to include ROE with my final prompt and asked it to include San Diego after seeing a lot of discussion about that market in particular.

      If you don't want to read to the end, it says: 

      1.  Phoenix is the top performer
      2.  You can make money in every market!  

      Choosing Between Total ROI, IRR, and ROE for Your Buying Decision

      To inform your investment decision today, prioritize IRR for evaluating historical performance over the past 30 years (1995–2025). Here's why:

      • IRR (Internal Rate of Return): Accounts for the time value of money and cash flow timing, making it ideal for long-term real estate investments with uneven returns (e.g., early rental income vs. later appreciation). It annualizes returns, enabling consistent comparison across markets.
      • ROE (Return on Equity): Measures the annualized return on the initial $250,000 equity, factoring in leveraged cash flows, appreciation, and mortgage paydown. It's similar to IRR but explicitly focuses on equity returns, making it valuable for assessing leveraged investments. However, IRR is preferred for its broader applicability across investment types.
      • Total ROI: Measures total net profit relative to initial equity but ignores cash flow timing, overemphasizing back-loaded appreciation. It’s better for short-term investments, not 30-year holds.

      Historical metrics provide context, but past performance doesn’t guarantee future results. Current conditions (e.g., ~6.5% mortgage rates in 2025, 3-5% annual appreciation projections from Zillow/Realtor.com) should guide decisions, with historical data as a reference.

      Adjusted Analysis Including San Diego with ROE

      Per your request, I’ve included San Diego and added ROE to the analysis, evaluating a $250,000 equity investment leveraged to purchase $1,250,000 in median-priced single-family homes in each city (80% leverage, 20% down). The portfolio is held from 1995 to 2025, with a sale at the end (mortgage fully paid off at 9.15% fixed rate). As before, I’ve weighted vacancies and maintenance heavier for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis due to their older housing stock and higher historical averages for these costs. San Diego, with newer housing stock similar to Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, and San Jose, uses the standard expense ratio.

      Assumptions and Adjustments
      • Base Model:
        • $250,000 equity buys $1,250,000 in properties (5:1 leverage).
        • 30-year fixed mortgage at 9.15% (Freddie Mac, 1995). Annual debt service: ~$97,635.
        • Appreciation uses FHFA HPI piecewise CAGRs (1995–2005, 2005–2015, 2015–2025).
        • Gross rental yields are constant (sourced from ATTOM, Rentometer, 2025 estimates):
          • Cleveland: 10.2%
          • Memphis: 10.0%
          • Detroit: 10.5%
          • Indianapolis: 9.5%
          • Dallas: 7.0%
          • Houston: 7.5%
          • Austin: 7.5%
          • Phoenix: 7.0%
          • San Jose: 3.0%
          • San Diego: 3.5%
        • Base operating expenses (vacancy, maintenance, taxes, insurance, capex) = 25% of gross rent for Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego.
        • Debt service: Fixed across markets.
        • Final sale proceeds = final property value (mortgage paid off).
      • Vacancy and Maintenance Adjustment for Older Markets:
        • Rationale: Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis have older housing stock (50+ years, pre-1970s, per Census ACS and Redfin data), with higher maintenance (1.5-2% of property value vs. 1% national average) and vacancy rates (8-12% vs. 5-6% in newer markets, per HUD and Rentometer). Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego have newer stock (~25-45 years).
        • Adjustment: Expense ratio increased to 30% for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis (adds ~5% for elevated vacancies/maintenance). Others remain at 25%.
        • Impact: Reduces net operating income (NOI) in older markets, lowering cash flows, IRR, and ROE.
      • Metrics:
        • Total ROI: (Cumulative net cash flows + net sale proceeds) / $250,000 × 100%.
        • IRR: Annualized rate where NPV of cash flows (initial -$250,000, annual NOI minus debt service, final sale proceeds) equals zero.
        • ROE: Annualized internal rate of return on equity, explicitly accounting for leveraged cash flows (NOI minus debt service), appreciation, and mortgage paydown over 30 years. ROE aligns closely with IRR in this context but emphasizes equity performance.
      Historical Data and Results

      Using FHFA HPI for appreciation (indexed to Q1 1995 = 100) and rental yields from ATTOM/Rentometer, here are the results for the 30-year hold (1995–2025):

      MarketGross Rental YieldTotal Appreciation Multiplier (1995–2025)Total ROI (%)IRR (%)ROE (%)
      Phoenix7.0%5.12x3169.8913.013.1
      Austin7.5%5.13x3265.0812.712.8
      Dallas7.0%4.20x2603.4512.512.5
      Houston7.5%3.76x2378.1212.312.4
      San Diego3.5%4.92x2417.5311.811.8
      Cleveland10.2%2.49x1592.3611.811.9
      Memphis10.0%2.77x1740.2211.711.8
      Indianapolis9.5%2.65x1618.6711.611.7
      Detroit10.5%2.20x1398.9411.311.4
      San Jose3.0%5.58x2610.168.58.6

      Best Market: Phoenix, AZ (13.0% IRR, 13.1% ROE). Phoenix leads due to strong appreciation (notably 9.1% CAGR in 2015–2025) and moderate yields (7%), unhindered by the higher expense ratios applied to older markets. ROE closely mirrors IRR, confirming Phoenix's edge in leveraged equity returns.

      Period-Specific Appreciation CAGRs (for Context)
      Market1995–2005 CAGR2005–2015 CAGR2015–2025 CAGR
      Phoenix7.5%0.4%9.1%
      Austin4.6%4.7%7.5%
      Dallas3.2%2.8%6.8%
      Houston3.5%3.0%6.5%
      San Diego8.2%0.8%6.1%
      Cleveland4.1%-1.4%6.8%
      Memphis3.7%0.0%6.7%
      Indianapolis3.0%0.5%6.3%
      Detroit4.8%-2.1%5.9%
      San Jose10.3%2.0%5.6%

      Recommendation for Investing $250,000 Today

      • Choose Phoenix: Its historical IRR (13.0%) and ROE (13.1%) are the highest, driven by consistent appreciation and stable yields. Recent data (Zillow, Realtor.com, FHFA) supports Phoenix's momentum, with 3-5% annual price growth projected for 2025–2029, low vacancies (~5%), and newer homes minimizing maintenance costs. Population growth and build-to-rent trends bolster its outlook.
      • Why Not Others?
        • Austin (12.7% IRR, 12.8% ROE) and Dallas (12.5% IRR, 12.5% ROE): Strong growth markets with slightly higher yields than San Diego, but Phoenix edges out due to higher recent appreciation.
        • Houston (12.3% IRR, 12.4% ROE): Solid but lower appreciation than Phoenix/Austin/Dallas.
        • San Diego (11.8% IRR, 11.8% ROE): High appreciation but low yield (3.5%) leads to negative early cash flows, reducing IRR and ROE compared to higher-yield growth markets.
        • Cleveland (11.8% IRR, 11.9% ROE), Memphis (11.7% IRR, 11.8% ROE), Indianapolis (11.6% IRR, 11.7% ROE), Detroit (11.3% IRR, 11.4% ROE): High yields (9.5–10.5%) are offset by the 30% expense ratio for older homes (8-12% vacancies, 1.5-2% maintenance), and lower appreciation (2.20–2.77x multipliers) reduces sale proceeds.
        • San Jose (8.5% IRR, 8.6% ROE): Lowest due to very low yields (3%), despite high appreciation, as negative cash flows early in the period hurt leveraged returns.
      • Current Context (2025): Phoenix’s tight rental market (~5% vacancy) and newer housing stock align with projections of 3-5% growth (RealWealth, Reventure App). Current mortgage rates (~6.5%) improve leverage compared to 1995’s 9.15%. Cleveland/Detroit could appeal for cash flow, but higher expenses temper returns.
      • Risks: Growth markets like Phoenix are volatile (e.g., flat 2005–2015). Older markets offer cash flow stability but face cost pressures. Verify 2025 conditions with local data (Redfin, Zillow) and consider diversifying across markets.

       Interesting and it looks like a fair amount of effort was exerted.  

      However, I question your use of gross rental yield.  It appears rent growth is not used in the equation?  It appears that the initial gross rental yield is used for all years.   To obtain the actual cash flow for each period would require knowing the rent growth for each period and applying it.

      The high appreciation markets in most of those periods have the higher rent growth.  The markets with the higher appreciation multiplier like phoenix, Austin, San Diego would likely have different rent yield compared to the purchase price when accounting for rent growth.  This is due to the coupling of values and rents.   For example San Diego’s rent ratio is not significantly different than it was 10 years ago implying the rents have increased at close to the same rate at the appreciation.

      Thoughts?

    • Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2014 · 208 posts · 137 votes
      1y
      Quote from @Dan H.:
      Quote from @Chris Clothier:

      * I forced the model to include ROE with my final prompt and asked it to include San Diego after seeing a lot of discussion about that market in particular.

      If you don't want to read to the end, it says: 

      1.  Phoenix is the top performer
      2.  You can make money in every market!  

      Choosing Between Total ROI, IRR, and ROE for Your Buying Decision

      To inform your investment decision today, prioritize IRR for evaluating historical performance over the past 30 years (1995–2025). Here's why:

      • IRR (Internal Rate of Return): Accounts for the time value of money and cash flow timing, making it ideal for long-term real estate investments with uneven returns (e.g., early rental income vs. later appreciation). It annualizes returns, enabling consistent comparison across markets.
      • ROE (Return on Equity): Measures the annualized return on the initial $250,000 equity, factoring in leveraged cash flows, appreciation, and mortgage paydown. It's similar to IRR but explicitly focuses on equity returns, making it valuable for assessing leveraged investments. However, IRR is preferred for its broader applicability across investment types.
      • Total ROI: Measures total net profit relative to initial equity but ignores cash flow timing, overemphasizing back-loaded appreciation. It’s better for short-term investments, not 30-year holds.

      Historical metrics provide context, but past performance doesn’t guarantee future results. Current conditions (e.g., ~6.5% mortgage rates in 2025, 3-5% annual appreciation projections from Zillow/Realtor.com) should guide decisions, with historical data as a reference.

      Adjusted Analysis Including San Diego with ROE

      Per your request, I’ve included San Diego and added ROE to the analysis, evaluating a $250,000 equity investment leveraged to purchase $1,250,000 in median-priced single-family homes in each city (80% leverage, 20% down). The portfolio is held from 1995 to 2025, with a sale at the end (mortgage fully paid off at 9.15% fixed rate). As before, I’ve weighted vacancies and maintenance heavier for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis due to their older housing stock and higher historical averages for these costs. San Diego, with newer housing stock similar to Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, and San Jose, uses the standard expense ratio.

      Assumptions and Adjustments
      • Base Model:
        • $250,000 equity buys $1,250,000 in properties (5:1 leverage).
        • 30-year fixed mortgage at 9.15% (Freddie Mac, 1995). Annual debt service: ~$97,635.
        • Appreciation uses FHFA HPI piecewise CAGRs (1995–2005, 2005–2015, 2015–2025).
        • Gross rental yields are constant (sourced from ATTOM, Rentometer, 2025 estimates):
          • Cleveland: 10.2%
          • Memphis: 10.0%
          • Detroit: 10.5%
          • Indianapolis: 9.5%
          • Dallas: 7.0%
          • Houston: 7.5%
          • Austin: 7.5%
          • Phoenix: 7.0%
          • San Jose: 3.0%
          • San Diego: 3.5%
        • Base operating expenses (vacancy, maintenance, taxes, insurance, capex) = 25% of gross rent for Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego.
        • Debt service: Fixed across markets.
        • Final sale proceeds = final property value (mortgage paid off).
      • Vacancy and Maintenance Adjustment for Older Markets:
        • Rationale: Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis have older housing stock (50+ years, pre-1970s, per Census ACS and Redfin data), with higher maintenance (1.5-2% of property value vs. 1% national average) and vacancy rates (8-12% vs. 5-6% in newer markets, per HUD and Rentometer). Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego have newer stock (~25-45 years).
        • Adjustment: Expense ratio increased to 30% for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis (adds ~5% for elevated vacancies/maintenance). Others remain at 25%.
        • Impact: Reduces net operating income (NOI) in older markets, lowering cash flows, IRR, and ROE.
      • Metrics:
        • Total ROI: (Cumulative net cash flows + net sale proceeds) / $250,000 × 100%.
        • IRR: Annualized rate where NPV of cash flows (initial -$250,000, annual NOI minus debt service, final sale proceeds) equals zero.
        • ROE: Annualized internal rate of return on equity, explicitly accounting for leveraged cash flows (NOI minus debt service), appreciation, and mortgage paydown over 30 years. ROE aligns closely with IRR in this context but emphasizes equity performance.
      Historical Data and Results

      Using FHFA HPI for appreciation (indexed to Q1 1995 = 100) and rental yields from ATTOM/Rentometer, here are the results for the 30-year hold (1995–2025):

      MarketGross Rental YieldTotal Appreciation Multiplier (1995–2025)Total ROI (%)IRR (%)ROE (%)
      Phoenix7.0%5.12x3169.8913.013.1
      Austin7.5%5.13x3265.0812.712.8
      Dallas7.0%4.20x2603.4512.512.5
      Houston7.5%3.76x2378.1212.312.4
      San Diego3.5%4.92x2417.5311.811.8
      Cleveland10.2%2.49x1592.3611.811.9
      Memphis10.0%2.77x1740.2211.711.8
      Indianapolis9.5%2.65x1618.6711.611.7
      Detroit10.5%2.20x1398.9411.311.4
      San Jose3.0%5.58x2610.168.58.6

      Best Market: Phoenix, AZ (13.0% IRR, 13.1% ROE). Phoenix leads due to strong appreciation (notably 9.1% CAGR in 2015–2025) and moderate yields (7%), unhindered by the higher expense ratios applied to older markets. ROE closely mirrors IRR, confirming Phoenix's edge in leveraged equity returns.

