Cash Flow and Appreciation in the Greater Milwaukee Area

Cash Flow and Appreciation in the Greater Milwaukee Area

Investor · Milwaukee - Mequon, WI · Member since 2010 · 5k+ posts · 7k+ votes

I was just reading another interesting discussion about cash flow vs. appreciation and the Midwest vs. the West coast and I want to make a case for a balanced approach, and I think my backyard -  Milwaukee - is a perfect example.

I think we are really blessed here with a very unique situation: the ratio between market rents and (SF) home prices is very favorable here. For an investor that means number one positive cash flow and number two a lower entry threshold to get started. Good rental properties can be bought in the greater Milwaukee area anywhere from 60k to 200k (yes, also for less, but don't get me started on 30k homes).

With a 80% loan to value mortgages for investors getting started is relatively easy compared to many high priced markets out on the coasts. Part of the equity should be come with the property in form of a discount (that's the whole point of finding good deals), the rest can be made up with cash or forced appreciation (improvements, rehab, BRRRR). Either way it does not take a fortune to get started.

Positive cash flow should be a non negotiable for any RE investment. Without positive cash flow the investment outcome hinges solely on appreciation, which makes it a bet and not an investment. However how much positive cash flow is necessary for a good investment depends very much on the strategy. Generally speaking $200 per door after PITI, vacancies and maintenance expenses should be the minimum. It's hard to build a good cash flow stream with less, it simply takes too many units.

The greater Milwaukee area offers a wide range of choices: the general rule of thumb is that higher cash flow (or cash on cash returns) come with more headaches - essentially the investor is earning the additional cash flow by dealing with more issues. Rent to property values are often 2% or better. While cash flow can be excellent in the inner city, equity build up is slow and property taxes consume often a very large portionof the expenses.

The surrounding markets and suburbs offer great investment opportunities as well and are generally more passive and less stressful. While cash flow is generally lower, a larger portion of the monthly expenses goes towards the principal. Milwaukee is often seen as very low appreciation potential, but that is not quite accurate. We have also seen good appreciation in most of these markets in the last years. Year over Year August 2016 the mediaa sale price went up 9.51% to now $194,375. That is not bad for appreciation, especially combined with the still low price tags compared to many of the costal markets.

According to 2016 GMAR data Milwaukee County is up 11% (driven by hot markets along the North Shore area like Shorewood, Glendale, Brown Deer etc who made up for the lower performing areas) the markets in Ozaukee County show even stronger appreciation with +13% ( driven by Mequon, Thiensville, Grafton, Cedarburg etc). At the same time property values are still relatively low (rent to value usually arround 1%) and come with much lower property taxes and higher rents compared to Milwaukee. The same can be said for Germantown and Menomonee Falls area. 

Milwaukee is often times misrepresented as an investment in low income housing and that is simply not the case when looking at the big picture. My own rental properties are mostly around the mid price point with a good balance of cash flow and appreciation potential, but I am gradually moving north and into lower property taxed areas with slightly lower cash flow but better appreciation potential.

I hope this post helps to look at the Greater Milwaukee Area a little more differentiated and puts things in perspective, as there is a true variety of great investment choices available in and arround Milwaukee.

11Reply
87 views

Most Popular Reply

Investor · West Allis, WI · Member since 2016 · 20 posts · 12 votes
10y

@Account Closed I think I may be starting to see what you mean. 

Are you saying that some investors do not need to see that cash flow from Day 1? That those investors can purchase into a market that is more expensive and as long as they can stay afloat and they made a wise decision, the cash flow will follow? 

If that is the case, then I think downtown Milwaukee, WI might be in that situation. From my understanding, there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of new units created in the next few years in the downtown proper. Many empty-nesters and millennials are seeking housing in that area and that kind of life style. So while those buildings and units are coming on line, the initial investors have to put up a large chunk of change. Once those units are complete, however, they have the option of exiting and getting their investment plus some interest based on the new, and higher, value of the property, or they could continue to hold onto those properties and receive the cash flow, plus be the owners of very expensive properties which have appreciated greatly since they made their initial purchase. 

