Rent or sell current primary residence in SF Bay Area

Rent or sell current primary residence in SF Bay Area

Dublin, CA · Member since 2016 · 12 posts · 1 vote

Hello,

I hope what I'm about to write is clear. 

Step 1)

Our 3-5 year plan move from California to Tennessee and in the meantime move back in with my mother and rent out our home (comparables rent for $3,000 and our new mortgage is $1,870). While living with my mother, we would get her house ready to sell or rent (needs major cleanout).  We purchased our home in 2011 for $335K.  Refinanced to a 15 year FRM in 2014 (got $70K cash out) and remodeled kitchen, added a back deck, installed French doors and replaced windows.  We are currently refinancing back to a 30 year FRM, and the house is now worth $660K.  

Step 2)

Sell our home (netting $400K or so) use profits to purchase land / house for less than $120K and use remaining funds to invest in rentals to become financially independent within ten years. Moreover, we would sell or rent my mother's house (valued at $270K rent for $1,700) and she would live with us.

So, I have a few questions:

1) If we rent our house for more than three years (triggering the capital gains tax) will we be taxed on the capital gains based on the original purchase price ($335K) or the value of the home when we start renting it ($660K)? 

2) Using the BP rental calculator it said, we would have a cash flow of $325.  Does this sound right?  I know I'll need to budget for repairs and expenses but $800 a month in expenses seems excessive.  But, I only just started learning about real estate investing this week, so I know little to nothing.

3) Assuming that we sell the home and net a few hundred thousand dollars, would it make sense to purchase rental properties outright or make down payments and mortgage the rest?

Thank you for taking the time to read my long post and for any advice you might provide.

0Reply
114 views

Most Popular Reply

Investor · San Jose, CA · Member since 2012 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
10y

@Chris May and @Brian Beck,

Welcome to Biggerpockets gentlemen.  It's hard to argue with someone who has 40-50 years of experience in the real estate industry.  I can see why @Account Closed is so passionate about this topic while I had already gave up on it.  Shame on me, but it seems like every man will have to learn his own mistake although it's much cheaper to learn it on someone's dime.

I guess the reason Bob is so passionate about this topic because he has seen quite a few investors got taken to the cleaner by the cash-flow shysters in fly over states.  Why did I guess that?  I have an older fellow attorney/RE broker/investor friend, who got taken to the cleaner by these shysters.  He talked about this subject with a passion when I brought it up 3 years ago.  LOL!  If you understand where Bob is coming from, you'd understand his argument in addition to the appreciation history of the Bay Area.  I understand it only takes a few bad apples to ruin the entire industry, but most of the time the grass is not greener on the other side.  

Brian, you and I have about the same working capital with different timing. When I first started out in 2009, I had $100k in savings and a $266k HELOC. Of course the HELOC was from the appreciation of my house. I was fortunate enough to get into the market at the right time and build it into a multi-million dollar RE portfolio in San Jose with a 6-figure net cash-flow. The appreciation helps with additional acquisitions while the cash-flow will explode with rent increases.

As a hockey analogy "A good player goes where the puck is while a great player goes where the puck will be."  Come up with your retirement plan and work it backward to see how you will get there.  Once you've gotten to a critical mass, you'd get there much faster than you have anticipated.  

I started out with a goal of 1 unit/year over 10 years.  That's a tall order for the Bay Area.  Once I got to 10 units in 4 years, I told myself to go for 20.  I got to 20 in year 6, then I told myself why I don't I get to 50 in 10 years.  You know what?  There's a high probability I will get there.  So don't sell yourself short.  Come up with a plan that makes the most sense for your family and execute it.

Best of luck with your decisions.

See this reply in the discussion

47 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y

    Why would anyone sell a property that has increased in value $5,416 a month for the last 60 months and could rent for $3,000 a month and is paying about $4,000 less in property taxes than the newly purchased house next door?  You're killing the Golden Goose!

  • Investor · Los Altos, CA · Member since 2014 · 942 posts · 1k+ votes
    10y

    @Brian Beck you should really take what @Account Closed has to say.  There is a ton of data on BP and other places about the appreciation of properties in the Bay Area, you should really take a look at that info before deciding to sell.

    Continue with your plan to move out to Tennessee if that is your goal, but hold on to the 2 homes in the Bay Area.  To buy a $120k house in 3-5 years means that you only need to save up $24k for a 20% down.  That equates to $4,800 to $8000 per year (depending on you time frame) of savings...  