      Period-Specific Appreciation CAGRs (for Context)
      Market1995–2005 CAGR2005–2015 CAGR2015–2025 CAGR
      Phoenix7.5%0.4%9.1%
      Austin4.6%4.7%7.5%
      Dallas3.2%2.8%6.8%
      Houston3.5%3.0%6.5%
      San Diego8.2%0.8%6.1%
      Cleveland4.1%-1.4%6.8%
      Memphis3.7%0.0%6.7%
      Indianapolis3.0%0.5%6.3%
      Detroit4.8%-2.1%5.9%
      San Jose10.3%2.0%5.6%

      Recommendation for Investing $250,000 Today

      • Choose Phoenix: Its historical IRR (13.0%) and ROE (13.1%) are the highest, driven by consistent appreciation and stable yields. Recent data (Zillow, Realtor.com, FHFA) supports Phoenix's momentum, with 3-5% annual price growth projected for 2025–2029, low vacancies (~5%), and newer homes minimizing maintenance costs. Population growth and build-to-rent trends bolster its outlook.
      • Why Not Others?
        • Austin (12.7% IRR, 12.8% ROE) and Dallas (12.5% IRR, 12.5% ROE): Strong growth markets with slightly higher yields than San Diego, but Phoenix edges out due to higher recent appreciation.
        • Houston (12.3% IRR, 12.4% ROE): Solid but lower appreciation than Phoenix/Austin/Dallas.
        • San Diego (11.8% IRR, 11.8% ROE): High appreciation but low yield (3.5%) leads to negative early cash flows, reducing IRR and ROE compared to higher-yield growth markets.
        • Cleveland (11.8% IRR, 11.9% ROE), Memphis (11.7% IRR, 11.8% ROE), Indianapolis (11.6% IRR, 11.7% ROE), Detroit (11.3% IRR, 11.4% ROE): High yields (9.5–10.5%) are offset by the 30% expense ratio for older homes (8-12% vacancies, 1.5-2% maintenance), and lower appreciation (2.20–2.77x multipliers) reduces sale proceeds.
        • San Jose (8.5% IRR, 8.6% ROE): Lowest due to very low yields (3%), despite high appreciation, as negative cash flows early in the period hurt leveraged returns.
      • Current Context (2025): Phoenix’s tight rental market (~5% vacancy) and newer housing stock align with projections of 3-5% growth (RealWealth, Reventure App). Current mortgage rates (~6.5%) improve leverage compared to 1995’s 9.15%. Cleveland/Detroit could appeal for cash flow, but higher expenses temper returns.
      • Risks: Growth markets like Phoenix are volatile (e.g., flat 2005–2015). Older markets offer cash flow stability but face cost pressures. Verify 2025 conditions with local data (Redfin, Zillow) and consider diversifying across markets.

       Interesting and it looks like a fair amount of effort was exerted.  

      However, I question your use of gross rental yield.  It appears rent growth is not used in the equation?  It appears that the initial gross rental yield is used for all years.   To obtain the actual cash flow for each period would require knowing the rent growth for each period and applying it.

      The high appreciation markets in most of those periods have the higher rent growth.  The markets with the higher appreciation multiplier like phoenix, Austin, San Diego would likely have different rent yield compared to the purchase price when accounting for rent growth.  This is due to the coupling of values and rents.   For example San Diego’s rent ratio is not significantly different than it was 10 years ago implying the rents have increased at close to the same rate at the appreciation.

      Thoughts?


      Here we go Chris, I hope you’re ready for where this is about to go if you respond. Then you’ll see what kind of situation I’ve been in over the past week. I know my point is not completely off. How to respond to a mix of people zooming in on irrelevant details, not understanding my point, and attacking me? I don’t think you want to join this fray because if you do then you’ll also have to figure all this out. 

      I can see that this is a mature response to what I was saying and I will not be able to respond today. I may not be able to respond tomorrow either. I do plan to do so.

    • Chris ClothierBusiness Member
      Rental Property Investor · memphis, TN · Member since 2009 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Dan H.:
      Quote from @Chris Clothier:

      * I forced the model to include ROE with my final prompt and asked it to include San Diego after seeing a lot of discussion about that market in particular.

      If you don't want to read to the end, it says: 

      1.  Phoenix is the top performer
      2.  You can make money in every market!  

      Choosing Between Total ROI, IRR, and ROE for Your Buying Decision

      To inform your investment decision today, prioritize IRR for evaluating historical performance over the past 30 years (1995–2025). Here's why:

      • IRR (Internal Rate of Return): Accounts for the time value of money and cash flow timing, making it ideal for long-term real estate investments with uneven returns (e.g., early rental income vs. later appreciation). It annualizes returns, enabling consistent comparison across markets.
      • ROE (Return on Equity): Measures the annualized return on the initial $250,000 equity, factoring in leveraged cash flows, appreciation, and mortgage paydown. It's similar to IRR but explicitly focuses on equity returns, making it valuable for assessing leveraged investments. However, IRR is preferred for its broader applicability across investment types.
      • Total ROI: Measures total net profit relative to initial equity but ignores cash flow timing, overemphasizing back-loaded appreciation. It’s better for short-term investments, not 30-year holds.

      Historical metrics provide context, but past performance doesn’t guarantee future results. Current conditions (e.g., ~6.5% mortgage rates in 2025, 3-5% annual appreciation projections from Zillow/Realtor.com) should guide decisions, with historical data as a reference.

      Adjusted Analysis Including San Diego with ROE

      Per your request, I’ve included San Diego and added ROE to the analysis, evaluating a $250,000 equity investment leveraged to purchase $1,250,000 in median-priced single-family homes in each city (80% leverage, 20% down). The portfolio is held from 1995 to 2025, with a sale at the end (mortgage fully paid off at 9.15% fixed rate). As before, I’ve weighted vacancies and maintenance heavier for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis due to their older housing stock and higher historical averages for these costs. San Diego, with newer housing stock similar to Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, and San Jose, uses the standard expense ratio.

      Assumptions and Adjustments
      • Base Model:
        • $250,000 equity buys $1,250,000 in properties (5:1 leverage).
        • 30-year fixed mortgage at 9.15% (Freddie Mac, 1995). Annual debt service: ~$97,635.
        • Appreciation uses FHFA HPI piecewise CAGRs (1995–2005, 2005–2015, 2015–2025).
        • Gross rental yields are constant (sourced from ATTOM, Rentometer, 2025 estimates):
          • Cleveland: 10.2%
          • Memphis: 10.0%
          • Detroit: 10.5%
          • Indianapolis: 9.5%
          • Dallas: 7.0%
          • Houston: 7.5%
          • Austin: 7.5%
          • Phoenix: 7.0%
          • San Jose: 3.0%
          • San Diego: 3.5%
        • Base operating expenses (vacancy, maintenance, taxes, insurance, capex) = 25% of gross rent for Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego.
        • Debt service: Fixed across markets.
        • Final sale proceeds = final property value (mortgage paid off).
      • Vacancy and Maintenance Adjustment for Older Markets:
        • Rationale: Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis have older housing stock (50+ years, pre-1970s, per Census ACS and Redfin data), with higher maintenance (1.5-2% of property value vs. 1% national average) and vacancy rates (8-12% vs. 5-6% in newer markets, per HUD and Rentometer). Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego have newer stock (~25-45 years).
        • Adjustment: Expense ratio increased to 30% for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis (adds ~5% for elevated vacancies/maintenance). Others remain at 25%.
        • Impact: Reduces net operating income (NOI) in older markets, lowering cash flows, IRR, and ROE.
      • Metrics:
        • Total ROI: (Cumulative net cash flows + net sale proceeds) / $250,000 × 100%.
        • IRR: Annualized rate where NPV of cash flows (initial -$250,000, annual NOI minus debt service, final sale proceeds) equals zero.
        • ROE: Annualized internal rate of return on equity, explicitly accounting for leveraged cash flows (NOI minus debt service), appreciation, and mortgage paydown over 30 years. ROE aligns closely with IRR in this context but emphasizes equity performance.
      Historical Data and Results

      Using FHFA HPI for appreciation (indexed to Q1 1995 = 100) and rental yields from ATTOM/Rentometer, here are the results for the 30-year hold (1995–2025):

      MarketGross Rental YieldTotal Appreciation Multiplier (1995–2025)Total ROI (%)IRR (%)ROE (%)
      Phoenix7.0%5.12x3169.8913.013.1
      Austin7.5%5.13x3265.0812.712.8
      Dallas7.0%4.20x2603.4512.512.5
      Houston7.5%3.76x2378.1212.312.4
      San Diego3.5%4.92x2417.5311.811.8
      Cleveland10.2%2.49x1592.3611.811.9
      Memphis10.0%2.77x1740.2211.711.8
      Indianapolis9.5%2.65x1618.6711.611.7
      Detroit10.5%2.20x1398.9411.311.4
      San Jose3.0%5.58x2610.168.58.6

      Best Market: Phoenix, AZ (13.0% IRR, 13.1% ROE). Phoenix leads due to strong appreciation (notably 9.1% CAGR in 2015–2025) and moderate yields (7%), unhindered by the higher expense ratios applied to older markets. ROE closely mirrors IRR, confirming Phoenix's edge in leveraged equity returns.

      Period-Specific Appreciation CAGRs (for Context)
      Market1995–2005 CAGR2005–2015 CAGR2015–2025 CAGR
      Phoenix7.5%0.4%9.1%
      Austin4.6%4.7%7.5%
      Dallas3.2%2.8%6.8%
      Houston3.5%3.0%6.5%
      San Diego8.2%0.8%6.1%
      Cleveland4.1%-1.4%6.8%
      Memphis3.7%0.0%6.7%
      Indianapolis3.0%0.5%6.3%
      Detroit4.8%-2.1%5.9%
      San Jose10.3%2.0%5.6%

      Recommendation for Investing $250,000 Today

      • Choose Phoenix: Its historical IRR (13.0%) and ROE (13.1%) are the highest, driven by consistent appreciation and stable yields. Recent data (Zillow, Realtor.com, FHFA) supports Phoenix's momentum, with 3-5% annual price growth projected for 2025–2029, low vacancies (~5%), and newer homes minimizing maintenance costs. Population growth and build-to-rent trends bolster its outlook.
      • Why Not Others?
        • Austin (12.7% IRR, 12.8% ROE) and Dallas (12.5% IRR, 12.5% ROE): Strong growth markets with slightly higher yields than San Diego, but Phoenix edges out due to higher recent appreciation.
        • Houston (12.3% IRR, 12.4% ROE): Solid but lower appreciation than Phoenix/Austin/Dallas.
        • San Diego (11.8% IRR, 11.8% ROE): High appreciation but low yield (3.5%) leads to negative early cash flows, reducing IRR and ROE compared to higher-yield growth markets.
        • Cleveland (11.8% IRR, 11.9% ROE), Memphis (11.7% IRR, 11.8% ROE), Indianapolis (11.6% IRR, 11.7% ROE), Detroit (11.3% IRR, 11.4% ROE): High yields (9.5–10.5%) are offset by the 30% expense ratio for older homes (8-12% vacancies, 1.5-2% maintenance), and lower appreciation (2.20–2.77x multipliers) reduces sale proceeds.
        • San Jose (8.5% IRR, 8.6% ROE): Lowest due to very low yields (3%), despite high appreciation, as negative cash flows early in the period hurt leveraged returns.
      • Current Context (2025): Phoenix’s tight rental market (~5% vacancy) and newer housing stock align with projections of 3-5% growth (RealWealth, Reventure App). Current mortgage rates (~6.5%) improve leverage compared to 1995’s 9.15%. Cleveland/Detroit could appeal for cash flow, but higher expenses temper returns.
      • Risks: Growth markets like Phoenix are volatile (e.g., flat 2005–2015). Older markets offer cash flow stability but face cost pressures. Verify 2025 conditions with local data (Redfin, Zillow) and consider diversifying across markets.

       Interesting and it looks like a fair amount of effort was exerted.  

      However, I question your use of gross rental yield.  It appears rent growth is not used in the equation?  It appears that the initial gross rental yield is used for all years.   To obtain the actual cash flow for each period would require knowing the rent growth for each period and applying it.

      The high appreciation markets in most of those periods have the higher rent growth.  The markets with the higher appreciation multiplier like phoenix, Austin, San Diego would likely have different rent yield compared to the purchase price when accounting for rent growth.  This is due to the coupling of values and rents.   For example San Diego’s rent ratio is not significantly different than it was 10 years ago implying the rents have increased at close to the same rate at the appreciation.

      Thoughts?

       This does not take an inordinate amount of time.  You just have to be willing to spend it on something like this.  What will happen is the agent will learn and the data aggregation might prove useful later.  

      We are gong to try some different prompting to see if the annual data is out there and reliable.  There will be gaps, but we may be able to drill down closer.  If it is, it shouldn't take too long.  

      I am fascinated by AI and the uses it presents.  The real value of these types of data models is looking for where your decision making is fallible.  You can get the model to tell you where the blind spots are in your thinking and decision making.

      I'll get back to you. 

    • Dan H.Pro Member
      Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Mike D.:
      Quote from @Dan H.:
      Quote from @Chris Clothier:

      * I forced the model to include ROE with my final prompt and asked it to include San Diego after seeing a lot of discussion about that market in particular.

      If you don't want to read to the end, it says: 

      1.  Phoenix is the top performer
      2.  You can make money in every market!  

      Choosing Between Total ROI, IRR, and ROE for Your Buying Decision

      To inform your investment decision today, prioritize IRR for evaluating historical performance over the past 30 years (1995–2025). Here's why:

      • IRR (Internal Rate of Return): Accounts for the time value of money and cash flow timing, making it ideal for long-term real estate investments with uneven returns (e.g., early rental income vs. later appreciation). It annualizes returns, enabling consistent comparison across markets.
      • ROE (Return on Equity): Measures the annualized return on the initial $250,000 equity, factoring in leveraged cash flows, appreciation, and mortgage paydown. It's similar to IRR but explicitly focuses on equity returns, making it valuable for assessing leveraged investments. However, IRR is preferred for its broader applicability across investment types.
      • Total ROI: Measures total net profit relative to initial equity but ignores cash flow timing, overemphasizing back-loaded appreciation. It’s better for short-term investments, not 30-year holds.

      Historical metrics provide context, but past performance doesn’t guarantee future results. Current conditions (e.g., ~6.5% mortgage rates in 2025, 3-5% annual appreciation projections from Zillow/Realtor.com) should guide decisions, with historical data as a reference.

      Adjusted Analysis Including San Diego with ROE

      Per your request, I’ve included San Diego and added ROE to the analysis, evaluating a $250,000 equity investment leveraged to purchase $1,250,000 in median-priced single-family homes in each city (80% leverage, 20% down). The portfolio is held from 1995 to 2025, with a sale at the end (mortgage fully paid off at 9.15% fixed rate). As before, I’ve weighted vacancies and maintenance heavier for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis due to their older housing stock and higher historical averages for these costs. San Diego, with newer housing stock similar to Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, and San Jose, uses the standard expense ratio.