With all that being said, I would say that having both cash flow and appreciation would be a great advantage. An investor would not want to invest in an area or neighborhood where the value of their investment would decrease over the years, but it is also very difficult to understand what areas/type of living will be popular in five or eight years, let alone fifteen or twenty. I think it is an incredible gift to be able to discern those types of trends before they happen. Hopefully, one day, I will be at a level of knowledge of my market(s) where I can take some of that extra risk, because in the world of investing, the greater the risk, the greater the reward. 

See this reply in the discussion

11 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Dawn AnastasiPro Member
    Rental Property Investor · Milwaukee, WI · Member since 2013 · 6k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    10y

    Yes this is true; there are many varied opportunities in Milwaukee.

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

    I was just reading another interesting discussion about cash flow vs. appreciation and the Midwest vs. the West coast and I want to make a case for a balanced approach, and I think my backyard -  Milwaukee - is a perfect example.

    I think we are really blessed here with a very unique situation: the ratio between market rents and (SF) home prices is very favorable here. For an investor that means number one positive cash flow and number two a lower entry threshold to get started. Good rental properties can be bought in the greater Milwaukee area anywhere from 60k to 200k (yes, also for less, but don't get me started on 30k homes).

    With a 80% loan to value mortgages for investors getting started is relatively easy compared to many high priced markets out on the coasts. Part of the equity should be come with the property in form of a discount (that's the whole point of finding good deals), the rest can be made up with cash or forced appreciation (improvements, rehab, BRRRR). Either way it does not take a fortune to get started.

    Positive cash flow should be a non negotiable for any RE investment. Without positive cash flow the investment outcome hinges solely on appreciation, which makes it a bet and not an investment. However how much positive cash flow is necessary for a good investment depends very much on the strategy. Generally speaking $200 per door after PITI, vacancies and maintenance expenses should be the minimum. It's hard to build a good cash flow stream with less, it simply takes too many units.

    The greater Milwaukee area offers a wide range of choices: the general rule of thumb is that higher cash flow (or cash on cash returns) come with more headaches - essentially the investor is earning the additional cash flow by dealing with more issues. Rent to property values are often 2% or better. While cash flow can be excellent in the inner city, equity build up is slow and property taxes consume often a very large portionof the expenses.

    The surrounding markets and suburbs offer great investment opportunities as well and are generally more passive and less stressful. While cash flow is generally lower, a larger portion of the monthly expenses goes towards the principal. Milwaukee is often seen as very low appreciation potential, but that is not quite accurate. We have also seen good appreciation in most of these markets in the last years. Year over Year August 2016 the mediaa sale price went up 9.51% to now $194,375. That is not bad for appreciation, especially combined with the still low price tags compared to many of the costal markets.

    According to 2016 GMAR data Milwaukee County is up 11% (driven by hot markets along the North Shore area like Shorewood, Glendale, Brown Deer etc who made up for the lower performing areas) the markets in Ozaukee County show even stronger appreciation with +13% ( driven by Mequon, Thiensville, Grafton, Cedarburg etc). At the same time property values are still relatively low (rent to value usually arround 1%) and come with much lower property taxes and higher rents compared to Milwaukee. The same can be said for Germantown and Menomonee Falls area. 

    Milwaukee is often times misrepresented as an investment in low income housing and that is simply not the case when looking at the big picture. My own rental properties are mostly around the mid price point with a good balance of cash flow and appreciation potential, but I am gradually moving north and into lower property taxed areas with slightly lower cash flow but better appreciation potential.

    I hope this post helps to look at the Greater Milwaukee Area a little more differentiated and puts things in perspective, as there is a true variety of great investment choices available in and arround Milwaukee.

    Let's look at the flaws in your argument,

    1.  the ratio between market rents and (SF) home prices is very favorable here.