    According to your numbers between the two properties, once you move to Tennessee, you would be bringing in $4700 gross rent per month.  This number should be more then enough to pay your monthly nut for the properties in the Bay Area AND what ever you buy in Tennessee...

    By keeping the properties and focusing on saving to buy a primary residence in Tennessee, you avoid taxes, you avoid agent fees, you have properties that you know well, AND you have properties in the Bay Area that cash flow that will pay all 3 mortgages!  After you are established and you can show the income from the rentals in CA you should be able to do a cash out refi on you "golden geese" and buy more properties in TN.  What more can anybody ask for???

  • Member since 2016 · 13k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    10y

    Why would you not just sell the home now and move to Tennessee. Managing a property long distance can be a major PITA and to be completely honest your rent is no where high enough for a $660,000 home. I do not know what your interest rate is but at 5% the interest on the mortgage and return on equity is $2750 without including principal. Throw expenses in the mix at even a conservative 40% and you are bleeding cash monthly. You are going to have major negative cash flow at $3000/month rent.  The BP calculator has given you the wrong results based probably on misinformation you put in.

    How much equity do you have in the property, Have you calculated a return on the equity or only included the cost of the mortgage.

    You had better hope the renters do not destroy the home in the next three years or you will have a lot of expenses getting it ready to sell.

    Also the rent on your mothers home at $1700 is too low for a $270,000 home. 

  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y

    Geez Greg,  It is a $335,000 property.  It has appreciated $325,000 in 5 years.  If they sell they will be giving up $5,416 in monthly appreciation .  Hence, killing the Golden Goose. 

    If they had bought this as an investment and rented for $3,000 a month they would be up Half a Million Dollars minus their expenses on a $67,000 investment (20% down payment).  Where you gonna get that kind of cash flow in Nashville?

  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Thomas S.:

    Also the rent on your mothers home at $1700 is too low for a $270,000 home. 

    Based on what?

  • Investor · San Jose, CA · Member since 2014 · 294 posts · 113 votes
    10y

    @Brian Beck

    @Account Closed and @Arlen Chou are right. The two bay area properties will help you gain financial independence quicker while in your possession that if you sell them now to buy anything in Tennessee. 

    As a realtor, my business is to sell real estate, however my real obligation is to advise you. I'd hold on to these two and use them strategically to your (un)fair advantage. Best of luck to you.

  • Dublin, CA · Member since 2016 · 12 posts · 1 vote
    10y

    @Account Closed @Arlen Chou & @Robert Musallam ,

    Thank you for the input.  Our main goal is to do all of this without debt.  We are BIG Dave Ramsey fans and his views on incurring more debt feels right to us.  However, as we improve our knowledge about real estate investing that opinion might change.

    I totally agree that our home is our Golden Goose and we want to take full advantage of all that can provide that is why we have joined BP.   

    I have seen that we should plan on using the 50% rule when calculating rental expenses? i.e. Rent for $3,000 plan on have $1,500 expenses  plus our mortgage of $1,870 for a total of $3,370 or a negative of $370 per month?  I hope the 50% is supposed to include the mortgage.

    @Thomas S. , we only owe $305K and have a monthly mortgage of $1,870 with a 3.65% interest.

  • Investor · San Francisco, CA · Member since 2016 · 314 posts · 153 votes
    10y

    @Brian Beck Debt is your friend. Don't take on more debt than you can handle, but realize that real estate is as powerful as it is precisely because of debt. If you cut debt out entirely you're missing the point -- leverage is where you get outsized returns. Say you have a million dollar property and you put 200k down. You still have that 200k, but if the property appreciates by 20% you've doubled your money and you now have 400k. If it goes down your losses go up, but that's why you don't sell in a down market, and don't buy in a market likely to suffer extreme downs. Plus, if the debt is paying for itself with rents, what does it matter? Unless you think rents are going to go down in the bay area...

    If I were you I'd refi more money out of your CA properties (the max they'll handle with their rent) and reinvest that $. 

  • Dublin, CA · Member since 2016 · 12 posts · 1 vote
    10y

    @Wes Brand that is a totally different way of looking at debt in the context of real estate and is a lot to think about.   How do I know what "the max they'll handle" is?  

    Sorry for asking such a basic question.

