2% Rule is the Stupidest Thing EVER!

2% Rule is the Stupidest Thing EVER!

Rental Property Investor · Phoenix/Lima, Arizona/OH · Member since 2012 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes

It's misleading as all hell.  It doesn't focus on the truly important elements of the underwriting.  And @Brandon Turner is not helping anything by continuing to talk about it on his webinars.

[Note from Brandon: see my response at the bottom of page 2 of this thread... ;) ]

Who cares what the income is? The NOI is what's important. 2% Rule is garbage and cannot even be used as a rule of thumb, y'all!

Learn how to analyze property, and run far and fast whenever you hear anything about any rule of thumb.  There are no rules of thumb in this business.  Be professional about this...

9Reply
254 views

Most Popular Reply

Brandon TurnerPro Member
Investor · Maui, HI · Member since 2009 · 13k+ posts · 3k+ votes
11y

Ok, since I was called out, I'll have to enter the discussion. 

So, I've never once, ever, told someone to buy a property based on the 2% rule. I explain what it is, and then why it falls 90% short. So just to be clear, Ben is the master of "politician debate" in which he states a premise that is made up, and then will argue that premise till the day he dies. :) 

That said, the "2% rule" is just a fancy way of quickly screening properties. We all do it every single day if we are analyzing properties. I've talked to @Ben Leybovich numerous times and he's told me how he spent "8 hours analyzing a deal."  If ben "properly" analyzed every single deal that came across his computer screen, somehow I doubt he's have time to come onto BiggerPockets for Politician Debates.  Instead, Ben probably sees 200 properties in an hour, and his brilliant deranged experienced real estate mind can quickly filter the properties out and he can say "Nope, nope, nope, maybe, nope, nope, nope" very quickly. Every experienced real estate investor can do this.  

How? 

Because we are super gifted, smart, and good looking..

Because we use internal rules of thumb, whether or not we want to admit it. Let me explain. 

They may not have a name, but if someone tells me "Hey Brandon, I've got a single family house for sale. It will rent for $1,000 a month and I'm selling it for $3,000,000. "  According to what Ben is saying, he would sit down with his spreadsheet and plug in every single number for this deal to determine if it was a good deal. But we all know this is just not the case. There is no possible way he does this. Instead, he just KNOWS that a ratio of $1,000 a month in rent would NEVER cash flow for a $3,000,000 property. And THAT, my friends, is Ben Leybovich doing the 2% rule.  The 2% rule is just another word for "Income vs Purchase Price" and we do it all day long. Of course, if someone is dumb inexperienced enough to believe that by simply running a property through the 2% rule they can make a confident decision, well they have a lot of reading to do here on BiggerPockets and I'd like someone to show me where any experienced investor on BP has made such a claim. You won't find it, just people like Ben being confused by what the 2% rule actually is. 

The point of the 2% rule is to help people build a baseline for which to analyze properties quickly. You find out what % might work in your area and what won't -  then have an easier time quickly scanning through properties.  In my area, I know that ANYTHING below 1% is not going to work, so I don't look at them! Call it the 2% rule, the 1% rule, or whatever. It doesn't matter. It's about learning how to do quick rules of thumb, in your head, to not spend 25 hours a day analyzing deals like Ben Leybovich claims to! 

Bring it on, Ben! :) 

See this reply in the discussion

110 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Investor · Cleveland, OH · Member since 2015 · 6k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    @Steve Olafson you asked "If the numbers only work some of the time, why name them as numbers"? But I thought you had already answered that question when you said:- "those (different) numbers are calculated to the (different) section(s) of the market that I am looking at". And yes, that means those 1%, 2%, 50% numbers buzzing around can/should be swatted like mosquitoes, but, only after the PRINCIPLES they relate to are learned as the teaching aids they were always meant to be - THEN knuckle down to the desirable/possible numbers for YOUR market!...