      Assumptions and Adjustments
      • Base Model:
        • $250,000 equity buys $1,250,000 in properties (5:1 leverage).
        • 30-year fixed mortgage at 9.15% (Freddie Mac, 1995). Annual debt service: ~$97,635.
        • Appreciation uses FHFA HPI piecewise CAGRs (1995–2005, 2005–2015, 2015–2025).
        • Gross rental yields are constant (sourced from ATTOM, Rentometer, 2025 estimates):
          • Cleveland: 10.2%
          • Memphis: 10.0%
          • Detroit: 10.5%
          • Indianapolis: 9.5%
          • Dallas: 7.0%
          • Houston: 7.5%
          • Austin: 7.5%
          • Phoenix: 7.0%
          • San Jose: 3.0%
          • San Diego: 3.5%
        • Base operating expenses (vacancy, maintenance, taxes, insurance, capex) = 25% of gross rent for Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego.
        • Debt service: Fixed across markets.
        • Final sale proceeds = final property value (mortgage paid off).
      • Vacancy and Maintenance Adjustment for Older Markets:
        • Rationale: Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis have older housing stock (50+ years, pre-1970s, per Census ACS and Redfin data), with higher maintenance (1.5-2% of property value vs. 1% national average) and vacancy rates (8-12% vs. 5-6% in newer markets, per HUD and Rentometer). Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego have newer stock (~25-45 years).
        • Adjustment: Expense ratio increased to 30% for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis (adds ~5% for elevated vacancies/maintenance). Others remain at 25%.
        • Impact: Reduces net operating income (NOI) in older markets, lowering cash flows, IRR, and ROE.
      • Metrics:
        • Total ROI: (Cumulative net cash flows + net sale proceeds) / $250,000 × 100%.
        • IRR: Annualized rate where NPV of cash flows (initial -$250,000, annual NOI minus debt service, final sale proceeds) equals zero.
        • ROE: Annualized internal rate of return on equity, explicitly accounting for leveraged cash flows (NOI minus debt service), appreciation, and mortgage paydown over 30 years. ROE aligns closely with IRR in this context but emphasizes equity performance.
      Historical Data and Results

      Using FHFA HPI for appreciation (indexed to Q1 1995 = 100) and rental yields from ATTOM/Rentometer, here are the results for the 30-year hold (1995–2025):

      MarketGross Rental YieldTotal Appreciation Multiplier (1995–2025)Total ROI (%)IRR (%)ROE (%)
      Phoenix7.0%5.12x3169.8913.013.1
      Austin7.5%5.13x3265.0812.712.8
      Dallas7.0%4.20x2603.4512.512.5
      Houston7.5%3.76x2378.1212.312.4
      San Diego3.5%4.92x2417.5311.811.8
      Cleveland10.2%2.49x1592.3611.811.9
      Memphis10.0%2.77x1740.2211.711.8
      Indianapolis9.5%2.65x1618.6711.611.7
      Detroit10.5%2.20x1398.9411.311.4
      San Jose3.0%5.58x2610.168.58.6

      Best Market: Phoenix, AZ (13.0% IRR, 13.1% ROE). Phoenix leads due to strong appreciation (notably 9.1% CAGR in 2015–2025) and moderate yields (7%), unhindered by the higher expense ratios applied to older markets. ROE closely mirrors IRR, confirming Phoenix's edge in leveraged equity returns.

      Period-Specific Appreciation CAGRs (for Context)
      Market1995–2005 CAGR2005–2015 CAGR2015–2025 CAGR
      Phoenix7.5%0.4%9.1%
      Austin4.6%4.7%7.5%
      Dallas3.2%2.8%6.8%
      Houston3.5%3.0%6.5%
      San Diego8.2%0.8%6.1%
      Cleveland4.1%-1.4%6.8%
      Memphis3.7%0.0%6.7%
      Indianapolis3.0%0.5%6.3%
      Detroit4.8%-2.1%5.9%
      San Jose10.3%2.0%5.6%

      Recommendation for Investing $250,000 Today

      • Choose Phoenix: Its historical IRR (13.0%) and ROE (13.1%) are the highest, driven by consistent appreciation and stable yields. Recent data (Zillow, Realtor.com, FHFA) supports Phoenix's momentum, with 3-5% annual price growth projected for 2025–2029, low vacancies (~5%), and newer homes minimizing maintenance costs. Population growth and build-to-rent trends bolster its outlook.
      • Why Not Others?
        • Austin (12.7% IRR, 12.8% ROE) and Dallas (12.5% IRR, 12.5% ROE): Strong growth markets with slightly higher yields than San Diego, but Phoenix edges out due to higher recent appreciation.
        • Houston (12.3% IRR, 12.4% ROE): Solid but lower appreciation than Phoenix/Austin/Dallas.
        • San Diego (11.8% IRR, 11.8% ROE): High appreciation but low yield (3.5%) leads to negative early cash flows, reducing IRR and ROE compared to higher-yield growth markets.
        • Cleveland (11.8% IRR, 11.9% ROE), Memphis (11.7% IRR, 11.8% ROE), Indianapolis (11.6% IRR, 11.7% ROE), Detroit (11.3% IRR, 11.4% ROE): High yields (9.5–10.5%) are offset by the 30% expense ratio for older homes (8-12% vacancies, 1.5-2% maintenance), and lower appreciation (2.20–2.77x multipliers) reduces sale proceeds.
        • San Jose (8.5% IRR, 8.6% ROE): Lowest due to very low yields (3%), despite high appreciation, as negative cash flows early in the period hurt leveraged returns.
      • Current Context (2025): Phoenix’s tight rental market (~5% vacancy) and newer housing stock align with projections of 3-5% growth (RealWealth, Reventure App). Current mortgage rates (~6.5%) improve leverage compared to 1995’s 9.15%. Cleveland/Detroit could appeal for cash flow, but higher expenses temper returns.
      • Risks: Growth markets like Phoenix are volatile (e.g., flat 2005–2015). Older markets offer cash flow stability but face cost pressures. Verify 2025 conditions with local data (Redfin, Zillow) and consider diversifying across markets.

       Interesting and it looks like a fair amount of effort was exerted.  

      However, I question your use of gross rental yield.  It appears rent growth is not used in the equation?  It appears that the initial gross rental yield is used for all years.   To obtain the actual cash flow for each period would require knowing the rent growth for each period and applying it.

      The high appreciation markets in most of those periods have the higher rent growth.  The markets with the higher appreciation multiplier like phoenix, Austin, San Diego would likely have different rent yield compared to the purchase price when accounting for rent growth.  This is due to the coupling of values and rents.   For example San Diego’s rent ratio is not significantly different than it was 10 years ago implying the rents have increased at close to the same rate at the appreciation.

      Thoughts?


      Here we go Chris, I hope you’re ready for where this is about to go if you respond. Then you’ll see what kind of situation I’ve been in over the past week. I know my point is not completely off. How to respond to a mix of people zooming in on irrelevant details, not understanding my point, and attacking me? I don’t think you want to join this fray because if you do then you’ll also have to figure all this out. 

      I can see that this is a mature response to what I was saying and I will not be able to respond today. I may not be able to respond tomorrow either. I do plan to do so.


       @Mike D. I Am not at all surprised that you would find it appropriate to not use rent growth in the calculation but rent growth is more key to actual cash flow than initial cash flow and I will expect Chris’ number to show this if he is successful to add rent growth to his data (rather than it being based solely on the initial cash flow).

      the reason I am not surprised is
      1) you used OO sales in your calculation on Austin's cash flow
      2) even when presented the data That shows CA average rent increase since the year 2000 is greater than Indiana’s current average rent, you fail to see how the rent growth dictates the cash flow on a long hold. This is basic math on growth rates that most college bound students get in middle school.

      I have no idea how you can look at this data and still believe that Indiana’s or Ohio’s cash flow since 2000 can be close to the appreciation markets. $1812/month more rent in CA than at the year 2000 overwhelms the initial cash flow benefit in the low cost markets. California’s rent has increased over $1100 more than either Indiana’s average rent increase or Ohio’s average rent increase. What do you think this large monthly rent increase does to the cash flow over the duration?

      https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-yea...

      - California: $2558 (average rent in CA today) - $747 (average rent in CA in the year 2000) =$1,811 (how much CA’s average rent has increased since the year 2000)


      - Indiana: $1139 (average rent in Indiana today) - $521(average rent in Indiana in the year 2000)=$628 (how much Indiana’s average rent has increased since the year 2000)

      - Ohio: $1149 (average rent in Ohio today)- $515 (average rent in Ohio in the year 2000)=$634 (how much Ohio’s average rent has increased since the year 2000)

      These number really make clear which state of these 3 states has had on average the better cash flow since 2000. It is the same state with the better rent growth (seems obvious to those who understand growth rates). Due to the correlation of appreciation and rent growth, the higher appreciation will typically have the higher rent growth.

      I do not understand you looking at these numbers and coming to a different conclusion. You cannot over come that the average rent in CA is over $1800/month greater than it was in the year 2000 especially when the current average rent in Indiana is only $1139 or in Ohio $1149.

      I do understand why Chris used the initial gross rent, it is easy to find and apply. It is more difficult finding rent growth numbers especially if trying to apply the data for each year of the duration. However as the above data demonstrates, using initial rent yields is a poor method to determine cash flow over long holds (it works ok for short durations).

    • Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2014 · 208 posts · 137 votes
      1y
      Quote from @Chris Clothier:

      * I forced the model to include ROE with my final prompt and asked it to include San Diego after seeing a lot of discussion about that market in particular.

      If you don't want to read to the end, it says: 

      1.  Phoenix is the top performer
      2.  You can make money in every market!  

      Choosing Between Total ROI, IRR, and ROE for Your Buying Decision

      To inform your investment decision today, prioritize IRR for evaluating historical performance over the past 30 years (1995–2025). Here's why:

      • IRR (Internal Rate of Return): Accounts for the time value of money and cash flow timing, making it ideal for long-term real estate investments with uneven returns (e.g., early rental income vs. later appreciation). It annualizes returns, enabling consistent comparison across markets.
      • ROE (Return on Equity): Measures the annualized return on the initial $250,000 equity, factoring in leveraged cash flows, appreciation, and mortgage paydown. It's similar to IRR but explicitly focuses on equity returns, making it valuable for assessing leveraged investments. However, IRR is preferred for its broader applicability across investment types.
      • Total ROI: Measures total net profit relative to initial equity but ignores cash flow timing, overemphasizing back-loaded appreciation. It’s better for short-term investments, not 30-year holds.

      Historical metrics provide context, but past performance doesn’t guarantee future results. Current conditions (e.g., ~6.5% mortgage rates in 2025, 3-5% annual appreciation projections from Zillow/Realtor.com) should guide decisions, with historical data as a reference.

      Adjusted Analysis Including San Diego with ROE

      Per your request, I’ve included San Diego and added ROE to the analysis, evaluating a $250,000 equity investment leveraged to purchase $1,250,000 in median-priced single-family homes in each city (80% leverage, 20% down). The portfolio is held from 1995 to 2025, with a sale at the end (mortgage fully paid off at 9.15% fixed rate). As before, I’ve weighted vacancies and maintenance heavier for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis due to their older housing stock and higher historical averages for these costs. San Diego, with newer housing stock similar to Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, and San Jose, uses the standard expense ratio.

      Assumptions and Adjustments
      • Base Model:
        • $250,000 equity buys $1,250,000 in properties (5:1 leverage).
        • 30-year fixed mortgage at 9.15% (Freddie Mac, 1995). Annual debt service: ~$97,635.
        • Appreciation uses FHFA HPI piecewise CAGRs (1995–2005, 2005–2015, 2015–2025).
        • Gross rental yields are constant (sourced from ATTOM, Rentometer, 2025 estimates):
          • Cleveland: 10.2%
          • Memphis: 10.0%
          • Detroit: 10.5%
          • Indianapolis: 9.5%
          • Dallas: 7.0%
          • Houston: 7.5%
          • Austin: 7.5%
          • Phoenix: 7.0%
          • San Jose: 3.0%
          • San Diego: 3.5%
        • Base operating expenses (vacancy, maintenance, taxes, insurance, capex) = 25% of gross rent for Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego.
        • Debt service: Fixed across markets.
        • Final sale proceeds = final property value (mortgage paid off).
      • Vacancy and Maintenance Adjustment for Older Markets:
        • Rationale: Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis have older housing stock (50+ years, pre-1970s, per Census ACS and Redfin data), with higher maintenance (1.5-2% of property value vs. 1% national average) and vacancy rates (8-12% vs. 5-6% in newer markets, per HUD and Rentometer). Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego have newer stock (~25-45 years).
        • Adjustment: Expense ratio increased to 30% for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis (adds ~5% for elevated vacancies/maintenance). Others remain at 25%.
        • Impact: Reduces net operating income (NOI) in older markets, lowering cash flows, IRR, and ROE.
      • Metrics:
        • Total ROI: (Cumulative net cash flows + net sale proceeds) / $250,000 × 100%.
        • IRR: Annualized rate where NPV of cash flows (initial -$250,000, annual NOI minus debt service, final sale proceeds) equals zero.
        • ROE: Annualized internal rate of return on equity, explicitly accounting for leveraged cash flows (NOI minus debt service), appreciation, and mortgage paydown over 30 years. ROE aligns closely with IRR in this context but emphasizes equity performance.
      Historical Data and Results

      Using FHFA HPI for appreciation (indexed to Q1 1995 = 100) and rental yields from ATTOM/Rentometer, here are the results for the 30-year hold (1995–2025):

      MarketGross Rental YieldTotal Appreciation Multiplier (1995–2025)Total ROI (%)IRR (%)ROE (%)
      Phoenix7.0%5.12x3169.8913.013.1
      Austin7.5%5.13x3265.0812.712.8
      Dallas7.0%4.20x2603.4512.512.5
      Houston7.5%3.76x2378.1212.312.4
      San Diego3.5%4.92x2417.5311.811.8
      Cleveland10.2%2.49x1592.3611.811.9
      Memphis10.0%2.77x1740.2211.711.8
      Indianapolis9.5%2.65x1618.6711.611.7
      Detroit10.5%2.20x1398.9411.311.4
      San Jose3.0%5.58x2610.168.58.6

      Best Market: Phoenix, AZ (13.0% IRR, 13.1% ROE). Phoenix leads due to strong appreciation (notably 9.1% CAGR in 2015–2025) and moderate yields (7%), unhindered by the higher expense ratios applied to older markets. ROE closely mirrors IRR, confirming Phoenix's edge in leveraged equity returns.

      Period-Specific Appreciation CAGRs (for Context)
      Market1995–2005 CAGR2005–2015 CAGR2015–2025 CAGR
      Phoenix7.5%0.4%9.1%
      Austin4.6%4.7%7.5%
      Dallas3.2%2.8%6.8%
      Houston3.5%3.0%6.5%
      San Diego8.2%0.8%6.1%
      Cleveland4.1%-1.4%6.8%
      Memphis3.7%0.0%6.7%
      Indianapolis3.0%0.5%6.3%
      Detroit4.8%-2.1%5.9%
      San Jose10.3%2.0%5.6%

      Recommendation for Investing $250,000 Today

      • Choose Phoenix: Its historical IRR (13.0%) and ROE (13.1%) are the highest, driven by consistent appreciation and stable yields. Recent data (Zillow, Realtor.com, FHFA) supports Phoenix's momentum, with 3-5% annual price growth projected for 2025–2029, low vacancies (~5%), and newer homes minimizing maintenance costs. Population growth and build-to-rent trends bolster its outlook.
      • Why Not Others?
        • Austin (12.7% IRR, 12.8% ROE) and Dallas (12.5% IRR, 12.5% ROE): Strong growth markets with slightly higher yields than San Diego, but Phoenix edges out due to higher recent appreciation.
        • Houston (12.3% IRR, 12.4% ROE): Solid but lower appreciation than Phoenix/Austin/Dallas.
        • San Diego (11.8% IRR, 11.8% ROE): High appreciation but low yield (3.5%) leads to negative early cash flows, reducing IRR and ROE compared to higher-yield growth markets.
        • Cleveland (11.8% IRR, 11.9% ROE), Memphis (11.7% IRR, 11.8% ROE), Indianapolis (11.6% IRR, 11.7% ROE), Detroit (11.3% IRR, 11.4% ROE): High yields (9.5–10.5%) are offset by the 30% expense ratio for older homes (8-12% vacancies, 1.5-2% maintenance), and lower appreciation (2.20–2.77x multipliers) reduces sale proceeds.
        • San Jose (8.5% IRR, 8.6% ROE): Lowest due to very low yields (3%), despite high appreciation, as negative cash flows early in the period hurt leveraged returns.
      • Current Context (2025): Phoenix’s tight rental market (~5% vacancy) and newer housing stock align with projections of 3-5% growth (RealWealth, Reventure App). Current mortgage rates (~6.5%) improve leverage compared to 1995’s 9.15%. Cleveland/Detroit could appeal for cash flow, but higher expenses temper returns.
      • Risks: Growth markets like Phoenix are volatile (e.g., flat 2005–2015). Older markets offer cash flow stability but face cost pressures. Verify 2025 conditions with local data (Redfin, Zillow) and consider diversifying across markets.

