Is my cash flow really $135.75/month?

Is my cash flow really $135.75/month?

Portland, OR · Member since 2013 · 48 posts · 14 votes

I bought a duplex a couple of months ago. Here are the numbers:

Purchase price $85,000 (I put 25% down)

Monthly payment including taxes and insurance is $585/month

Total rent for both sides is $1,550/month

Property Management charges 7% ($108.50/month)

Tenants pay all utilizes (including water, garbage, electricity, ect..)

If I use the 50% rule, as Bigger Pockets and others who are experienced in rentals over the long term use. Then total rent $1,550 minus management fee's of $108.50 equals $1,441.5 divided by 2 for the 50% rule equals $720.75 minus my mortgage/insurance/tax payment of $585 equals a positive cash flow of $135.75/month

Is this correct? If so, how do rentals make people money? Do people just hope for appreciation, and think about how they are paying down the mortgage over time? How do people claim to live just off of rental income, by owning 30+ properties? I would think if you had the money to buy 30 properties, with the 50% rule you would have made more of investing in an IRA, stocks or something to that effect?

This was my first buy and hold rental property and if these numbers are correct I am not sure I made a good decision buying it. Maybe I should have used the down payment to try a real estate flip or invest it in an IRA/stock market (smart stocks though like Nike, Apple ect....).

I guess I am lucky that I really searched hard for a property that would return this kind of gross rent compared to the purchase price/mortgage payment just to basically break even. I see a lot of first time rental property investors buy a rental property that rents for $1,000/month and have a mortgage payment of $800/month. So I assume they will lose money over the long term and may decide to sell early when they run out of money to throw at it?

Any thoughts from experienced rental property investors?

1Reply
163 views

Most Popular Reply

Investor · Cincinnati, OH · Member since 2010 · 1k+ posts · 928 votes
12y

Just to be clear, the rule/guidelines says that cash flow is ---> gross potential rent * 50%, minus P&I (not the full mortgage payment with escrows). Yes, the 50% expense allotment covers vacancies, operating expenses, AND capital reserves.

So in this case, assume P&I = $340/mth, so

1550*50%-$340 = $435/mth of cash flow.

Your investment is probably around $23k w/ closing costs, so your cash on cash return = 435*12 divided by 23k = 22.7%. Damn good!

See this reply in the discussion

51 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Ned CareyPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Baltimore, MD · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 13k+ votes
    12y

    No You are being to conservative

  • Real Estate Investor · Wichita, KS · Member since 2013 · 11 posts · 1 vote
    12y
    Maybe I'm wrong but, shouldn't you have looked at 50% rule prior to purchase?
  • Camby, IN · Member since 2013 · 12 posts · 4 votes
    12y

    Okay, I got lost at the "50% rule ". What is that? I had been analyzing potential deals and did not attribute that when I ran the numbers.

  • Portland, OR · Member since 2013 · 48 posts · 14 votes
    12y
    Originally posted by @Douglas J.:
    Maybe I'm wrong but, shouldn't you have looked at 50% rule prior to purchase?

    Yes, you are correct. But I did not find Bigger pockets until after the purchase. Guess I made my mistake on not doing enough research on real life rental property expenses. But I searched many different states and cities to find a rental that had this kind of spread between gross rent and mortgage payment that includes taxes and insurance. The duplex is a 2007 so I thought it would be better to buy a newer property, thinking it would have less expenses than say a 30+ year old property.

    Now that I have found Bigger Pockets and read through a lot of posts. I see many people buying rentals for $30,000 and renting them for $600-$800/month. But why would a single family home that rents for $1,500 a month have $750/month in expenses and the same style home in another state that rents for $800 have $400/month in expenses? I do see some people post deals where the number look a little better than mine but not a lot better. Maybe most people on Bigger Pockets are paying cash for lower price properties and that is the best way to go since they won't have mortgage to pay.

    In the 2.5 months I have owned the duplex I have already been hit with 1 turn over (luckily got a new tenant within 1 month). Unlucky part is some minor vandalism was done to the unit while it was vacant. The old tenant had been there 6.5 years and so there was cost in getting the unit back to rental condition, one of the units also had the thermostat go out. So I am sure experiencing the 50% rule right from the start. Or maybe I have just had a rough start and things will get better...

  • Portland, OR · Member since 2013 · 48 posts · 14 votes
    12y
    Originally posted by @Ned Carey:
    No You are being to conservative

    That is encouraging to hear!