  • Scottsdale, AZ · Member since 2014 · 659 posts · 536 votes
    11y

    @Brent Coombs 

    You see this differently than I do. I see no value in the rules as they are named. I do not apply them as they are named. The rules are not in line with my thought process during an evaluation. It is like saying that I am going to use the $1000 NOI rule even though you don't know what the income and expenses are.

  • Joe VilleneuvePro Member
    Plymouth, MI · Member since 2013 · 13k+ posts · 19k+ votes
    11y

    After I attempted to apply the 1% rule, I mean the 50% rule...uh, not wait we're talking about the 2% rule....right, OK now I'm ready.

    After attempting to apply the 2% rule to properties, I have found that it only works in about 30% of the markets I invest in, and disqualifies 50% of the properties in those markets even though at least 80% of the properties it disqualifies are really within 5% of qualifying...and, when I don't use the 2% rule, about 80% of the disqualified properties actually look great.

    Oh, and when I then analyze the 50% of the properties in the qualified 30% markets, I came to realize that at least half (50%) of those properties also were at least 30% off.

    Conclusion:  I stopped using any "rule of thumb %" qualifiers 100% of the time.

  • Investor · Cleveland, OH · Member since 2015 · 6k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    11y

    @Steve Olafson I probably could have been clearer; "those 1%, 2%, 50% numbers buzzing around can/should be swatted like mosquitoes" but only AFTER you've passed your RE hypothetical training and are ready to enter into the heady world of ACTUAL deal analysis in your own clearly defined (unique to you) market. You've already acknowledged that you DO have % 'rules', so if you were to promote your own 70% net rent 'rule' that you can consistently get in one of your markets and can prove it, don't be surprised when @Ben Leybovich still comes down on you like a ton of bricks!...

  • Scottsdale, AZ · Member since 2014 · 659 posts · 536 votes
    11y
  • Kansas City, MO · Member since 2008 · 143 posts · 41 votes
    11y

    I am turning my current residence into a rental that only meets the 1% rule because I just bought my neighbors house (before is hit MLS) which will also only meet the 1% rule. Both houses are 200k houses that will rent for $2,100, locked in 3.1% and 3.8% 30 yr. owner occ rates.

    I paid 20% below market for both. 

    Higher rents and lower mortgage rates make the 2% rule useless on properties above 50-100k.  On my cheaper rentals i can usually hit 1.3% to 1.5% those rents are around 1,000 a month using 30 yr conventional financing.

    I think my 200k houses may have the best cash flow yet after reviewing the numbers.  With very high upside.

    I think the 2% is a very good first indicator on apartment complexes as those rents are cheap.  It is very important to meet the 2% rule when rent drops below about 700 a month.

  • Investor/Developer · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2010 · 107 posts · 92 votes
    11y

    Everytime I hear the 2% rule I think of Achorman and Sex Panther by Odeon...

    "60% of the Time, It Works Every Time"

    http://youtu.be/pjvQFtlNQ-M

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Rochester, NY · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Brandon Turner:

    Ok, since I was called out, I'll have to enter the discussion. 

    ...

    Because we use internal rules of thumb, whether or not we want to admit it. Let me explain. 

    They may not have a name, but if someone tells me "Hey Brandon, I've got a single family house for sale. It will rent for $1,000 a month and I'm selling it for $3,000,000. "  According to what Ben is saying, he would sit down with his spreadsheet and plug in every single number for this deal to determine if it was a good deal. But we all know this is just not the case. 

    Brandon is 100% correct in the entire post, but I snipped it down to the salient points.  

    The 2% rule is something some investors use.  They've said so in this thread.  To say that you don't use single criterion rules to weed out non-deals is proven false by Brandon's ad absurdum argument above.

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Rochester, NY · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Ben Leybovich:

    @Mark Ferguson - I commented on your blog that income of 2% is necessary to cash flow. However, in and of itself that doesn't make deal a good deal. You just have to look at the other side of the equation and evaluate the IRR...