      When I laid eyes on this, I knew there was an error in it, because I've tested the principle I set forth very extensively and found it to be correct: when paid down just enough to cashflow, properties in low appreciation markets have much higher returns. I thought it might take a while to figure out what the error was, but it's clear right away: this model ignores the "when paid down just enough to cashflow" part. Although it doesn't show what the cashflow is in these markets, anyone who has invested in a market like Phoenix or thought seriously about doing it knows that at 80% LTV, negative cashflow will be extreme. In fact, at 80% LTV, almost any market will have negative cashflow. However you can reach $0 cashflow with a much lower down payment in markets that cashflow well, and therefore your gain is higher there, whatever stats may show about those markets. What my post has been about is arguing against the logic that the markets with the best stats win for exactly this reason: the negative cashflow you'd have to take on to "win" in them puts them out of reach for most investors. Although there was clearly a lot of effort put into this critique it's ultimately restating the same kind of logic and not taking into account one of the constraints that I clearly stated at the start: no negative cashflow. For real investors, the Midwest and the South do offer the best returns. I'm also assuming that the underlying math here is correct and none of it was shown, so it's a big assumption.

    • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
      Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Chris Clothier:

      * I forced the model to include ROE with my final prompt and asked it to include San Diego after seeing a lot of discussion about that market in particular.

      If you don't want to read to the end, it says: 

      1.  Phoenix is the top performer
      2.  You can make money in every market!  

      Choosing Between Total ROI, IRR, and ROE for Your Buying Decision

      To inform your investment decision today, prioritize IRR for evaluating historical performance over the past 30 years (1995–2025). Here's why:

      • IRR (Internal Rate of Return): Accounts for the time value of money and cash flow timing, making it ideal for long-term real estate investments with uneven returns (e.g., early rental income vs. later appreciation). It annualizes returns, enabling consistent comparison across markets.
      • ROE (Return on Equity): Measures the annualized return on the initial $250,000 equity, factoring in leveraged cash flows, appreciation, and mortgage paydown. It's similar to IRR but explicitly focuses on equity returns, making it valuable for assessing leveraged investments. However, IRR is preferred for its broader applicability across investment types.
      • Total ROI: Measures total net profit relative to initial equity but ignores cash flow timing, overemphasizing back-loaded appreciation. It’s better for short-term investments, not 30-year holds.

      Historical metrics provide context, but past performance doesn’t guarantee future results. Current conditions (e.g., ~6.5% mortgage rates in 2025, 3-5% annual appreciation projections from Zillow/Realtor.com) should guide decisions, with historical data as a reference.

      Adjusted Analysis Including San Diego with ROE

      Per your request, I’ve included San Diego and added ROE to the analysis, evaluating a $250,000 equity investment leveraged to purchase $1,250,000 in median-priced single-family homes in each city (80% leverage, 20% down). The portfolio is held from 1995 to 2025, with a sale at the end (mortgage fully paid off at 9.15% fixed rate). As before, I’ve weighted vacancies and maintenance heavier for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis due to their older housing stock and higher historical averages for these costs. San Diego, with newer housing stock similar to Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, and San Jose, uses the standard expense ratio.

      Assumptions and Adjustments
      • Base Model:
        • $250,000 equity buys $1,250,000 in properties (5:1 leverage).
        • 30-year fixed mortgage at 9.15% (Freddie Mac, 1995). Annual debt service: ~$97,635.
        • Appreciation uses FHFA HPI piecewise CAGRs (1995–2005, 2005–2015, 2015–2025).
        • Gross rental yields are constant (sourced from ATTOM, Rentometer, 2025 estimates):
          • Cleveland: 10.2%
          • Memphis: 10.0%
          • Detroit: 10.5%
          • Indianapolis: 9.5%
          • Dallas: 7.0%
          • Houston: 7.5%
          • Austin: 7.5%
          • Phoenix: 7.0%
          • San Jose: 3.0%
          • San Diego: 3.5%
        • Base operating expenses (vacancy, maintenance, taxes, insurance, capex) = 25% of gross rent for Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego.
        • Debt service: Fixed across markets.
        • Final sale proceeds = final property value (mortgage paid off).
      • Vacancy and Maintenance Adjustment for Older Markets:
        • Rationale: Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis have older housing stock (50+ years, pre-1970s, per Census ACS and Redfin data), with higher maintenance (1.5-2% of property value vs. 1% national average) and vacancy rates (8-12% vs. 5-6% in newer markets, per HUD and Rentometer). Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego have newer stock (~25-45 years).
        • Adjustment: Expense ratio increased to 30% for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis (adds ~5% for elevated vacancies/maintenance). Others remain at 25%.
        • Impact: Reduces net operating income (NOI) in older markets, lowering cash flows, IRR, and ROE.
      • Metrics:
        • Total ROI: (Cumulative net cash flows + net sale proceeds) / $250,000 × 100%.
        • IRR: Annualized rate where NPV of cash flows (initial -$250,000, annual NOI minus debt service, final sale proceeds) equals zero.
        • ROE: Annualized internal rate of return on equity, explicitly accounting for leveraged cash flows (NOI minus debt service), appreciation, and mortgage paydown over 30 years. ROE aligns closely with IRR in this context but emphasizes equity performance.
      Historical Data and Results

      Using FHFA HPI for appreciation (indexed to Q1 1995 = 100) and rental yields from ATTOM/Rentometer, here are the results for the 30-year hold (1995–2025):

      MarketGross Rental YieldTotal Appreciation Multiplier (1995–2025)Total ROI (%)IRR (%)ROE (%)
      Phoenix7.0%5.12x3169.8913.013.1
      Austin7.5%5.13x3265.0812.712.8
      Dallas7.0%4.20x2603.4512.512.5
      Houston7.5%3.76x2378.1212.312.4
      San Diego3.5%4.92x2417.5311.811.8
      Cleveland10.2%2.49x1592.3611.811.9
      Memphis10.0%2.77x1740.2211.711.8
      Indianapolis9.5%2.65x1618.6711.611.7
      Detroit10.5%2.20x1398.9411.311.4
      San Jose3.0%5.58x2610.168.58.6

      Best Market: Phoenix, AZ (13.0% IRR, 13.1% ROE). Phoenix leads due to strong appreciation (notably 9.1% CAGR in 2015–2025) and moderate yields (7%), unhindered by the higher expense ratios applied to older markets. ROE closely mirrors IRR, confirming Phoenix's edge in leveraged equity returns.

      Period-Specific Appreciation CAGRs (for Context)
      Market1995–2005 CAGR2005–2015 CAGR2015–2025 CAGR
      Phoenix7.5%0.4%9.1%
      Austin4.6%4.7%7.5%
      Dallas3.2%2.8%6.8%
      Houston3.5%3.0%6.5%
      San Diego8.2%0.8%6.1%
      Cleveland4.1%-1.4%6.8%
      Memphis3.7%0.0%6.7%
      Indianapolis3.0%0.5%6.3%
      Detroit4.8%-2.1%5.9%
      San Jose10.3%2.0%5.6%

      Recommendation for Investing $250,000 Today

      • Choose Phoenix: Its historical IRR (13.0%) and ROE (13.1%) are the highest, driven by consistent appreciation and stable yields. Recent data (Zillow, Realtor.com, FHFA) supports Phoenix's momentum, with 3-5% annual price growth projected for 2025–2029, low vacancies (~5%), and newer homes minimizing maintenance costs. Population growth and build-to-rent trends bolster its outlook.
      • Why Not Others?
        • Austin (12.7% IRR, 12.8% ROE) and Dallas (12.5% IRR, 12.5% ROE): Strong growth markets with slightly higher yields than San Diego, but Phoenix edges out due to higher recent appreciation.
        • Houston (12.3% IRR, 12.4% ROE): Solid but lower appreciation than Phoenix/Austin/Dallas.
        • San Diego (11.8% IRR, 11.8% ROE): High appreciation but low yield (3.5%) leads to negative early cash flows, reducing IRR and ROE compared to higher-yield growth markets.
        • Cleveland (11.8% IRR, 11.9% ROE), Memphis (11.7% IRR, 11.8% ROE), Indianapolis (11.6% IRR, 11.7% ROE), Detroit (11.3% IRR, 11.4% ROE): High yields (9.5–10.5%) are offset by the 30% expense ratio for older homes (8-12% vacancies, 1.5-2% maintenance), and lower appreciation (2.20–2.77x multipliers) reduces sale proceeds.
        • San Jose (8.5% IRR, 8.6% ROE): Lowest due to very low yields (3%), despite high appreciation, as negative cash flows early in the period hurt leveraged returns.
      • Current Context (2025): Phoenix’s tight rental market (~5% vacancy) and newer housing stock align with projections of 3-5% growth (RealWealth, Reventure App). Current mortgage rates (~6.5%) improve leverage compared to 1995’s 9.15%. Cleveland/Detroit could appeal for cash flow, but higher expenses temper returns.
      • Risks: Growth markets like Phoenix are volatile (e.g., flat 2005–2015). Older markets offer cash flow stability but face cost pressures. Verify 2025 conditions with local data (Redfin, Zillow) and consider diversifying across markets.
      Chris,  as someone who grew up in Santa Clara county ( San Jose) the numbers are going to be kind of skewed when you include the city of San Jose as you had East San Jose lumped in and that area the values and rents were far lower than anywhere else in Silicon Valley. Although I guess its fair if your also lumping all of the other cities into one metric as EACH city has its good areas and not so good areas.. It would be cool to give one of your staff the same missions and Do say Cupertino or Palo Alto. 
    • Flipper/Rehabber · CA · Member since 2023 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:
      Quote from @Chris Clothier:

      * I forced the model to include ROE with my final prompt and asked it to include San Diego after seeing a lot of discussion about that market in particular.

      If you don't want to read to the end, it says: 

      1.  Phoenix is the top performer
      2.  You can make money in every market!  

      Choosing Between Total ROI, IRR, and ROE for Your Buying Decision

      To inform your investment decision today, prioritize IRR for evaluating historical performance over the past 30 years (1995–2025). Here's why:

      • IRR (Internal Rate of Return): Accounts for the time value of money and cash flow timing, making it ideal for long-term real estate investments with uneven returns (e.g., early rental income vs. later appreciation). It annualizes returns, enabling consistent comparison across markets.
      • ROE (Return on Equity): Measures the annualized return on the initial $250,000 equity, factoring in leveraged cash flows, appreciation, and mortgage paydown. It's similar to IRR but explicitly focuses on equity returns, making it valuable for assessing leveraged investments. However, IRR is preferred for its broader applicability across investment types.
      • Total ROI: Measures total net profit relative to initial equity but ignores cash flow timing, overemphasizing back-loaded appreciation. It’s better for short-term investments, not 30-year holds.

      Historical metrics provide context, but past performance doesn’t guarantee future results. Current conditions (e.g., ~6.5% mortgage rates in 2025, 3-5% annual appreciation projections from Zillow/Realtor.com) should guide decisions, with historical data as a reference.

      Adjusted Analysis Including San Diego with ROE

      Per your request, I’ve included San Diego and added ROE to the analysis, evaluating a $250,000 equity investment leveraged to purchase $1,250,000 in median-priced single-family homes in each city (80% leverage, 20% down). The portfolio is held from 1995 to 2025, with a sale at the end (mortgage fully paid off at 9.15% fixed rate). As before, I’ve weighted vacancies and maintenance heavier for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis due to their older housing stock and higher historical averages for these costs. San Diego, with newer housing stock similar to Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, and San Jose, uses the standard expense ratio.

      Assumptions and Adjustments
      • Base Model:
        • $250,000 equity buys $1,250,000 in properties (5:1 leverage).
        • 30-year fixed mortgage at 9.15% (Freddie Mac, 1995). Annual debt service: ~$97,635.
        • Appreciation uses FHFA HPI piecewise CAGRs (1995–2005, 2005–2015, 2015–2025).
        • Gross rental yields are constant (sourced from ATTOM, Rentometer, 2025 estimates):
          • Cleveland: 10.2%
          • Memphis: 10.0%
          • Detroit: 10.5%
          • Indianapolis: 9.5%
          • Dallas: 7.0%
          • Houston: 7.5%
          • Austin: 7.5%
          • Phoenix: 7.0%
          • San Jose: 3.0%
          • San Diego: 3.5%
        • Base operating expenses (vacancy, maintenance, taxes, insurance, capex) = 25% of gross rent for Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego.
        • Debt service: Fixed across markets.
        • Final sale proceeds = final property value (mortgage paid off).
      • Vacancy and Maintenance Adjustment for Older Markets:
        • Rationale: Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis have older housing stock (50+ years, pre-1970s, per Census ACS and Redfin data), with higher maintenance (1.5-2% of property value vs. 1% national average) and vacancy rates (8-12% vs. 5-6% in newer markets, per HUD and Rentometer). Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego have newer stock (~25-45 years).
        • Adjustment: Expense ratio increased to 30% for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis (adds ~5% for elevated vacancies/maintenance). Others remain at 25%.
        • Impact: Reduces net operating income (NOI) in older markets, lowering cash flows, IRR, and ROE.
      • Metrics:
        • Total ROI: (Cumulative net cash flows + net sale proceeds) / $250,000 × 100%.
        • IRR: Annualized rate where NPV of cash flows (initial -$250,000, annual NOI minus debt service, final sale proceeds) equals zero.
        • ROE: Annualized internal rate of return on equity, explicitly accounting for leveraged cash flows (NOI minus debt service), appreciation, and mortgage paydown over 30 years. ROE aligns closely with IRR in this context but emphasizes equity performance.
      Historical Data and Results

      Using FHFA HPI for appreciation (indexed to Q1 1995 = 100) and rental yields from ATTOM/Rentometer, here are the results for the 30-year hold (1995–2025):

      MarketGross Rental YieldTotal Appreciation Multiplier (1995–2025)Total ROI (%)IRR (%)ROE (%)
      Phoenix7.0%5.12x3169.8913.013.1
      Austin7.5%5.13x3265.0812.712.8
      Dallas7.0%4.20x2603.4512.512.5
      Houston7.5%3.76x2378.1212.312.4
      San Diego3.5%4.92x2417.5311.811.8
      Cleveland10.2%2.49x1592.3611.811.9
      Memphis10.0%2.77x1740.2211.711.8
      Indianapolis9.5%2.65x1618.6711.611.7
      Detroit10.5%2.20x1398.9411.311.4
      San Jose3.0%5.58x2610.168.58.6

      Best Market: Phoenix, AZ (13.0% IRR, 13.1% ROE). Phoenix leads due to strong appreciation (notably 9.1% CAGR in 2015–2025) and moderate yields (7%), unhindered by the higher expense ratios applied to older markets. ROE closely mirrors IRR, confirming Phoenix's edge in leveraged equity returns.