  • REALTOR® · Bastrop, TX · Member since 2013 · 324 posts · 191 votes
    12y
    Seth B. your numbers aren't entirely correct, as far as I can tell. First, the 50% rule is a guideline, a down and dirty way to analyze a deal. It's not hard and fast and sometimes it'll work and sometimes it won't; just because it does doesn't make it a good deal and just because it doesn't does not make it a bad deal. Second, the 50% rule includes everything expense wise except debt, which means property management is included. So 50% of $1,550 is $775. Subtract your debt from that and you get a positive cash flow of $190/mo. I don't believe the 50% accounts for CapEx though so you'd have to figure out how much to allocate to that; someone correct me if I'm wrong. Additionally, if you're brining in $2,280/yr in passive income, and you only used $21,250 of your own money, then your return is 10.7%, which isn't bad. Doesn't sound like a bad deal and you could definitely have done worse. But we learn and move in. One final though, I someone had 30 properties creating passive income like this one, you'd be earning $68,000/yr. That's enough to live on.
  • Portland, OR · Member since 2013 · 48 posts · 14 votes
    12y
    Originally posted by @Heather Alte:
    Okay, I got lost at the "50% rule ". What is that? I had been analyzing potential deals and did not attribute that when I ran the numbers.

    Here is a link:

    http://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52/topics/17612-where-does-the-5-rule-come-from-

  • Middletown, NJ · Member since 2011 · 108 posts · 22 votes
    12y

    Patrick is right in that the 50% rule includes management fee. It does however include CapEx as well, I believe.

  • Portland, OR · Member since 2013 · 48 posts · 14 votes
    12y
    Originally posted by @Patrick Connell:
    Seth B. your numbers aren't entirely correct, as far as I can tell.
    First, the 50% rule is a guideline, a down and dirty way to analyze a deal. It's not hard and fast and sometimes it'll work and sometimes it won't; just because it does doesn't make it a good deal and just because it doesn't does not make it a bad deal.

    Second, the 50% rule includes everything expense wise except debt, which means property management is included. So 50% of $1,550 is $775. Subtract your debt from that and you get a positive cash flow of $190/mo. I don't believe the 50% accounts for CapEx though so you'd have to figure out how much to allocate to that; someone correct me if I'm wrong.

    Additionally, if you're brining in $2,280/yr in passive income, and you only used $21,250 of your own money, then your return is 10.7%, which isn't bad.

    Doesn't sound like a bad deal and you could definitely have done worse. But we learn and move in. One final though, I someone had 30 properties creating passive income like this one, you'd be earning $68,000/yr. That's enough to live on.

    Ok, maybe I wasn't calculating it correctly? I had to put down 25% or $22,500 as a down payment so to buy 80 of them would have cost me $1,800,000.00 and I just don't have that kind of money :)

    I guess when I bought it I was thinking I could just put $250.00 aside each month from the rent to cover expenses and that would leave me with around $600/month positive cash flow which seemed like a good deal. Buy 4 of them over a 5-10 year period and have $2,200/month cash flow.... Maybe once I own 4 and pay them off I will get loser to those numbers. Looks like it is time for me to start working some overtime or finding another way to generate more cash.... There is a Real Estate Club that focuses on flipping houses in my city so maybe I will look into that to fund buying/paying off rental properties.

  • Investor · Cincinnati, OH · Member since 2010 · 1k+ posts · 928 votes
    12y

    Just to be clear, the rule/guidelines says that cash flow is ---> gross potential rent * 50%, minus P&I (not the full mortgage payment with escrows). Yes, the 50% expense allotment covers vacancies, operating expenses, AND capital reserves.

    So in this case, assume P&I = $340/mth, so

    1550*50%-$340 = $435/mth of cash flow.

    Your investment is probably around $23k w/ closing costs, so your cash on cash return = 435*12 divided by 23k = 22.7%. Damn good!

  • Portland, OR · Member since 2013 · 48 posts · 14 votes
    12y

    My total rent increased $150/month when the old tenant moved out and the new tenant moved in. How much would that increase the value of the duplex from an investment stand point? For the 2% rule would it increase the value of the duplex $7,500? Since the 2% rule states a rental purchased for $50,000 should have rents of at least $1,000/month. So a property purchased for $7,500 should have rents of $150/month?

  • Sheboygan, WI · Member since 2013 · 107 posts · 18 votes
    12y
    Originally posted by @Mike D.:
    Patrick is right in that the 50% rule includes management fee. It does however include CapEx as well, I believe.

    this.