    My comments there and here are perfectly in-sink.  More income is necessary, but having it is only one part of the puzzle :)  However, if you start out without the income, then something else must work and you might be feeding the pig until that something else works...

    I could go to Toledo OH and buy 2% GPI all day long - and loose money all day long.  The quality of asset/tenant will make that difference.

    There are just no "Rules of Thoumb" in this business, which is the essence of this post.

    Philosophy 101.  Necessary but not sufficient.  What you are saying above is income of 2% is necessary but not sufficient.  Therefore, not having income of 2% is enough to invalidate the deal (the premise).  

    Thus your statement there and post here are indeed incompatible.  You've applied a single criterion to invalidate a deal.  That's the 2% rule.

    What you perhaps meant is the 2% rule does not validate a deal.  That is, that it can invalidate a deal but is not sufficient to prove a deal.  But it does appear you do use the rule as necessary criterion.

  • Flipper/Rehabber · Greeley, CO · Member since 2013 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Larry Turowski:
    Originally posted by @Ben Leybovich:

    @Mark Ferguson - I commented on your blog that income of 2% is necessary to cash flow. However, in and of itself that doesn't make deal a good deal. You just have to look at the other side of the equation and evaluate the IRR...

    My comments there and here are perfectly in-sink.  More income is necessary, but having it is only one part of the puzzle :)  However, if you start out without the income, then something else must work and you might be feeding the pig until that something else works...

    I could go to Toledo OH and buy 2% GPI all day long - and loose money all day long.  The quality of asset/tenant will make that difference.

    There are just no "Rules of Thoumb" in this business, which is the essence of this post.

    Philosophy 101.  Necessary but not sufficient.  What you are saying above is income of 2% is necessary but not sufficient.  Therefore, not having income of 2% is enough to invalidate the deal (the premise).  

    Thus your statement there and post here are indeed incompatible.  You've applied a single criterion to invalidate a deal.  That's the 2% rule.

    What you perhaps meant is the 2% rule does not validate a deal.  That is, that it can invalidate a deal but is not sufficient to prove a deal.  But it does appear you do use the rule as necessary criterion.

    Glad you understood it the same way I was Larry!

  • Ned CareyPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Baltimore, MD · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 13k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Ben Leybovich:

    When @Ned Carey starts yelling at me, I know I've got too far...

    LOL.   He I wasn't yelling. It wasn't in ALL CAPS! I just wanted to make sure you saw it.

    Well yea but that is @Brandon Turner 

  • Real Estate Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2014 · 229 posts · 171 votes
    11y

    I love the 2% rule for cash flow areas!!!  

    If I can't gross a certain amount of rent then it is not possible for the cash flow to be interesting (equity is a different game tho!).  As long as your are comparing apples to apples it makes a lot of sense.  On the south side of Chicago 2% is right on, while in California its more like the 0.5% rule which is not a cash flow areas and thus, many other factors come into play.   

    Because I have a very tight niche in Chicago, they are all apples, and I know that a 3 BR house is 1200/mo rent and that a budget of 60k will generally leave 900/mo profit.  As I quickly scroll through listings and see 50k properties with more than 10k of rehab (threshold for light rehab) won't work.  As the price drops to 40k I can do more rehab.

    If the property passes 2% then I make further assessments.  If a property fails 2% then I ignore unless there is something else compelling enough to make an exception.  Less than 2% typically just doesn't generate enough gross cash to be a sufficiently profitable cash flow property.

  • Will BarnardPro Member
    Moderator
    Developer · Santa Clarita, CA · Member since 2008 · 15k+ posts · 10k+ votes
    11y


    "2% rule is the stupidest thing ever"

    No, your argument that the 2% rule is the stupidest thing ever IS the stupidest thing ever.

    Most people who argue over this simply miss the point of the rule of thumb. No different than a hammer, it can be used effectively or ineffectively, the operator is in control of that.