      Period-Specific Appreciation CAGRs (for Context)
      Market1995–2005 CAGR2005–2015 CAGR2015–2025 CAGR
      Phoenix7.5%0.4%9.1%
      Austin4.6%4.7%7.5%
      Dallas3.2%2.8%6.8%
      Houston3.5%3.0%6.5%
      San Diego8.2%0.8%6.1%
      Cleveland4.1%-1.4%6.8%
      Memphis3.7%0.0%6.7%
      Indianapolis3.0%0.5%6.3%
      Detroit4.8%-2.1%5.9%
      San Jose10.3%2.0%5.6%

      Recommendation for Investing $250,000 Today

      • Choose Phoenix: Its historical IRR (13.0%) and ROE (13.1%) are the highest, driven by consistent appreciation and stable yields. Recent data (Zillow, Realtor.com, FHFA) supports Phoenix's momentum, with 3-5% annual price growth projected for 2025–2029, low vacancies (~5%), and newer homes minimizing maintenance costs. Population growth and build-to-rent trends bolster its outlook.
      • Why Not Others?
        • Austin (12.7% IRR, 12.8% ROE) and Dallas (12.5% IRR, 12.5% ROE): Strong growth markets with slightly higher yields than San Diego, but Phoenix edges out due to higher recent appreciation.
        • Houston (12.3% IRR, 12.4% ROE): Solid but lower appreciation than Phoenix/Austin/Dallas.
        • San Diego (11.8% IRR, 11.8% ROE): High appreciation but low yield (3.5%) leads to negative early cash flows, reducing IRR and ROE compared to higher-yield growth markets.
        • Cleveland (11.8% IRR, 11.9% ROE), Memphis (11.7% IRR, 11.8% ROE), Indianapolis (11.6% IRR, 11.7% ROE), Detroit (11.3% IRR, 11.4% ROE): High yields (9.5–10.5%) are offset by the 30% expense ratio for older homes (8-12% vacancies, 1.5-2% maintenance), and lower appreciation (2.20–2.77x multipliers) reduces sale proceeds.
        • San Jose (8.5% IRR, 8.6% ROE): Lowest due to very low yields (3%), despite high appreciation, as negative cash flows early in the period hurt leveraged returns.
      • Current Context (2025): Phoenix’s tight rental market (~5% vacancy) and newer housing stock align with projections of 3-5% growth (RealWealth, Reventure App). Current mortgage rates (~6.5%) improve leverage compared to 1995’s 9.15%. Cleveland/Detroit could appeal for cash flow, but higher expenses temper returns.
      • Risks: Growth markets like Phoenix are volatile (e.g., flat 2005–2015). Older markets offer cash flow stability but face cost pressures. Verify 2025 conditions with local data (Redfin, Zillow) and consider diversifying across markets.
      Chris,  as someone who grew up in Santa Clara county ( San Jose) the numbers are going to be kind of skewed when you include the city of San Jose as you had East San Jose lumped in and that area the values and rents were far lower than anywhere else in Silicon Valley. Although I guess its fair if your also lumping all of the other cities into one metric as EACH city has its good areas and not so good areas.. It would be cool to give one of your staff the same missions and Do say Cupertino or Palo Alto. 
      The East side, with the exception of Silver Creek, is still real rough. In fact it's sort of moved over 101. Around Leigh high school is still nice, around Branham area, more apartments have really changed the area, way more crime, blossom hill too. Lots of vacant retail and crime.
    • Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Dan H.:
      Quote from @Mike D.:
      Quote from @Dan H.:
      Quote from @Chris Clothier:

      * I forced the model to include ROE with my final prompt and asked it to include San Diego after seeing a lot of discussion about that market in particular.

      If you don't want to read to the end, it says: 

      1.  Phoenix is the top performer
      2.  You can make money in every market!  

      Choosing Between Total ROI, IRR, and ROE for Your Buying Decision

      To inform your investment decision today, prioritize IRR for evaluating historical performance over the past 30 years (1995–2025). Here's why:

      • IRR (Internal Rate of Return): Accounts for the time value of money and cash flow timing, making it ideal for long-term real estate investments with uneven returns (e.g., early rental income vs. later appreciation). It annualizes returns, enabling consistent comparison across markets.
      • ROE (Return on Equity): Measures the annualized return on the initial $250,000 equity, factoring in leveraged cash flows, appreciation, and mortgage paydown. It's similar to IRR but explicitly focuses on equity returns, making it valuable for assessing leveraged investments. However, IRR is preferred for its broader applicability across investment types.
      • Total ROI: Measures total net profit relative to initial equity but ignores cash flow timing, overemphasizing back-loaded appreciation. It’s better for short-term investments, not 30-year holds.

      Historical metrics provide context, but past performance doesn’t guarantee future results. Current conditions (e.g., ~6.5% mortgage rates in 2025, 3-5% annual appreciation projections from Zillow/Realtor.com) should guide decisions, with historical data as a reference.

      Adjusted Analysis Including San Diego with ROE

      Per your request, I’ve included San Diego and added ROE to the analysis, evaluating a $250,000 equity investment leveraged to purchase $1,250,000 in median-priced single-family homes in each city (80% leverage, 20% down). The portfolio is held from 1995 to 2025, with a sale at the end (mortgage fully paid off at 9.15% fixed rate). As before, I’ve weighted vacancies and maintenance heavier for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis due to their older housing stock and higher historical averages for these costs. San Diego, with newer housing stock similar to Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, and San Jose, uses the standard expense ratio.

      Assumptions and Adjustments
      • Base Model:
        • $250,000 equity buys $1,250,000 in properties (5:1 leverage).
        • 30-year fixed mortgage at 9.15% (Freddie Mac, 1995). Annual debt service: ~$97,635.
        • Appreciation uses FHFA HPI piecewise CAGRs (1995–2005, 2005–2015, 2015–2025).
        • Gross rental yields are constant (sourced from ATTOM, Rentometer, 2025 estimates):
          • Cleveland: 10.2%
          • Memphis: 10.0%
          • Detroit: 10.5%
          • Indianapolis: 9.5%
          • Dallas: 7.0%
          • Houston: 7.5%
          • Austin: 7.5%
          • Phoenix: 7.0%
          • San Jose: 3.0%
          • San Diego: 3.5%
        • Base operating expenses (vacancy, maintenance, taxes, insurance, capex) = 25% of gross rent for Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego.
        • Debt service: Fixed across markets.
        • Final sale proceeds = final property value (mortgage paid off).
      • Vacancy and Maintenance Adjustment for Older Markets:
        • Rationale: Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis have older housing stock (50+ years, pre-1970s, per Census ACS and Redfin data), with higher maintenance (1.5-2% of property value vs. 1% national average) and vacancy rates (8-12% vs. 5-6% in newer markets, per HUD and Rentometer). Dallas, Houston, Austin, Phoenix, San Jose, and San Diego have newer stock (~25-45 years).
        • Adjustment: Expense ratio increased to 30% for Cleveland, Memphis, Detroit, and Indianapolis (adds ~5% for elevated vacancies/maintenance). Others remain at 25%.
        • Impact: Reduces net operating income (NOI) in older markets, lowering cash flows, IRR, and ROE.
      • Metrics:
        • Total ROI: (Cumulative net cash flows + net sale proceeds) / $250,000 × 100%.
        • IRR: Annualized rate where NPV of cash flows (initial -$250,000, annual NOI minus debt service, final sale proceeds) equals zero.
        • ROE: Annualized internal rate of return on equity, explicitly accounting for leveraged cash flows (NOI minus debt service), appreciation, and mortgage paydown over 30 years. ROE aligns closely with IRR in this context but emphasizes equity performance.
      Historical Data and Results

      Using FHFA HPI for appreciation (indexed to Q1 1995 = 100) and rental yields from ATTOM/Rentometer, here are the results for the 30-year hold (1995–2025):

      MarketGross Rental YieldTotal Appreciation Multiplier (1995–2025)Total ROI (%)IRR (%)ROE (%)
      Phoenix7.0%5.12x3169.8913.013.1
      Austin7.5%5.13x3265.0812.712.8
      Dallas7.0%4.20x2603.4512.512.5
      Houston7.5%3.76x2378.1212.312.4
      San Diego3.5%4.92x2417.5311.811.8
      Cleveland10.2%2.49x1592.3611.811.9
      Memphis10.0%2.77x1740.2211.711.8
      Indianapolis9.5%2.65x1618.6711.611.7
      Detroit10.5%2.20x1398.9411.311.4
      San Jose3.0%5.58x2610.168.58.6

      Best Market: Phoenix, AZ (13.0% IRR, 13.1% ROE). Phoenix leads due to strong appreciation (notably 9.1% CAGR in 2015–2025) and moderate yields (7%), unhindered by the higher expense ratios applied to older markets. ROE closely mirrors IRR, confirming Phoenix's edge in leveraged equity returns.

      Period-Specific Appreciation CAGRs (for Context)
      Market1995–2005 CAGR2005–2015 CAGR2015–2025 CAGR
      Phoenix7.5%0.4%9.1%
      Austin4.6%4.7%7.5%
      Dallas3.2%2.8%6.8%
      Houston3.5%3.0%6.5%
      San Diego8.2%0.8%6.1%
      Cleveland4.1%-1.4%6.8%
      Memphis3.7%0.0%6.7%
      Indianapolis3.0%0.5%6.3%
      Detroit4.8%-2.1%5.9%
      San Jose10.3%2.0%5.6%

      Recommendation for Investing $250,000 Today

      • Choose Phoenix: Its historical IRR (13.0%) and ROE (13.1%) are the highest, driven by consistent appreciation and stable yields. Recent data (Zillow, Realtor.com, FHFA) supports Phoenix's momentum, with 3-5% annual price growth projected for 2025–2029, low vacancies (~5%), and newer homes minimizing maintenance costs. Population growth and build-to-rent trends bolster its outlook.
      • Why Not Others?
        • Austin (12.7% IRR, 12.8% ROE) and Dallas (12.5% IRR, 12.5% ROE): Strong growth markets with slightly higher yields than San Diego, but Phoenix edges out due to higher recent appreciation.
        • Houston (12.3% IRR, 12.4% ROE): Solid but lower appreciation than Phoenix/Austin/Dallas.
        • San Diego (11.8% IRR, 11.8% ROE): High appreciation but low yield (3.5%) leads to negative early cash flows, reducing IRR and ROE compared to higher-yield growth markets.
        • Cleveland (11.8% IRR, 11.9% ROE), Memphis (11.7% IRR, 11.8% ROE), Indianapolis (11.6% IRR, 11.7% ROE), Detroit (11.3% IRR, 11.4% ROE): High yields (9.5–10.5%) are offset by the 30% expense ratio for older homes (8-12% vacancies, 1.5-2% maintenance), and lower appreciation (2.20–2.77x multipliers) reduces sale proceeds.
        • San Jose (8.5% IRR, 8.6% ROE): Lowest due to very low yields (3%), despite high appreciation, as negative cash flows early in the period hurt leveraged returns.
      • Current Context (2025): Phoenix’s tight rental market (~5% vacancy) and newer housing stock align with projections of 3-5% growth (RealWealth, Reventure App). Current mortgage rates (~6.5%) improve leverage compared to 1995’s 9.15%. Cleveland/Detroit could appeal for cash flow, but higher expenses temper returns.
      • Risks: Growth markets like Phoenix are volatile (e.g., flat 2005–2015). Older markets offer cash flow stability but face cost pressures. Verify 2025 conditions with local data (Redfin, Zillow) and consider diversifying across markets.

       Interesting and it looks like a fair amount of effort was exerted.  

      However, I question your use of gross rental yield.  It appears rent growth is not used in the equation?  It appears that the initial gross rental yield is used for all years.   To obtain the actual cash flow for each period would require knowing the rent growth for each period and applying it.

      The high appreciation markets in most of those periods have the higher rent growth.  The markets with the higher appreciation multiplier like phoenix, Austin, San Diego would likely have different rent yield compared to the purchase price when accounting for rent growth.  This is due to the coupling of values and rents.   For example San Diego’s rent ratio is not significantly different than it was 10 years ago implying the rents have increased at close to the same rate at the appreciation.

      Thoughts?


      Here we go Chris, I hope you’re ready for where this is about to go if you respond. Then you’ll see what kind of situation I’ve been in over the past week. I know my point is not completely off. How to respond to a mix of people zooming in on irrelevant details, not understanding my point, and attacking me? I don’t think you want to join this fray because if you do then you’ll also have to figure all this out. 

      I can see that this is a mature response to what I was saying and I will not be able to respond today. I may not be able to respond tomorrow either. I do plan to do so.


       @Mike D. I Am not at all surprised that you would find it appropriate to not use rent growth in the calculation but rent growth is more key to actual cash flow than initial cash flow and I will expect Chris’ number to show this if he is successful to add rent growth to his data (rather than it being based solely on the initial cash flow).

      the reason I am not surprised is
      1) you used OO sales in your calculation on Austin's cash flow
      2) even when presented the data That shows CA average rent increase since the year 2000 is greater than Indiana’s current average rent, you fail to see how the rent growth dictates the cash flow on a long hold. This is basic math on growth rates that most college bound students get in middle school.

      I have no idea how you can look at this data and still believe that Indiana’s or Ohio’s cash flow since 2000 can be close to the appreciation markets. $1812/month more rent in CA than at the year 2000 overwhelms the initial cash flow benefit in the low cost markets. California’s rent has increased over $1100 more than either Indiana’s average rent increase or Ohio’s average rent increase. What do you think this large monthly rent increase does to the cash flow over the duration?

      https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-yea...

      - California: $2558 (average rent in CA today) - $747 (average rent in CA in the year 2000) =$1,811 (how much CA’s average rent has increased since the year 2000)


      - Indiana: $1139 (average rent in Indiana today) - $521(average rent in Indiana in the year 2000)=$628 (how much Indiana’s average rent has increased since the year 2000)

      - Ohio: $1149 (average rent in Ohio today)- $515 (average rent in Ohio in the year 2000)=$634 (how much Ohio’s average rent has increased since the year 2000)

      These number really make clear which state of these 3 states has had on average the better cash flow since 2000. It is the same state with the better rent growth (seems obvious to those who understand growth rates). Due to the correlation of appreciation and rent growth, the higher appreciation will typically have the higher rent growth.

      I do not understand you looking at these numbers and coming to a different conclusion. You cannot over come that the average rent in CA is over $1800/month greater than it was in the year 2000 especially when the current average rent in Indiana is only $1139 or in Ohio $1149.