    Just because it doesn't meet the rules doesn't make it bad. Not knowing your area, it is entirely possible that's as good as it gets. Where I'm looking, I would pass on that cash flow and cash on cash return, but with rough numbers, it does look right around the $100/door mark. Not bad.

    You are correct that you would need a decent number of rentals to live off of if that is your goal. Many look at it more like a retirement plan. It all depends on your goals, we are all different.

  • Sheboygan, WI · Member since 2013 · 107 posts · 18 votes
    12y

    Good catch @David Beard I didn't even notice he included tax and insurance in that. Looks a lot better now! I feel like editing out my first response now to save face ;)

    $150 more rent is potentially $1800/year... Can the other side be increased as well? May want to think about that when that lease is up. That would make this an impressive find.

  • Portland, OR · Member since 2013 · 48 posts · 14 votes
    12y
    Originally posted by @Steve Foth:
    Good catch @David Beard I didn't even notice he included tax and insurance in that. Looks a lot better now! I feel like editing out my first response now to save face ;)

    $150 more rent is potentially $1800/year... Can the other side be increased as well? May want to think about that when that lease is up. That would make this an impressive find.

    Yes, $150/month is $1,800 a year. But I was talking more about how an investor would view the value of a rental when thinking about buying it. I would think a rental that grossed $16,800/year (my old gross rent) would be worth less to an investor than a rental that grossed $18,600/year (my new gross rents). Seems like when a potential investor looking for a rental property decides how much they would pay for a property the gross rent would be a major factor. So I assume as the gross rent increases so does the value. I would think if the gross rent increased $150.00/month it would increase the purchase price value more that $1,800.00 in an investors eyes.

  • Portland, OR · Member since 2013 · 48 posts · 14 votes
    12y
    Originally posted by @Steve Foth:
    Good catch @David Beard I didn't even notice he included tax and insurance in that. Looks a lot better now! I feel like editing out my first response now to save face ;)

    $150 more rent is potentially $1800/year... Can the other side be increased as well? May want to think about that when that lease is up. That would make this an impressive find.

    One tenant lived there for 6.5 years and the other one for 4 years. So I assume the rents are lower than current market rents. The property manager managed the same property for the prior owner and said the rents have never been raised on the tenants that were in place when I purchased it.

  • Sheboygan, WI · Member since 2013 · 107 posts · 18 votes
    12y
    Originally posted by @Seth B.:
    Originally posted by @Steve Foth:
    Good catch @David Beard I didn't even notice he included tax and insurance in that. Looks a lot better now! I feel like editing out my first response now to save face ;)
    $150 more rent is potentially $1800/year... Can the other side be increased as well? May want to think about that when that lease is up. That would make this an impressive find.

    One tenant lived there for 6.5 years and the other one for 4 years. So I assume the rents are lower than current market rents. The property manager managed the same property for the prior owner and said the rents have never been raised on the tenants that were in place when I purchased it.

    That's a nice situation to be in and likely helped you get the property at the price you did. Lots of posts and articles about forcing appreciation on multi families and how it adds to your bottom line.
    http://www.biggerpockets.com/renewsblog/2013/04/16/forced-appreciation-expandability-single-multi-family/

  • REALTOR® · Bastrop, TX · Member since 2013 · 324 posts · 191 votes
    12y
    David Beard I totally missed the extras in the payment; that's what I get for trying to post from the BP app, can't see the post while I reply. Good catch sir.
  • Buy and Hold Investor · Nashville, TN · Member since 2013 · 264 posts · 102 votes
    12y

    Dude, I have to request that you readjust your mindset. You bought a fully occupied duplex THAT CASHFLOWS(!), and you have the opportunity to increase rents already, AND you did it all without the biggest RE investor resource in the world (biggerpockets).

    You should be turning cartwheels right now! As lots of the pros around here say, real estate isn't a get rich quick scheme. You're creating passive income. Even if your cash flow remains at 132/month (which I think it's been shown that that's a miscalculation), that is essentially free money. I have 25k in the stock market, and it's not returning dividends of 150 bucks a month. Nor is my asset potentially appreciation (not that you'd want to count on that, but Portland is a strong market).

    Now that you know about bp and the 50% rule, and you're getting the real world experience of owning your first investment property, the next deal you do will be even better. In a few years, you might decide to cash out of this duplex and reallocate that capital elsewhere. In the meantime, I call it a solid double up the middle. Congrats!

  • Rental Property Investor · Broomfield, CO · Member since 2013 · 29 posts · 3 votes
    12y

    @Seth B. How much do insurance and taxes take up of the $585? These costs are part of the expected expenses the rule is accounting for. You only need to subtract the principal and interest once you have divided by 2.