    Favorable?  Only to poor investors or investors that are poor that can't figure out how to invest in the more PROFITABLE markets. 

    2.  Positive cash flow should be a non negotiable for any RE investment. 

     How did you come to that conclusion?  How are you even measuring "cash flow"  Does that mean that every FLIP is not an investment?  Cash flow is for poor investors or investors that are poor.

    Not saying anything is wrong with investing in Milwaukee but your argument has major holes in it.

  • Investor · Milwaukee - Mequon, WI · Member since 2010 · 5k+ posts · 7k+ votes
    10y

    Hi @Account Closed - thank you for reading my post and for the feedback: could you explain your point a little bit more? BP is all about learning and sharing what works and I am constantly looking for ways do improve. Would you recommend to invest in markets where property values are higher? You are not referring to investing in Hawaii, right? 

    I will argue with you on the flips - flipping is a job, at least for me. 20% of the work is finding a deal, 80% is planning, managing, staging and marketing the product. You can argue that 80% of the value comes from 20% of the work - which is finding the deal. But it's still active work. There is no income once you stop working. Just like wholesaling is a job and not an investment. Unless you are talking about a slow flip - when you buy something in the 70's (like you did) and then sell in the 90's, but in that case I assume you are holding cash flowing asset. The broader definition casually used includes all these aspects under "real estate investing", but I would argue that an investment should involve a ongoing stream of more or less passive income. 

    Cash flow is absolutely vital to me, I'll be the first to admit that. It allowed me to quit my well paid corporate job and do what I enjoy. Most of my cash flow feeds back into my business and keeps my portfolio growing. I would not be able to do any of this without cash flow.  Most of my investor clients also rely on cash flow, either to grow their portfolio or even as their ultimate goal for retirement. You have done very well for yourself and I guess once you own a $40B portfolio a single family rental property does not look very attractive. I imagine it's not that easy to find investments that are suitable for that kind of money. It's the Warren Buffet problem - how do you buy SFRs on a large scale? You can't. For most of us here it's about paying our bills, having the time and the money to travel a bit and feel safe and secure for retirement.

    You have almost 40 years of experience on me - I'd appreciate your insights!

  • Investor · West Allis, WI · Member since 2016 · 20 posts · 12 votes
    10y

    While I am very new to real estate, I've always understood that metro areas similar to Milwaukee don't benefit/suffer from large swings in property value as much as some other parts of the country might. As I begin my real estate career in Milwaukee, I'll be focusing on cash flow more than appreciation of the property. 

    It seems to me that in a market like Southeastern Wisconsin, significant appreciation would be driven by factors outside of my control. I would have never guessed 5 years ago that buying any land in Kenosha County along the freeway would be a good investment, but now we have dozens of companies (Amazon, Uline, etc.) either building or expanding, creating hundreds if not thousands of new jobs and therefore, an increased demand for supporting housing infrastructure. The decisions of those companies was completely outside of my control.

    What is within my ability to control is the location of my properties, the condition of the units, the tenants I accept to live in my units, and the management of those units. These all would increase my ability to have good cash flow. At this stage in my life, I want to increase my passive income and build long term wealth, and buying and holding multifamily properties will help me to obtain those goals. I think the strategy an investor picks always has to fit their goals, so I would disagree that "Cash flow is for poor investors or investors that are poor."

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

    Hi @Account Closed - thank you for reading my post and for the feedback: could you explain your point a little bit more? BP is all about learning and sharing what works and I am constantly looking for ways do improve. Would you recommend to invest in markets where property values are higher? You are not referring to investing in Hawaii, right? 

    I will argue with you on the flips - flipping is a job, at least for me. 20% of the work is finding a deal, 80% is planning, managing, staging and marketing the product. You can argue that 80% of the value comes from 20% of the work - which is finding the deal. But it's still active work. There is no income once you stop working. Just like wholesaling is a job and not an investment. Unless you are talking about a slow flip - when you buy something in the 70's (like you did) and then sell in the 90's, but in that case I assume you are holding cash flowing asset. The broader definition casually used includes all these aspects under "real estate investing", but I would argue that an investment should involve a ongoing stream of more or less passive income. 