  • Investor · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2014 · 415 posts · 299 votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Will Barnard:


    "2% rule is the stupidest thing ever"

    No, your argument that the 2% rule is the stupidest thing ever IS the stupidest thing ever.

    Most people who argue over this simply miss the point of the rule of thumb. No different than a hammer, it can be used effectively or ineffectively, the operator is in control of that.

     ..and if the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.

  • Rental Property Investor · Phoenix/Lima, Arizona/OH · Member since 2012 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    11y

    @David Begley - hahahahaha!!!!

  • Real Estate Investor · San Antonio, TX · Member since 2014 · 785 posts · 190 votes
    11y

    my take is that that rule may work well in some markets but not others. Specific city markets are so different. I've really started to see that here in my town. 

  • Cleveland, OH · Member since 2011 · 400 posts · 223 votes
    11y

    In this thread: People investing in markets too expensive for the 2% rule.

  • Will BarnardPro Member
    Moderator
    Developer · Santa Clarita, CA · Member since 2008 · 15k+ posts · 10k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @David Begley:
    Originally posted by @Will Barnard:


    "2% rule is the stupidest thing ever"

    No, your argument that the 2% rule is the stupidest thing ever IS the stupidest thing ever.

    Most people who argue over this simply miss the point of the rule of thumb. No different than a hammer, it can be used effectively or ineffectively, the operator is in control of that.

     ..and if the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.

     Exactly! Well put.

  • Greenwood, IN · Member since 2013 · 346 posts · 93 votes
    11y

    I view the 1 or 2 percent rule, as what it is a rule of thumb a quick guide, to whether a property will cash flow. If you are under 1 percent , I don't even look at it in my market.

    1 percent will cash flow, though usually not very much.   2percent even here in indy is hard to find, outside of the ghetto. Most of my properties are in the 1.5 to 1.8 range. And they cash flow about 200 a door, which is my target. It's just a quick guide to eliminate properties. 2 percent in not a crappy area is a goal to shoot for! But not very common in the current market.

  • Investor · Wichita Falls, TX · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 603 votes
    11y

    I'm late to the party Ben, What's up! Like Brie, I'm a big proponent of using the 2% rule as a quick filter in the market I'm working in. After that, It's definitely about NOI & ROI to me.

    You're pretty good at starting these trending threads, that's good stuff :)

  • Rental Property Investor · Phoenix/Lima, Arizona/OH · Member since 2012 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    11y

    Hey - Junior.  We missed you here, @Mehran K. .  Glad you liked the thread.

  • Ned CareyPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Baltimore, MD · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 13k+ votes
    11y
    Originally posted by @Allan Glass:

    Everytime I hear the 2% rule I think of Achorman and Sex Panther by Odeon...

    "60% of the Time, It Works Every Time"

    http://youtu.be/pjvQFtlNQ-M

     See @Ben Leybovich It is only supposed to work 2% of the time. 

  • Rental Property Investor · Phoenix/Lima, Arizona/OH · Member since 2012 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    11y

    Hahahahaha - this is how @Brandon Turner analyses deals - 2% of the time he is 60% correct.  He calls me to look things over 100% of the time, though :)

    Brandon - I love you. Can we hold hands, hug, and let this thread move itself into obscurity of BP.  I'll call you out on some other thing next week and then we can dance once more :)

  • Ned CareyPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Baltimore, MD · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 13k+ votes
    11y

    OK @Ben Leybovich  are we creating a new BP "Rule"?  The 60% rule

  • Rental Property Investor · Phoenix/Lima, Arizona/OH · Member since 2012 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    11y

    Lol - the point of this thread, @Ned Carey , was that I am not big into rules.  We are dealing with big money in this sport.  Analyze it as it should be analyzed, or leave it to guys like me who'll take 5 hours out of life to do it right...

    Oops - I did it again...jeeeeez...I hope I didn't say something that offends somebody...

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