      I do understand why Chris used the initial gross rent, it is easy to find and apply. It is more difficult finding rent growth numbers especially if trying to apply the data for each year of the duration. However as the above data demonstrates, using initial rent yields is a poor method to determine cash flow over long holds (it works ok for short durations).

      Obvious opinion will not bring this to conclusion, nor is seeking specific properties to detail as there not being supplied. 

      So how about just pick a specific asset type, for example 3br median single family home. Then a city, state, and year. Then lay out the facts of the math. 

      We can pull historical record of what median rents and median market value was, removing any and all opinion and just lays out the factual for which does what. 

      If looking to get a true "vs appreciation" it really should be with SFH's IMO because that is "THE" asset of choice and use for appreciation plays. Multi's are always more weighted valuation based on revenue from rents, which is ok, your just niching down on appreciation lens as rent rate appreciation vs broad based real estate appreciation as a whole.

  • V.G JasonPro Member
    Investor · Member since 2022 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    1y

    I think picking on 20% Mike really doesn't do justice to the forum and the viewers. The reality is this, if you want to play the phys RE game now you must come more equipped than just equipped. Gone are the days just post GFC till 2021. The Brandon Turner's aren't going to pop out again, those were pure luck very little skill. Go check ODC for evidence of it. The proof is in the pudding.

    With that said, if you want hard #s of my example of being equipped is for a $300k spec house you want to must have the 25-40% down and the capex as the top line not bottom line if you aren't doing a rehab. Ideally, distressed, significant rehab, and keep DSCR 1.25-1.5x. And then 1.5-2 years worth of reserves ready to go at any issue RE throws at you. And it will throw stuff at you. If you can't concentrate your risk in areas you have the greater knowledge about, don't venture. Finding that Indiana shack for $220k making you $2k in rent isn't worth the squeeze, you're better off taking that 50-60k and the risk in almost any place else. $50-60k 12 years ago isn't what it is today.

    Other areas to get take your flier risk on. They are out there, go check how the S&P fits versus Gold in say 2000-2010. You should've seen how the dollar declines. Go check why stocks are going up, up, & up. Understand why and have your dollars in the reason it's going up, not in phys RE.

    If you're someone who found the pot of "gold" with STRs and tax write-offs. I kid with this, of course. STRs are hospitality. Ideal leverage in business- 20 to 40%. Valuation of RE= strictly appraisal and what it serves as RE. So you buy the RE as RE, you leverage as the business(so yes low LTV). So come even more equipped. Balance it with possibly a place you can see utility for yourself later in life.

    We're always looking for the next opportunity. RE is a store of value, utility, tax plays, and if done right very profitable. If you don't have significant means, this isn't for you. The barrier to entry for housing has completely shifted for the undercapitalized in investing, and even for the average young couple seeking a house. It's great depression terms in affordability if you get my point on where to invest in the 3rd paragraph. Little cryptic, but that should tell you.

  • Varinder KumarPro Member
    Real Estate Broker · LA & ORANGE COUNTY CA -Multi Family · Member since 2016 · 374 posts · 132 votes
    1y

    Just wanted to share a new tool I’ve been using — it’s called . It’s a super solid underwriting platform built specifically for commercial real estate.

    You can input rent rolls, expenses, and it instantly generates clean, export-ready PDFs. It also has built-in AI to write executive summaries, plus a CRM and interactive maps for tracking deals.

    It’s been really helpful for speeding up my underwriting process and keeping everything organized in one place. Worth checking out if you’re a broker, investor, or just analyzing deals regularly.

    Let me know if you try it out. Always curious what others think.

  • Investor · Indianapolis, IN · Member since 2014 · 208 posts · 137 votes
    1y

    I’m unlikely to respond anymore to this thread. Trust me, this is not something I came up with in an hour, a day, or even a week. It’s the result of sitting with spreadsheets for a very long time, a couple weeks I guess, repeatedly testing and trying to disprove my own assumptions and coming up with the optimal investment approach for a certain scenario. I want people to try to dethrone it, but it’s not going to happen unless they try a lot harder than me. I will only potentially respond if I see that a great amount of effort was put into the post and likely not at all.

  • Chris ClothierBusiness Member
    Rental Property Investor · memphis, TN · Member since 2009 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    1y

    @Mike D.

    Hopefully you read this comment.  No need to respond, just wanted to point out a discussion I had on here years ago with @Joe Villeneuve.  I like reading his comments, respect his opinions, and consider him a pretty direct responder.  I also consider him a smart and likely successful investor.

    In so many words, he told me I was a poor investor, leaving return and opportunity on the table. I had shared that I am not a fan of long-term leverage. I am risk-averse when it comes to leverage. I use leverage to acquire and look to get rid of it as soon as possible. I love taking risks when my money is on the line. I have a healthy risk appetite. However, I structure my investments to minimize principal in the shortest amount of time, opting for cash-flow neutral positions or those with negative NOI in both cash flow and appreciation plays.

    His point was that TVM meant I needed to stay as leveraged as possible. My returns would be higher, and I would either have more cash available or build a larger portfolio.

    I am paraphrasing because it has been a while.

    He was right. I told him I understood his points and agreed with him. However, I was not going to change. I had my reasons for investing the way I invest. I've had to sit with lenders and explain that I needed them to work with me to restructure or negotiate debt terms. I will never put myself in that position again, so I created my rules for engagement and follow them. I am properly capitalized, have a strong LOC position on my equity, and have been hitting home runs by my definition for the past 15 years. Still, he wasn't wrong when he was looking at pure math.

    I've been told many times that I am foolish for the decisions I make as an investor.  I'm good with that.  This place is two-dimensional, and I am rarely offended here.  Intent is hard to figure out.  I've been attacked personally and the intent in those posts is plain to see, but I consider those people weak and ignore them. I could not care less.  However, I'm never offended by other investors discussing strategies and how their math is better than mine.  I've learned a lot from other investors without putting them on pedestals.  I can learn without capitulating.  I'm not going to change how I invest at this point, but I am certainly open to adjusting later and have a broader view of how to be a successful investor in case I do adjust my strategy.

    Best of luck with your portfolio.

    • V.G JasonPro Member
      Investor · Member since 2022 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Chris Clothier:

      @Mike D.

      Hopefully you read this comment.  No need to respond, just wanted to point out a discussion I had on here years ago with @Joe Villeneuve.  I like reading his comments, respect his opinions, and consider him a pretty direct responder.  I also consider him a smart and likely successful investor.

      In so many words, he told me I was a poor investor, leaving return and opportunity on the table. I had shared that I am not a fan of long-term leverage. I am risk-averse when it comes to leverage. I use leverage to acquire and look to get rid of it as soon as possible. I love taking risks when my money is on the line. I have a healthy risk appetite. However, I structure my investments to minimize principal in the shortest amount of time, opting for cash-flow neutral positions or those with negative NOI in both cash flow and appreciation plays.

      His point was that TVM meant I needed to stay as leveraged as possible. My returns would be higher, and I would either have more cash available or build a larger portfolio.

      I am paraphrasing because it has been a while.

      He was right. I told him I understood his points and agreed with him. However, I was not going to change. I had my reasons for investing the way I invest. I've had to sit with lenders and explain that I needed them to work with me to restructure or negotiate debt terms. I will never put myself in that position again, so I created my rules for engagement and follow them. I am properly capitalized, have a strong LOC position on my equity, and have been hitting home runs by my definition for the past 15 years. Still, he wasn't wrong when he was looking at pure math.

      I've been told many times that I am foolish for the decisions I make as an investor.  I'm good with that.  This place is two-dimensional, and I am rarely offended here.  Intent is hard to figure out.  I've been attacked personally and the intent in those posts is plain to see, but I consider those people weak and ignore them. I could not care less.  However, I'm never offended by other investors discussing strategies and how their math is better than mine.  I've learned a lot from other investors without putting them on pedestals.  I can learn without capitulating.  I'm not going to change how I invest at this point, but I am certainly open to adjusting later and have a broader view of how to be a successful investor in case I do adjust my strategy.

      Best of luck with your portfolio.

      Finance is more than math-- it's behavioral. 

    • Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @V.G Jason:
      Quote from @Chris Clothier:

      @Mike D.

      Hopefully you read this comment.  No need to respond, just wanted to point out a discussion I had on here years ago with @Joe Villeneuve.  I like reading his comments, respect his opinions, and consider him a pretty direct responder.  I also consider him a smart and likely successful investor.

      In so many words, he told me I was a poor investor, leaving return and opportunity on the table. I had shared that I am not a fan of long-term leverage. I am risk-averse when it comes to leverage. I use leverage to acquire and look to get rid of it as soon as possible. I love taking risks when my money is on the line. I have a healthy risk appetite. However, I structure my investments to minimize principal in the shortest amount of time, opting for cash-flow neutral positions or those with negative NOI in both cash flow and appreciation plays.

      His point was that TVM meant I needed to stay as leveraged as possible. My returns would be higher, and I would either have more cash available or build a larger portfolio.

      I am paraphrasing because it has been a while.

      He was right. I told him I understood his points and agreed with him. However, I was not going to change. I had my reasons for investing the way I invest. I've had to sit with lenders and explain that I needed them to work with me to restructure or negotiate debt terms. I will never put myself in that position again, so I created my rules for engagement and follow them. I am properly capitalized, have a strong LOC position on my equity, and have been hitting home runs by my definition for the past 15 years. Still, he wasn't wrong when he was looking at pure math.

      I've been told many times that I am foolish for the decisions I make as an investor.  I'm good with that.  This place is two-dimensional, and I am rarely offended here.  Intent is hard to figure out.  I've been attacked personally and the intent in those posts is plain to see, but I consider those people weak and ignore them. I could not care less.  However, I'm never offended by other investors discussing strategies and how their math is better than mine.  I've learned a lot from other investors without putting them on pedestals.  I can learn without capitulating.  I'm not going to change how I invest at this point, but I am certainly open to adjusting later and have a broader view of how to be a successful investor in case I do adjust my strategy.

      Best of luck with your portfolio.

      Finance is more than math-- it's behavioral. 


      "Finance is more than math-- it's behavioral."

      Please explain, I don't catch what your meaning. 
    • Chris ClothierBusiness Member
      Rental Property Investor · memphis, TN · Member since 2009 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @V.G Jason:
      Quote from @Chris Clothier:

      @Mike D.

      Hopefully you read this comment.  No need to respond, just wanted to point out a discussion I had on here years ago with @Joe Villeneuve.  I like reading his comments, respect his opinions, and consider him a pretty direct responder.  I also consider him a smart and likely successful investor.

      In so many words, he told me I was a poor investor, leaving return and opportunity on the table. I had shared that I am not a fan of long-term leverage. I am risk-averse when it comes to leverage. I use leverage to acquire and look to get rid of it as soon as possible. I love taking risks when my money is on the line. I have a healthy risk appetite. However, I structure my investments to minimize principal in the shortest amount of time, opting for cash-flow neutral positions or those with negative NOI in both cash flow and appreciation plays.

      His point was that TVM meant I needed to stay as leveraged as possible. My returns would be higher, and I would either have more cash available or build a larger portfolio.

      I am paraphrasing because it has been a while.

      He was right. I told him I understood his points and agreed with him. However, I was not going to change. I had my reasons for investing the way I invest. I've had to sit with lenders and explain that I needed them to work with me to restructure or negotiate debt terms. I will never put myself in that position again, so I created my rules for engagement and follow them. I am properly capitalized, have a strong LOC position on my equity, and have been hitting home runs by my definition for the past 15 years. Still, he wasn't wrong when he was looking at pure math.

      I've been told many times that I am foolish for the decisions I make as an investor.  I'm good with that.  This place is two-dimensional, and I am rarely offended here.  Intent is hard to figure out.  I've been attacked personally and the intent in those posts is plain to see, but I consider those people weak and ignore them. I could not care less.  However, I'm never offended by other investors discussing strategies and how their math is better than mine.  I've learned a lot from other investors without putting them on pedestals.  I can learn without capitulating.  I'm not going to change how I invest at this point, but I am certainly open to adjusting later and have a broader view of how to be a successful investor in case I do adjust my strategy.

      Best of luck with your portfolio.

      Finance is more than math-- it's behavioral. 


       Absolutely!

    • V.G JasonPro Member
      Investor · Member since 2022 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @James Hamling:
      Quote from @V.G Jason:
      Quote from @Chris Clothier:

      @Mike D.

      Hopefully you read this comment.  No need to respond, just wanted to point out a discussion I had on here years ago with @Joe Villeneuve.  I like reading his comments, respect his opinions, and consider him a pretty direct responder.  I also consider him a smart and likely successful investor.

      In so many words, he told me I was a poor investor, leaving return and opportunity on the table. I had shared that I am not a fan of long-term leverage. I am risk-averse when it comes to leverage. I use leverage to acquire and look to get rid of it as soon as possible. I love taking risks when my money is on the line. I have a healthy risk appetite. However, I structure my investments to minimize principal in the shortest amount of time, opting for cash-flow neutral positions or those with negative NOI in both cash flow and appreciation plays.

      His point was that TVM meant I needed to stay as leveraged as possible. My returns would be higher, and I would either have more cash available or build a larger portfolio.

      I am paraphrasing because it has been a while.

      He was right. I told him I understood his points and agreed with him. However, I was not going to change. I had my reasons for investing the way I invest. I've had to sit with lenders and explain that I needed them to work with me to restructure or negotiate debt terms. I will never put myself in that position again, so I created my rules for engagement and follow them. I am properly capitalized, have a strong LOC position on my equity, and have been hitting home runs by my definition for the past 15 years. Still, he wasn't wrong when he was looking at pure math.

      I've been told many times that I am foolish for the decisions I make as an investor.  I'm good with that.  This place is two-dimensional, and I am rarely offended here.  Intent is hard to figure out.  I've been attacked personally and the intent in those posts is plain to see, but I consider those people weak and ignore them. I could not care less.  However, I'm never offended by other investors discussing strategies and how their math is better than mine.  I've learned a lot from other investors without putting them on pedestals.  I can learn without capitulating.  I'm not going to change how I invest at this point, but I am certainly open to adjusting later and have a broader view of how to be a successful investor in case I do adjust my strategy.

      Best of luck with your portfolio.

      Finance is more than math-- it's behavioral. 


      "Finance is more than math-- it's behavioral."

      Please explain, I don't catch what your meaning. 


      Humans behave more like humans, than robots. Finance encompasses decision-making, impulse, and ultimately a lot psychological power and discipline. Therefore, I used the word behavior. Most financial decisions are actually made off of emotional behavior than math itself. 

      In Chris's case, and mine too, being less levered at the expense of more leverage and "upside" is our behavioral preference. Mathematically, they're right. But they are not the one's sleeping at night with the same issues and concerns I go to bed with. 

  • Nicholas L.Pro Member
    Flipper/Rehabber · Pittsburgh · Member since 2018 · 6k+ posts · 5k+ votes
    1y

    @Chris Clothier

    great post.  gets at the intersection between return, preference, etc.  the OP made a very bold claim and has been pretty gamely defending it.  but there are successful investors in every state and successful investors in every niche.