    Cash flow is absolutely vital to me, I'll be the first to admit that. It allowed me to quit my well paid corporate job and do what I enjoy. Most of my cash flow feeds back into my business and keeps my portfolio growing. I would not be able to do any of this without cash flow.  Most of my investor clients also rely on cash flow, either to grow their portfolio or even as their ultimate goal for retirement. You have done very well for yourself and I guess once you own a $40B portfolio a single family rental property does not look very attractive. I imagine it's not that easy to find investments that are suitable for that kind of money. It's the Warren Buffet problem - how do you buy SFRs on a large scale? You can't. For most of us here it's about paying our bills, having the time and the money to travel a bit and feel safe and secure for retirement.

    You have almost 40 years of experience on me - I'd appreciate your insights!

     1.  I never said buy where values are higher.  I was talking about you using PTR ratios as a method of choosing profitable markets.  The only reason for high PTR ratios is because the market won't pay more for the rent because it will be uncollectable or too expensive to collect.   If you are going to look at PTR ratios you need to consider if there is any movement in the market values and rents.  If you buy where the PTR ratio is 2% but nothing increases but your expenses then you are losing money.  My PTR ratios have generally been around .8% but my property values increase about 9% and rents increase about 6%.  So every time my value goes up $100,000 I get a $800 rent increase.  Now do you see where the PTR ratio is not a good profit metric?

    2.  Flip was probably not the best example.  I was basically talking about a value add type situation where there is NO cash flow initially but you make a plan for it and budget the money to hold the property until you do cash flow.  Can you imagine investing in the stock market and calling your broker a month later and asking for your cash flow?  Does that make it speculation and not investing?  A good investment DOES NOT have to provide immediate cash flow to be good.  But you have to have a plan to hold until the money starts coming in.

    I have been involved in valuations in over $40B of real estate.  That is not my portfolio.  I'm a humble multi. 

    I am retired and have cash flow but I trade that for huge chunks of appreciation.  If you and your investors have cash flow but no appreciation then that is ALL you have.  I have both and can go to the bank and ask for my hundreds of thousands of dollars in appreciation in a large cash lump that I will pay for with my cash flow.  Which would you rather have, $400,000 cash or an income stream of $1800 a month?  I took the $400,000!

    Does that explain?

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

      "Cash flow is for poor investors or investors that are poor."

    Think about this.  Anyone with the money can buy a property that has "cash flow" from day one. 

    A poor investor that needs the $100 each month to buy the babies diapers cannot invest in properties that do not initially cash flow.  Only "rich" investors can do that. 

    Properties that do not initially cash flow are generally more expensive markets.  More expensive markets are usually the result of great appreciation.  These markets also generally have great rent growth.  You never hear about the crazy rents in Des Moines.  Because of the great appreciation and great rent growth these properties are generally more profitable.  If you are a smart investor but poor you can figure a way to buy the more profitable properties.  A poor investor will have to get smart to do this.

    Hence, "Cash flow is for poor investors or investors that are poor."

  • Investor · West Allis, WI · Member since 2016 · 20 posts · 12 votes
    10y

    @Account Closed I think I may be starting to see what you mean. 

    Are you saying that some investors do not need to see that cash flow from Day 1? That those investors can purchase into a market that is more expensive and as long as they can stay afloat and they made a wise decision, the cash flow will follow? 

    If that is the case, then I think downtown Milwaukee, WI might be in that situation. From my understanding, there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of new units created in the next few years in the downtown proper. Many empty-nesters and millennials are seeking housing in that area and that kind of life style. So while those buildings and units are coming on line, the initial investors have to put up a large chunk of change. Once those units are complete, however, they have the option of exiting and getting their investment plus some interest based on the new, and higher, value of the property, or they could continue to hold onto those properties and receive the cash flow, plus be the owners of very expensive properties which have appreciated greatly since they made their initial purchase. 