  • Member since 2016 · 13k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    10y

    Dave the mortgage is not part of the expenses, you will be negative but if you sell in  3 years you might get a break assuming the tenants do not destroy the place. There is a second option.

    The appreciation proponents have a valid point. Aside from the fact that they never tell you how to benefit from the appreciation. As long as a property makes good appreciation they say you are crazy to sell ever so how or when do you benefit. I guess you have to pull out the equity but that increases your interest payments and creates more negative cash flow as a rental property. There is a risk free and tenant headache free option.

    Consider most maintenance costs are caused by use. Solution is don't rent it. You save all the hassles of repairs, property management, vacancies, tenant damage etc.

    ON your place appreciation is $5416/month, 5% return on $660,000 is $2750/month, leaving you plus $2666/month easy money.

    Shut down the house, cancel everything and just have insurance costs, taxes and mortgage. Take out a HELOC and pay all the expenses with the HELOC. If you negate the principal payment you would be paying maybe $2000/month. Appreciation of $2666 - expenses of $2000 puts you up $666/month. You do not have to give the place a second thought.

    If you hold for 10 years it will then be worth 1.3 M maybe. Your HELOC will have increased the debt by $240,000 in 10 years so you might owe somewhere around maybe $500,000, meaning you would still be up by $800,000 and you will not have had a single sleepless night worrying about tenants.

    You could double your money in ten easy years. That is the value of appreciation speculation over  renting it out and losing XXX per month, sleepless nights and possibly have the house destroyed by tenants.

    Appreciation beats being a landlord hands down. The catch is someday you still have to sell but if it is still appreciating you can't, catch 22, as long as you invest for appreciation you are crazy to ever sell so you never can benefit. Maybe your kids will inherit and sell because they are not smart enough to understand appreciation. ;) ;) ;) ;)

    Ya gotta love appreciation. 

    Just kidding guys, obviously in CA cash flow is irrelevant and could never compete with appreciation. It just seems to me to be a waste of time bothering to rent when you can still make money with homes sitting empty. Appreciation means I can own as many homes as I want and still make money effort free. Incredable opportunity.

  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y

    Greg you must only be reading your own posts.  I recently posted how I cash refi'd out almost $400,000 in appreciation on one of my properties paid for by recent rent increases.  I could put about $1,800 cash flow a month in my pocket but I chose to take the money in a lump sum. 

    I even posted my plan to monetize my Social Security payment into over an over $600,000 lump sum using my appreciation as collateral.  Go to your bank and ask for that much money based on your $3,000 a month cash flow on 15 Indy houses.  Good luck with that!

    And the thing is as the rents and appreciation keeps going up my LTV will be decreasing and my net worth will be increasing.

    That is how you do it.

    As far as landlording the chance of a major tenant problem is really very slim.  And the non rental plan you describe is exactly what a small percentage of people do in SF.  Usually they are friends of developers and get a deal on a bulk purchase of several condos and they hold them empty and sell them off at the top of the next market cycle.  Better than the stock market.

  • Dublin, CA · Member since 2016 · 12 posts · 1 vote
    10y

    @Thomas S. , um... thanks, I think.?

    Is this a real strategy?

    The possible damages are definitely a concern that we have.

    Now I really don't know what to think.

    I understand the appreciation angle as follows: renters pay $3000/month - expenses at $1,200 - mortgage of $1,870 for a negative cash flow of $70/month.  However, if appreciation were factored in at $5,416/month then my total asset gain would be $5,076/month.  This thinking is a bit foreign to me because it seems to assume that the property will always appreciate.

  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Brian Beck:

    @Thomas S. , um... thanks, I think.?

      This thinking is a bit foreign to me because it seems to assume that the property will always appreciate.

    @Brian Beck  You've experienced about 14.5% compounded annually appreciation.  Well purchased properties in the Bay Area have experienced about 9-11% over 40ish years.  Even a conservative estimate of 8% would have you at about $492,000 so you are ahead of the game.  You'll probably see some flattening and possibly a small dip in the value but even if you lost $168,000 in value today you would still have a record of 8%! annual gain just in appreciation. 

  • Dublin, CA · Member since 2016 · 12 posts · 1 vote
    10y

    @Wes Brand , Here is my thought process.  If I purchased a rental for $30K then rented for $700 and plan on 50% expenses then the cash flow would be $350.  As you say, I still have the $30K plus whatever cash flow that is created.    