  • Henry ClarkPro Member
    Developer · Member since 2020 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    1y

    @Chris Clothier

    Any relations?  Trying for the last day or two, to remember where I had seen your last name before.

    I'll take another shot at this post in a second.

  • Henry ClarkPro Member
    Developer · Member since 2020 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    1y

    OP and others change the figures as you see fit.

    "Why markets with low appreciation grow your net worth twice as fast"

    First of all, we don't do housing, so all of you folks are the expert compared to our endeavors.  Our business metrics are 100% Cash on Cash on the low end, or we don't do the deal, with an expectation of 400% Cash on Cash on a normal deal, over a 3-year period.  Example:  If we invest $350,000, we expect $1,400,000 plus our original $350,000 back at the end of 3 years.  Or we can hold and get great monthly cashflow on our Self Storage and can always sale later.  But this is Forced Appreciation and not Market centric.  (Don't contact me).

    Will go back to your numbers, plus add another market:

    Austin  $400k; $2,200 rent per month.  Houses and not Apartment units.

    Memphis $150k; $1,500 rent per month.

    San Diego $1,200k;  $6,000 rent per month.

    I did some googling in the above markets.  For those purchase prices and those rental rates.  Quality of houses are relatively the same at those purchase prices.  Austin is newer 90's to current; Memphis is older 70's 80's; San Diego is even older, say 60's to 80's.  Actually, amazed that you can buy a nice house around Austin for $400,000.  Rural Iowa where we are at it will cost $600,000 minimum for a similar house.

    A.  Just pure math on just the rent versus cost, the Memphis example is better from a Cash Flow standpoint.  Keep in mind the listings I saw are "B" properties and not what I would call "C" properties.  If I used the Austin ratio of $2,200/$400k on the Memphis $150k that would be $825 per month rent versus the $1,500 in your example.  Means you would have $625 per month (revenue, not cashflow) to invest elsewhere or paydown compared to the Austin property.  About the same for the San Diego property.

    B.  Appreciation markets didn't do a lot of research but will throw some figures out for discussion.  You change with local boots on the ground info.

    If your calling Austin and San Diego as high appreciation markets say use 6%.  If you call Memphis a low appreciation market, say 3%.  The problem is Inflation.  If you use a flat 3%, the Memphis property doesn't keep up.  So, your Net Worth doesn't keep up.  So, if that is a low appreciation market, you have to increase your Net Worth with increased Profit generation and not Appreciation.  It is next to impossible to double your Net Worth in that scenario.  Unless you do a Value-Add approach, you can't get there using a Low Appreciation property, especially against Inflation.

    If you use the appreciation difference on a 6% versus 3% or a 3% diff.  The Austin property at $400,000 would generate $12,000 more per year.  Divided by 12 months= $1,000 per month.  If you reduce that to the Memphis investment figure of $150k, 150/400 times $1,000= $375 per month comparable excess appreciation on the Austin property, before tax impact.

    C.  So, we looked at Revenue versus Cost and then Appreciation.  The Memphis property generates "Current Taxable additional revenue (not cash flow)" of $625 relative per month, versus the Austin "Higher Appreciation (not cashflow)" of $325 per month.  Again, these are before tax effect, which would lower the Memphis figures "Current income, higher tax rate" versus the Austin "Lower Capital gain rate and time value of deferred payment".  The Memphis property assuming you reinvest the "Current" additional cash flow versus the Austin deferred Capital gains, should perform even better with REI returns.

    D. CAPEX- The Austin houses are a lot newer than the Memphis or San Diego properties thus will have less Capex. The San Diego house CAPEX will be smaller on a percentage basis due to its high cost relative to the other two markets. If you use a CAPEX of $300 per month across the board, the San Diego property is better on a percentage basis.

    E.  Tenant Turnover-  Both the Memphis and San Diego properties are similar older properties and would have higher turnover and cost.  The Austin properties I saw were a lot newer and nicer and I would say less turnover and damage.  But again, you folks are the experts in housing.  Figures?????

    F.  Will we see a similar market in the future?  Our house cost $135,000 to build in 1991.  2,100 sqft ranch with full basement, all brick.  Today I would say low end $600,000 to $700,000 value.  If I used the $600,000 figure and a 6% appreciation factor over 30 years it would be worth $3,446,000 in future dollars.  So, let's compare.  $600k/$135k= 4.44 multiplier; $3,446k/$600k= 5.74 multiplier.  I don't see my house even if new construction increasing at that rate over the next 30 years.  At 5% it would be $2,593k.  $2593k/$600k= 4.32 multiplier.  Which would be the appreciation we have seen in our market for our type of house since 1991.  

    The San Diego market even though the house is already old, I would expect its location to maintain and increase in value (Ocean/weather).  Same for Austin.  The Memphis properties I looked at and their neighborhoods will age worse than the other two locations, losing relative value.

    Talking out both sides of my mouth.  Above I said I didn't see future inflation or appreciation being as high as it has been since we bought our house in 1991.  Tried not to bring the US economy into play till now.  I actually expect Inflation and Currency expansion to be even greater in the future.  We have to fund the Baby Boomers for the next 30 years.  Fund both our National Debt and our Unfunded National Debt, plus in the near term their interest rate will double.  We will have to expand the US cash supply.

    Which will be great if you already own.  Your asset value will increase, and your debt value will decrease with inflation.

    If I was a new investor with limited resources the Memphis property would be the best property by far due to cashflow relative to Cost.  Longterm 15 to 30 years I would go with the San Diego and Austin property if I had the capital.  Their value will not degenerate like the older Memphis property and their neighborhoods will.

    Can the lower Appreciation property grow your net worth Twice as fast.  I won't hold the OP to Twice as fast, since it makes a nice Post Title.  But it all depends on what you do with the additional $625 per month in revenue generation (not cash flow).  Plus, you have to make enough to cover the relative devaluation of that older neighborhood.

    Which of the above investments is the best and which will increase your Net worth the most.  

    I don't know.  We don't do housing***** except in Belize we are building a 30x30; with 10 x30 porches on both ends with a full verandah top.  Hopefully come in around $40,000.  My Plantation managers father will live in it.  Otherwise, we will rent out to Expats for $800 per month, non-tourist location. 

    Cost $40,000 Rent $800 per month.  Property tax $60 per year, income tax (Belize, still have to pay full US tax) maybe $50 per year Belize, no Capital Gain taxes, Maintenance little- concrete building, insurance- $200 per year.  Let me get back to our building and see if we can hit our numbers.

    Putting center I Beam up.  Will pour the Concrete beam around the edges on Saturday.

    • Dan H.Pro Member
      Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Henry Clark:

      OP and others change the figures as you see fit.

      "Why markets with low appreciation grow your net worth twice as fast"

      First of all, we don't do housing, so all of you folks are the expert compared to our endeavors.  Our business metrics are 100% Cash on Cash on the low end, or we don't do the deal, with an expectation of 400% Cash on Cash on a normal deal, over a 3-year period.  Example:  If we invest $350,000, we expect $1,400,000 plus our original $350,000 back at the end of 3 years.  Or we can hold and get great monthly cashflow on our Self Storage and can always sale later.  But this is Forced Appreciation and not Market centric.  (Don't contact me).

      Will go back to your numbers, plus add another market:

      Austin  $400k; $2,200 rent per month.  Houses and not Apartment units.

      Memphis $150k; $1,500 rent per month.

      San Diego $1,200k;  $6,000 rent per month.

      I did some googling in the above markets.  For those purchase prices and those rental rates.  Quality of houses are relatively the same at those purchase prices.  Austin is newer 90's to current; Memphis is older 70's 80's; San Diego is even older, say 60's to 80's.  Actually, amazed that you can buy a nice house around Austin for $400,000.  Rural Iowa where we are at it will cost $600,000 minimum for a similar house.

      A.  Just pure math on just the rent versus cost, the Memphis example is better from a Cash Flow standpoint.  Keep in mind the listings I saw are "B" properties and not what I would call "C" properties.  If I used the Austin ratio of $2,200/$400k on the Memphis $150k that would be $825 per month rent versus the $1,500 in your example.  Means you would have $625 per month (revenue, not cashflow) to invest elsewhere or paydown compared to the Austin property.  About the same for the San Diego property.

      B.  Appreciation markets didn't do a lot of research but will throw some figures out for discussion.  You change with local boots on the ground info.

      If your calling Austin and San Diego as high appreciation markets say use 6%.  If you call Memphis a low appreciation market, say 3%.  The problem is Inflation.  If you use a flat 3%, the Memphis property doesn't keep up.  So, your Net Worth doesn't keep up.  So, if that is a low appreciation market, you have to increase your Net Worth with increased Profit generation and not Appreciation.  It is next to impossible to double your Net Worth in that scenario.  Unless you do a Value-Add approach, you can't get there using a Low Appreciation property, especially against Inflation.

      If you use the appreciation difference on a 6% versus 3% or a 3% diff.  The Austin property at $400,000 would generate $12,000 more per year.  Divided by 12 months= $1,000 per month.  If you reduce that to the Memphis investment figure of $150k, 150/400 times $1,000= $375 per month comparable excess appreciation on the Austin property, before tax impact.

      C.  So, we looked at Revenue versus Cost and then Appreciation.  The Memphis property generates "Current Taxable additional revenue (not cash flow)" of $625 relative per month, versus the Austin "Higher Appreciation (not cashflow)" of $325 per month.  Again, these are before tax effect, which would lower the Memphis figures "Current income, higher tax rate" versus the Austin "Lower Capital gain rate and time value of deferred payment".  The Memphis property assuming you reinvest the "Current" additional cash flow versus the Austin deferred Capital gains, should perform even better with REI returns.

      D. CAPEX- The Austin houses are a lot newer than the Memphis or San Diego properties thus will have less Capex. The San Diego house CAPEX will be smaller on a percentage basis due to its high cost relative to the other two markets. If you use a CAPEX of $300 per month across the board, the San Diego property is better on a percentage basis.

      E.  Tenant Turnover-  Both the Memphis and San Diego properties are similar older properties and would have higher turnover and cost.  The Austin properties I saw were a lot newer and nicer and I would say less turnover and damage.  But again, you folks are the experts in housing.  Figures?????

      F.  Will we see a similar market in the future?  Our house cost $135,000 to build in 1991.  2,100 sqft ranch with full basement, all brick.  Today I would say low end $600,000 to $700,000 value.  If I used the $600,000 figure and a 6% appreciation factor over 30 years it would be worth $3,446,000 in future dollars.  So, let's compare.  $600k/$135k= 4.44 multiplier; $3,446k/$600k= 5.74 multiplier.  I don't see my house even if new construction increasing at that rate over the next 30 years.  At 5% it would be $2,593k.  $2593k/$600k= 4.32 multiplier.  Which would be the appreciation we have seen in our market for our type of house since 1991.  

      The San Diego market even though the house is already old, I would expect its location to maintain and increase in value (Ocean/weather).  Same for Austin.  The Memphis properties I looked at and their neighborhoods will age worse than the other two locations, losing relative value.

      Talking out both sides of my mouth.  Above I said I didn't see future inflation or appreciation being as high as it has been since we bought our house in 1991.  Tried not to bring the US economy into play till now.  I actually expect Inflation and Currency expansion to be even greater in the future.  We have to fund the Baby Boomers for the next 30 years.  Fund both our National Debt and our Unfunded National Debt, plus in the near term their interest rate will double.  We will have to expand the US cash supply.

      Which will be great if you already own.  Your asset value will increase, and your debt value will decrease with inflation.

      If I was a new investor with limited resources the Memphis property would be the best property by far due to cashflow relative to Cost.  Longterm 15 to 30 years I would go with the San Diego and Austin property if I had the capital.  Their value will not degenerate like the older Memphis property and their neighborhoods will.

      Can the lower Appreciation property grow your net worth Twice as fast.  I won't hold the OP to Twice as fast, since it makes a nice Post Title.  But it all depends on what you do with the additional $625 per month in revenue generation (not cash flow).  Plus, you have to make enough to cover the relative devaluation of that older neighborhood.

      Which of the above investments is the best and which will increase your Net worth the most.  

      I don't know.  We don't do housing***** except in Belize we are building a 30x30; with 10 x30 porches on both ends with a full verandah top.  Hopefully come in around $40,000.  My Plantation managers father will live in it.  Otherwise, we will rent out to Expats for $800 per month, non-tourist location. 

      Cost $40,000 Rent $800 per month.  Property tax $60 per year, income tax (Belize, still have to pay full US tax) maybe $50 per year Belize, no Capital Gain taxes, Maintenance little- concrete building, insurance- $200 per year.  Let me get back to our building and see if we can hit our numbers.

      Putting center I Beam up.  Will pour the Concrete beam around the edges on Saturday.


       I am a big fan of your posts.  I feel some of your posts are among the most valuable posts I have seen on this site.


      so I am very surprised that when you look at the cash flow you neglect to account for the rent appreciation.   I invite you to look at the long term rent growth in San Diego, Austin, phoenix over the long duration (I used since the year 2000 in my calculations).   After looking at this rent growth look at the long term rent rent growth in Memphis, Cleveland, Detroit, Dayton, etc.   after looking at both the appreciation market’s rent growth and the higher initial cash flow market’s rent growth, state what markets you believe has experienced the better cash flow over the long term.  

      rent growth has a much larger impact on the cash flow than the initial cash flow in longer holds.   In fact initial cash flow has an inverse relationship to actual cash flow achieve and this is because their historical rent growth is not good.

      Start with a penny and double it each day (exponential growth) for a year versus $1k and increase it by $1k day (linear growth) for a year.   Growth rate is critical in the return.

      Interested if you want to look at the rent growth and express your opinion.


      best wishes 

    • V.G JasonPro Member
      Investor · Member since 2022 · 3k+ posts · 3k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Henry Clark:

      OP and others change the figures as you see fit.

      "Why markets with low appreciation grow your net worth twice as fast"

      First of all, we don't do housing, so all of you folks are the expert compared to our endeavors.  Our business metrics are 100% Cash on Cash on the low end, or we don't do the deal, with an expectation of 400% Cash on Cash on a normal deal, over a 3-year period.  Example:  If we invest $350,000, we expect $1,400,000 plus our original $350,000 back at the end of 3 years.  Or we can hold and get great monthly cashflow on our Self Storage and can always sale later.  But this is Forced Appreciation and not Market centric.  (Don't contact me).

      Will go back to your numbers, plus add another market:

      Austin  $400k; $2,200 rent per month.  Houses and not Apartment units.

      Memphis $150k; $1,500 rent per month.

      San Diego $1,200k;  $6,000 rent per month.

      I did some googling in the above markets.  For those purchase prices and those rental rates.  Quality of houses are relatively the same at those purchase prices.  Austin is newer 90's to current; Memphis is older 70's 80's; San Diego is even older, say 60's to 80's.  Actually, amazed that you can buy a nice house around Austin for $400,000.  Rural Iowa where we are at it will cost $600,000 minimum for a similar house.