    With all that being said, I would say that having both cash flow and appreciation would be a great advantage. An investor would not want to invest in an area or neighborhood where the value of their investment would decrease over the years, but it is also very difficult to understand what areas/type of living will be popular in five or eight years, let alone fifteen or twenty. I think it is an incredible gift to be able to discern those types of trends before they happen. Hopefully, one day, I will be at a level of knowledge of my market(s) where I can take some of that extra risk, because in the world of investing, the greater the risk, the greater the reward. 

  • Real Estate Agent · Wauwatosa, WI · Member since 2015 · 14 posts · 2 votes
    10y

    Great post @Marcus Auerbach. Interested to hear your take on why you prefer single family homes over multi-family in our market. It's something that I'm wrestling with as I put together my own strategy.

  • Investor · Milwaukee - Mequon, WI · Member since 2010 · 5k+ posts · 7k+ votes
    10y

    Yes, Bob I agree and I think it's a natural progression for most investors. The ones that start out poor but smart will progress from being cash flow focused to looking more for appreciation. The ones that start with a pool of money and maybe not so smart are sometimes the ones that crash and burn. I believe in a balanced between cash flow and appreciation potential 

    Cashflow pays for diapers first, then it pays for a new car, a nice home or for for travelling the world. Cash flow pays for the bills and it provides freedom for 9-5. Cashflow also pays for mistakes made, and I have made a few (and hopefully learned from them). But cashflow does not create wealth: the numbers are simply too small. Only appreciation has the compounding effect that creates wealth over time.

    However, appreciation does not come with the high degree of certainty that comes with cash flow and an investor has be prepared for appreciation simply to not happen or for property values to decrease.

  • Investor · Milwaukee - Mequon, WI · Member since 2010 · 5k+ posts · 7k+ votes
    10y

    @Zach Hicks thank you. Actually I did not know and was going for multi family first. I red all the books about MF investing I could get my hands on - Ken McElroy comes to mind - the numbers and leverage are certainly exciting. So I started out with the smallest MF possible just to test the waters - a great lannon stone duplex in West Milwaukee, which I still own. I was very sceptical and my mission really was to identify "the catch" with REI - I did not understand why not everyone was doing this, but thats a different story. While it turned out to be a good investment I burned through a bunch of tenants in the first couple years. Great people and no issue with the property, but lots of relationship drama, short term leases, early termination, back and forth etc. At the time I had a corporate job and was travelling a lot to Europe and South Americe and learned that not being in the same timezone was an issue when it came to managing small MFs. I realized that I could handle one, two, maybe three properties, but there was a ceiling to what I could handle and I either needed to pay a PM or find another way. So I started looking into SFRs. 2012 and 2013 were great years to buy forclosures. The difference in the target audience was very obvious right at the first open showings. Instead of single individuals or unmarried couples that were interested in my 2BR duplex appartment I met a lot of families. Most of them young professionals with little children and they were interested in the schools and clearley looking for a place to stay longer than 12 months. That is when the light went on for me. The cash flow was less than from a typical duplex, but I needed the stability more than I needed the cash. So the startegy was really born out of necessity, because my corporate job was not compatible with small MFs. Over the years I have tweaked the approach more and more to make my properties attractive for families and we experience very little turn over. Would I go back to MF? Yes, absolutley. They are perfect to start out with and if you have the time and flexibility you can quickly grow a cash flow machine. For me it would probably have to be a larger complex with on site management, but that's something I'll safe for later when I loose depreciation opportunities and need to trade up.

  • Shawn AckermanPro Member
    Real Estate Entrepreneur · Mid West, East Coast · Member since 2015 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    9y

    @Marcus Auerbach you make a lot of great points.  I just ask that you keep things just a bit more quiet and let us investors who are making the great returns continue to do so LOL!!! Great post!

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