    Assuming my monthly nut is 4k/month I would need 12 rentals with similar returns to cover the nut.  By purchasing 12 properties for a total investment of $360K (about what our home's equity is) we could be financially independent and debt free. I know my numbers don't account for much future wealth building but I just don't see how debt is all that friendly. Perhaps this is just my pre-REI brain talking.

    I realise that there are advantages to debt but that is a tough pill to swallow. I'll continue my REI education and hopefully find a good compromise that tastes better.

    Thanks again.

  • Member since 2016 · 13k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    10y

    Brian the only decision you really have to make has nothing to do with the property appreciation. The decision you need to make is based on whether you want to be a landlord long distance, take the normal risks associated with the business and most importantly can you afford to supplement your tenants rent if the cash flow is negative. Can you afford major unexpected repairs during the time you are holding before you sell.

    The property will continue to appreciate regardless so forget that factor and simply decide if you are prepared to be a landlord and if this is the property you want to start with. Nothing else matters at this point, life doesn't end regardless of your decision.

    For myself I am a poor landlord, I only make a bit north of $100,000 per year so I need positive cash flow to buy groceries, pay for my cottage, buy my toys and take 2 or 3 Caribbean vacations a year. If mine don't cash flow I am not in business to supplement my tenants rent and view those properties as a poor investment. On the other hand I do not need appreciation to be able to retire without a financial worry in the world. I see no point in simply accumulating wealth for the sake of having wealth. 

  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y

    Brian, below is my response to a BP member trying to get Californians to invest in the Midwest.  I think it applies to what you are thinking of doing.

    Our cap rates are 9- 15%

    Also, keep in mind that property taxes are a huge cost in CA. In the cities we are buying in the property taxes are $400 a year! That instantly gives you $8-10,000 back in your pocket each year.

    Melissa, you've ignored my questions about cap rates.

    Also what you said about taxes above is absurd! How am I getting $8,000-10,000 back in my pocket? Seriously this level of analysis is embarrassing to the most unsophisticated scammer!

    Let's explore it further. A person paying $8-10,000 in property taxes and has equity to squander on fly by nite Turkeys probably has a property worth close to $1,500,000 that they paid $700,000 a few years ago. Thank you Prop 13! So for them to do a similar investment in your NBHD's they would be buying about 25 Turkeys. So at $400 a pop they will actually be paying about $10,000 a year. Oops, not so much money ending up in my pocket. Then what am I getting? Let's look at it from an expense view. My CA investment will need a $10,000 roof. If I trade it for 25 houses I will be looking at a $250,000 roofing expense. Oops, there goes my cash flow. How about plumbing. Figure a $100 expense a year in CA and a $2,500 expense for the Turkeys.

    P.S. How much would these $60,000 houses sell for in the 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's ? See the financial problem there?

  • Member since 2016 · 13k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    10y

    @Brian Beck

    I'll give you an example of how leverage worked for me. 

    I bought a property 8 years ago $100,000 down, that I borrowed through my HELOC, to purchase a $400,000 property. Basically 100% financed. Today I have about $4000/ month positive cash flow. If I had your $360,000 and multiplied it into 3.6 properties of the same value I would have $14,400 positive cash flow per month.

    That is how leverage works when done properly. I addition I have appreciation based on annual rent increased with out having to place a single dollar in the deal. Exactly the same appreciation if I bought the property all cash as you want to do. My appreciation increase cost me 0 cash while yours cost you $360,000 that according to your figures earns not one cent while sitting as equity in the property.    

  • Dublin, CA · Member since 2016 · 12 posts · 1 vote
    10y

    Greg,

    Those are excellent questions.  Perhaps I should have mentioned this at the start, but my wife and I have decided that we want her to stay home to raise our daughter.  So, we will not be able to afford to remain in our home long term.  The idea behind renting is so that we don't immediately lose the option to move back while having someone else pay the majority if not all of the costs.  I know that there are risks regarding possible damage, and that is something we need to evaluate.

    I don't think I want to be a long distance landlord especially if it is a negative cash flow property.

    Regarding renting my mother's house (after leaving for TN) if the property is paid for is there a reason that we should not rent it out using a property management co?  It probably comes down to what could the $270 generate in other investments.