      A.  Just pure math on just the rent versus cost, the Memphis example is better from a Cash Flow standpoint.  Keep in mind the listings I saw are "B" properties and not what I would call "C" properties.  If I used the Austin ratio of $2,200/$400k on the Memphis $150k that would be $825 per month rent versus the $1,500 in your example.  Means you would have $625 per month (revenue, not cashflow) to invest elsewhere or paydown compared to the Austin property.  About the same for the San Diego property.

      B.  Appreciation markets didn't do a lot of research but will throw some figures out for discussion.  You change with local boots on the ground info.

      If your calling Austin and San Diego as high appreciation markets say use 6%.  If you call Memphis a low appreciation market, say 3%.  The problem is Inflation.  If you use a flat 3%, the Memphis property doesn't keep up.  So, your Net Worth doesn't keep up.  So, if that is a low appreciation market, you have to increase your Net Worth with increased Profit generation and not Appreciation.  It is next to impossible to double your Net Worth in that scenario.  Unless you do a Value-Add approach, you can't get there using a Low Appreciation property, especially against Inflation.

      If you use the appreciation difference on a 6% versus 3% or a 3% diff.  The Austin property at $400,000 would generate $12,000 more per year.  Divided by 12 months= $1,000 per month.  If you reduce that to the Memphis investment figure of $150k, 150/400 times $1,000= $375 per month comparable excess appreciation on the Austin property, before tax impact.

      C.  So, we looked at Revenue versus Cost and then Appreciation.  The Memphis property generates "Current Taxable additional revenue (not cash flow)" of $625 relative per month, versus the Austin "Higher Appreciation (not cashflow)" of $325 per month.  Again, these are before tax effect, which would lower the Memphis figures "Current income, higher tax rate" versus the Austin "Lower Capital gain rate and time value of deferred payment".  The Memphis property assuming you reinvest the "Current" additional cash flow versus the Austin deferred Capital gains, should perform even better with REI returns.

      D. CAPEX- The Austin houses are a lot newer than the Memphis or San Diego properties thus will have less Capex. The San Diego house CAPEX will be smaller on a percentage basis due to its high cost relative to the other two markets. If you use a CAPEX of $300 per month across the board, the San Diego property is better on a percentage basis.

      E.  Tenant Turnover-  Both the Memphis and San Diego properties are similar older properties and would have higher turnover and cost.  The Austin properties I saw were a lot newer and nicer and I would say less turnover and damage.  But again, you folks are the experts in housing.  Figures?????

      F.  Will we see a similar market in the future?  Our house cost $135,000 to build in 1991.  2,100 sqft ranch with full basement, all brick.  Today I would say low end $600,000 to $700,000 value.  If I used the $600,000 figure and a 6% appreciation factor over 30 years it would be worth $3,446,000 in future dollars.  So, let's compare.  $600k/$135k= 4.44 multiplier; $3,446k/$600k= 5.74 multiplier.  I don't see my house even if new construction increasing at that rate over the next 30 years.  At 5% it would be $2,593k.  $2593k/$600k= 4.32 multiplier.  Which would be the appreciation we have seen in our market for our type of house since 1991.  

      The San Diego market even though the house is already old, I would expect its location to maintain and increase in value (Ocean/weather).  Same for Austin.  The Memphis properties I looked at and their neighborhoods will age worse than the other two locations, losing relative value.

      Talking out both sides of my mouth.  Above I said I didn't see future inflation or appreciation being as high as it has been since we bought our house in 1991.  Tried not to bring the US economy into play till now.  I actually expect Inflation and Currency expansion to be even greater in the future.  We have to fund the Baby Boomers for the next 30 years.  Fund both our National Debt and our Unfunded National Debt, plus in the near term their interest rate will double.  We will have to expand the US cash supply.

      Which will be great if you already own.  Your asset value will increase, and your debt value will decrease with inflation.

      If I was a new investor with limited resources the Memphis property would be the best property by far due to cashflow relative to Cost.  Longterm 15 to 30 years I would go with the San Diego and Austin property if I had the capital.  Their value will not degenerate like the older Memphis property and their neighborhoods will.

      Can the lower Appreciation property grow your net worth Twice as fast.  I won't hold the OP to Twice as fast, since it makes a nice Post Title.  But it all depends on what you do with the additional $625 per month in revenue generation (not cash flow).  Plus, you have to make enough to cover the relative devaluation of that older neighborhood.

      Which of the above investments is the best and which will increase your Net worth the most.  

      I don't know.  We don't do housing***** except in Belize we are building a 30x30; with 10 x30 porches on both ends with a full verandah top.  Hopefully come in around $40,000.  My Plantation managers father will live in it.  Otherwise, we will rent out to Expats for $800 per month, non-tourist location. 

      Cost $40,000 Rent $800 per month.  Property tax $60 per year, income tax (Belize, still have to pay full US tax) maybe $50 per year Belize, no Capital Gain taxes, Maintenance little- concrete building, insurance- $200 per year.  Let me get back to our building and see if we can hit our numbers.

      Putting center I Beam up.  Will pour the Concrete beam around the edges on Saturday.

      New investor with limited resources is better served away from RE, outside of self use(primary residence), in other assets classes than Memphis.

      Less capital means you likely cannot hang on with higher vacancies, and the physical aspects of RE for long. It's not a great use of capital. My point is with less capital, don't make the shoe fit. Find where the opportunity is.

      You make most of your money on bets in concentrated, yet liquid positions. You lose a lot when you think what's going to happen, but doesn't. You lose your *** when too levered and illiquid.

      Todays cash demands for RE tell you quality, investor edge in the area(this changes if he knows Memphis superbly), or look at another area.

      Then with excess capital, yes San Diego and Austin are excellent store of values if bought right. 
  • Henry ClarkPro Member
    Developer · Member since 2020 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    1y

    @Dan H.

    100% agree with you, but say it in a different way, not as well as you.  

    The San Diego and Austin properties will maintain or increase in value over the long term.   The Memphis properties I saw in the $150,000 range will decrease in value.   

    Tied to their value changes will be their relative rental income increase and decrease.

    The problem in this discussion is the Memphis market, it’s good.   When I looked online you can buy decent “B” class properties for $150,000 and get the $1,500 rental. Any house where I’m at for $150,000 you’re not getting $1,500 for rent.    The problem with the Memphis properties is those types of houses and neighborhoods will deteriorate into “C” class properties.  Thus as you note their relative rental income will decline and not compete with San Diego and Austin Longterm.

    • Dan H.Pro Member
      Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Henry Clark:

      @Dan H.

      100% agree with you, but say it in a different way, not as well as you.  

      The San Diego and Austin properties will maintain or increase in value over the long term.   The Memphis properties I saw in the $150,000 range will decrease in value.   

      Tied to their value changes will be their relative rental income increase and decrease.

      The problem in this discussion is the Memphis market, it’s good.   When I looked online you can buy decent “B” class properties for $150,000 and get the $1,500 rental. Any house where I’m at for $150,000 you’re not getting $1,500 for rent.    The problem with the Memphis properties is those types of houses and neighborhoods will deteriorate into “C” class properties.  Thus as you note their relative rental income will decline and not compete with San Diego and Austin Longterm.

      I would have been surprised if you did not understood the affect of rent appreciation on the cash flow.

       A good monthly rent ratio at purchase in San Diego is 0.7%.   1% ratio at purchase is a unicorn find that I managed to obtain on a purchase in Dec 2020.

      but due to rent growth, only my last 2 purchases do not have greater than 1% rent ration today and one is over 3% ratio versus the purchase price.

      reality is every property that has surpassed 1% ratio except the unicorn find from Dec 2020 has had a cash out refi so my cash flow is modest.   However without the extraction of value, these properties would have cash flow in a different universe than properties purchased at the same time in low appreciation markets.  My current rent to purchase price would be a higher percentage than those cheaper markets even if those cheap markets started at a 1% ratio.

      Best wishes

  • Henry ClarkPro Member
    Developer · Member since 2020 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    1y

    @V. G Jason

    We are probably in agreement, but are missing on starting points.  

    Low capital:

    A.  agree your best investment is your own housing.

    B. High price markets for second REI investments are non starters. Looking for my Son who will be transferring to San Diego. I could only find some non traditional value add properties around $650,000 on the low end. Austin market there are many lower end property plays as a second REI play.

    C. "Other asset classes"- I'm a firm believer in the miracle of REI. Even to the point I have taken all my 401k, taken the 50% haircut. New investors don't do this, until you firmly have learned your REI strategy. Unless you can repeatedly pick the next Google stock beforehand, we can beat the stock market or other non REI assets 4 to 10 fold. With less risk.

    D. "Other asset classes"- there are already many posts on here explaining why REI is far better. Especially with new and younger investors.

    E.  Risk tolerance and Age.   We are retired and older thus we have a different Risk tolerance.  Thus we are invested in the stock market, in debt investments, farm ground, Teak Plantations,  etc.  If I was younger I would tell you I will live forever and invincible, thus higher risk tolerance.

    F. The most important reason to invest in REI versus W2. Your company sold. Moved locations. Got laid off. No upward mobility. Etc. Non REI assets don't provide the appreciation or cashflow in a timely fashion to cover those risks. Unless you can pick the next Google stock on a consistent basis. REI is "House" money at the casino. The Federal government has rigged REI for success.

    "It's your money, your right even if your wrong." I tell people always invest based on your info, your risk tolerance, your REI strategy even if you fail. Then you learn.

    Back to the post.  Low appreciation properties over the long run will not double your net worth relative to high appreciation markets.  Especially after taxes.  

    • Real Estate Broker · Minneapolis, MN · Member since 2011 · 5k+ posts · 6k+ votes
      1y
      Quote from @Henry Clark:

      @V. G Jason

      We are probably in agreement, but are missing on starting points.  

      Low capital:

      A.  agree your best investment is your own housing.

      B. High price markets for second REI investments are non starters. Looking for my Son who will be transferring to San Diego. I could only find some non traditional value add properties around $650,000 on the low end. Austin market there are many lower end property plays as a second REI play.

      C. "Other asset classes"- I'm a firm believer in the miracle of REI. Even to the point I have taken all my 401k, taken the 50% haircut. New investors don't do this, until you firmly have learned your REI strategy. Unless you can repeatedly pick the next Google stock beforehand, we can beat the stock market or other non REI assets 4 to 10 fold. With less risk.

      D. "Other asset classes"- there are already many posts on here explaining why REI is far better. Especially with new and younger investors.

      E.  Risk tolerance and Age.   We are retired and older thus we have a different Risk tolerance.  Thus we are invested in the stock market, in debt investments, farm ground, Teak Plantations,  etc.  If I was younger I would tell you I will live forever and invincible, thus higher risk tolerance.

      F. The most important reason to invest in REI versus W2. Your company sold. Moved locations. Got laid off. No upward mobility. Etc. Non REI assets don't provide the appreciation or cashflow in a timely fashion to cover those risks. Unless you can pick the next Google stock on a consistent basis. REI is "House" money at the casino. The Federal government has rigged REI for success.

      "It's your money, your right even if your wrong." I tell people always invest based on your info, your risk tolerance, your REI strategy even if you fail. Then you learn.

      Back to the post.  Low appreciation properties over the long run will not double your net worth relative to high appreciation markets.  Especially after taxes.  


      I argue sideways of both. 

      For one with low/limited capitol, there BESt 1st "investment" is in Capitol Generation. 

      The idea of investing, to MAKE money is very VERY foolish, and sadly it's the rainbow many have bought and chase. 

      Investing is to GROW, not generate capitol. 

      Investing is putting $100 somewhere, in a way that it will turn into $110. 

      Investing is Capitol Breeding. 

      Those with limited capitol to start...... well if we instead we view it as breeding dog's one would instantly get-it that you need the dang dog's to start with. And the quality of the dogs will dictate the quality and value of what comes out. Chicken and egg, right. 

      But way WAY too many have been sold on the new-age late-night infomercials that investing, without the inputs, can give them 1,000X outsized outputs...... 

      If your "investing problem" is you only got $10k to your name and you only make $30k a year, you DONT have an "investing" problem, you have a $-generation problem! 

      So start, at START. Focus on and fix the $-generation problem FIRST. 

      In this day n age there is literally no excuse for anyone not to address this, it's so dang easy to make $ it's mind blowing. 

      Get a 2nd, 3rd, or in a scary # of situations a 1st job..... 

      Start a side hustle. Start 2, 5, 10 whatever. 

      Point is; investing is what to do WHEN you have $, that you don't need to live off of because THAT is the very definition of investing, $ breeding. 

      Investing is NOT for $ generation to provide what you need in-the-now. 

    • Rental Property Investor · Elk Grove, CA · Member since 2024 · 23 posts · 6 votes
      1y
      Quote from @Henry Clark:

      @V. G Jason

      We are probably in agreement, but are missing on starting points.  

      Low capital:

      A.  agree your best investment is your own housing.

      B. High price markets for second REI investments are non starters. Looking for my Son who will be transferring to San Diego. I could only find some non traditional value add properties around $650,000 on the low end. Austin market there are many lower end property plays as a second REI play.

      C. "Other asset classes"- I'm a firm believer in the miracle of REI. Even to the point I have taken all my 401k, taken the 50% haircut. New investors don't do this, until you firmly have learned your REI strategy. Unless you can repeatedly pick the next Google stock beforehand, we can beat the stock market or other non REI assets 4 to 10 fold. With less risk.

      D. "Other asset classes"- there are already many posts on here explaining why REI is far better. Especially with new and younger investors.

      E.  Risk tolerance and Age.   We are retired and older thus we have a different Risk tolerance.  Thus we are invested in the stock market, in debt investments, farm ground, Teak Plantations,  etc.  If I was younger I would tell you I will live forever and invincible, thus higher risk tolerance.

      F. The most important reason to invest in REI versus W2. Your company sold. Moved locations. Got laid off. No upward mobility. Etc. Non REI assets don't provide the appreciation or cashflow in a timely fashion to cover those risks. Unless you can pick the next Google stock on a consistent basis. REI is "House" money at the casino. The Federal government has rigged REI for success.

      "It's your money, your right even if your wrong." I tell people always invest based on your info, your risk tolerance, your REI strategy even if you fail. Then you learn.

      Back to the post.  Low appreciation properties over the long run will not double your net worth relative to high appreciation markets.  Especially after taxes.  


      I agree with you. Starting out and trying to scale as quick as possible, a market like Memphis, TN, outperforms an appreciation market. Especially if you buy in a market where it is being gentrified and goes from C+ to B class neighborhood and is positioned for growth. Ideally you are able to BRRRR. Buying below market using the BRRRR strategy will exponentially grow your portfolio compared to buying and holding appreciation in an expensive market in a 30 year timeline. Ideally one would diversify after a while to avoid over leveraging in a cyclical market. I'm younger, so I don't mind the risk.

  • Charles ClarkBusiness Member
    Real Estate Broker · Milwaukee, WI · Member since 2020 · 307 posts · 209 votes
    1y

    @Mike D.

    This is a great breakdown—really highlights how higher cashflow markets can outperform in total returns despite lower appreciation. The Memphis example makes a strong case for focusing on ROI over "flashy" markets, especially for passive, long-term growth. Solid analysis!

    Raise the Standard RE LLC55 Reviews
    View Page
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.