  • Member since 2016 · 13k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    10y

    Yes it does come down to the dollars. A rental property has two income streams one being the property itself and the other being the equity held hostage in that property. Equity (cash) has a opportunity to be invested to earn it's keep. If you have cash in a property it needs to earn it's keep off the top of the rental income as it would invested else where. $270,000 invested at 5% earns $1125 per month interest. When you calculate cash flow on a property you base your numbers on the property being 100% financed. 

    If we take you mothers place with $1700 per month rent and subtract 50% for expenses (average on a SFH) you have $850/month after expenses. If you then pay the interest your equity needs to earn you have $850 - $1125 = (275) negative cash flow on the property.

  • Dublin, CA · Member since 2016 · 12 posts · 1 vote
    10y
    Originally posted by @Thomas S.:

    @Brian Beck

    I'll give you an example of how leverage worked for me. 

    I bought a property 8 years ago $100,000 down, that I borrowed through my HELOC, to purchase a $400,000 property. Basically 100% financed. Today I have about $4000/ month positive cash flow. If I had your $360,000 and multiplied it into 3.6 properties of the same value I would have $14,400 positive cash flow per month.

     I like what your cooking, but I think I'm missing something.  If you financed $400K at 4% the monthly P&I mortgage would be $1,910. add that to 50% of the rent (???) for expenses and I don't know how that generates $4000/month.

    Sorry if I'm being dense.

  • San Jose, CA · Member since 2015 · 4k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    10y

    @Brian Beck I am a CA native, and moved to TN for five years back in 1985 - 1990.  I tried hard to like it.  I only missed the fireflies when I moved back to the west.

    I suggest you try to make it work to stay in CA.  You have a great home in a great area.

    And, as far as having a PM manage your property, I'm a Negative Nancy regarding doing that.  I had a bad experience, as has my daughter and other people I know.  You'll be lucky to come out ahead after all of the fees they'll charge you, on top of the 10% monthly charge you're thinking is a good deal.

    See if you can make it work to stay in CA.  At least, hold onto your property in CA, so you can come back if you aren't happy in TN.

    Not only will the weather suck - really humid in summer, icy and cold in winter, but the culture is completely different.  I'm not saying it's bad, but I was so happy to get back to the west coast, where people tell it like it is.  In the south, people will seem to be friendly and polite, but not actually want to be your friend or do business with you.  It's a very frustrating culture if you're from somewhere else, where people are more direct with each other.

    For what it's worth.

  • Dublin, CA · Member since 2016 · 12 posts · 1 vote
    10y

    @Account Closed ,  My wife is from Arkansas and we lived in Memphis for a couple of years.  If we did move to TN we would move near her brother and his family.  I totally know what you're talking about regarding the culture, and it is completely diffrent. 

  • San Jose, CA · Member since 2015 · 4k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Brian Beck:

    @Account Closed ,  My wife is from Arkansas and we lived in Memphis for a couple of years.  If we did move to TN we would move near her brother and his family.  I totally know what you're talking about regarding the culture, and it is completely diffrent. 

     Well, hopefully, being near her brother and his family would be a good thing?  I'd just suggest you hold onto your CA property if you can, so you can go back if you want to, which I think you mentioned.  

    I'm tired, so I may have missed something.  But, could you sell or rent your mother's home?  And use that to be able to stay in your home in Dublin, CA?  

  • Investor · Honolulu, HI · Member since 2013 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y
    Originally posted by @Thomas S.:

    If we take you mothers place with $1700 per month rent and subtract 50% for expenses (average on a SFH) you have $850/month after expenses. If you then pay the interest your equity needs to earn you have $850 - $1125 = (275) negative cash flow on the property.

    Greg, again you've omitted the appreciation the property is earning.

  • Rental Property Investor · Durham, NC · Member since 2016 · 354 posts · 288 votes
    10y

    Brian - Your question brought me out of hiding on this site and this is my first post. My wife and I are debating doing something similar so this thread is very relevant for my situation.

    I'm really scratching my head at all the talk about appreciation on here. Bob sounds like he's building $5,400 per month appreciation into the model for your property. Trying to extrapolate that out, and then leveraging on top of it seems like financial suicide. Rents in the Bay Area are absurdly high right now, which I don't think I'd sustainable either.

    Why not take your money and run--tax free I might add?

    You could pay for your property in TN outright and buy something in the local market that you could rent out.

    I haven't had my coffee today so it's possible I missed some nuance in this discussion.

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