    Also how long did you amortize the loan for? If you have a shorter term on the note it can make your short term numbers look lower but it will be paid off sooner.

    Your numbers on the surface look pretty good and don't forget the 50% rule is just a rule of thumb which can be affected by numerous factors.

  • Real Estate Investor · Austin, TX · Member since 2009 · 171 posts · 46 votes
    12y

    @Seth B.

    To calculate the cash flow with the 50% rule, you'd take 50% of the rent which would be $775 and subtract your monthly principal and interest payment. The remainder is a very rough estimate of your cash flow.

    The 50% takes into account expenses such as management, insurance and taxes so you were subtracting it twice.

  • Jerry W.Pro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Thermopolis, WY · Member since 2012 · 4k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    12y

    @Seth B. , I have your cash flow at $190 per month. I have seen property management fees be included in your 50% and I have seen it taken out before doing your 50% calculation. Looks good.

  • Investor · Clairemont, CA · Member since 2011 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    12y

    You seem to have gone a little over conservative. I plugged your numbers into my basic spread sheet and this is what I came up with:

    Purchase $85,000

    Down payment $21,250

    Closing costs $2,550

    Interest rate 5.00% (just a guess on my part)

    Term 360 months (30 year)

    Rent $1550

    Net rent (50%) $775 (includes taxes, insurance and management)

    Principal/int pmt $342.22

    Net monthly cash flow $409.94 or $204.97 per door

    Cash on cash return 20.67%

    All in all I'd say you're doing awesome especially on a first purchase. And with a 20% return I'd bet your beating any stock/mutual fund return out there.

    Also your numbers may be better considering that your management is only 7% and I project 12% (10% per month and 1 month lease up fee). This also doesn't take into consideration your principal paydown and deductions. I personally don't include those and consider them icing on the cake.

    As was mentioned earlier if you chose a shorter amortization on the loan that may short your cash flow but you'll build equity quicker so it may be something you evaluate for your analysis since it will definitely impact your cash flow today, but that is all dependent on what your goals are.

  • Ned CareyPro Member
    Moderator
    Investor · Baltimore, MD · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 13k+ votes
    12y

    My computer locked up before I could finish my post but others have already answered.

    I will say there are a lot of landlords only making $1200-20000 a year per property. With high leverage on average deals that cash flow can be pretty low. That doesn't work for me but 20 years from now those properties will be free and clear. With inflation of both values and rents they will look like geniuses.

  • Investor · Santa Barbara, CA · Member since 2013 · 658 posts · 315 votes
    12y

    As others have said, the 50% rule allows you to do a 5 minute analysis of a property you are interested in and quickly move on if it isn't close to working. If it works with the 50% rule then you spend the time to find the real expenses and get a much more accurate projected cash flow. Now that you own the property and especially now that you have owned it for a while you can plug in the real numbers.

  • J. MartinPro Member
    Rental Property Investor · Oakland, CA · Member since 2011 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    12y

    On top of all this, you can start estimating a lot more of your specific expenses once you've owned it for a while. How much are the utilities you pay? How old is the property, and in what condition/quality? How are your tenants? Then you can go through and start inventorying what you will need to purchase over the longer term, add some cushion for unexpected repairs, and keep some cash on hand. But I like to estimate a range of returns, rather than say it's going to be right at this.. or that..

    An interesting word of advice I heard in my 9-5 job when estimating/modeling potential profit. Calculations that are 'precise' are not necessarily better! Having it down to the dollar (or even cents in your estimate) over simplifies the reality of the situation. When I estimate my potential profit, I use 5 columns on the spreadsheet to estimate a range of potential costs and profit. The middle is what I consider most likely, but I realize that they might be a bit or significantly higher. Or maybe a bit lower over time. But I know those ranges of maintenance/reserves will generate me an ROE of 8-12% on average, depending on where they fall, unless there's a real outlier..

    I think saying that it's going to produce $190/unit in profit or a 20% ROE or $135.75, while the 50% is a useful rule of thumb, doesn't really acknowledge the reality that it often will fall above or below this. When you estimate a range of plausible outcomes, you can have an increased probability that your actual outcome will fall within that range. So if you are comfortable with the lower end of that range if expenses are higher than you thought, you can have a higher level of comfort that you'll still be OK.

    If a little bit of extra maintenance/reserves quickly causes your profit to vanish, give that some thought also. This analysis doesn't have to be anything crazy, but simply use twice the expense/sqft, some lower rents, or whatever you think is a plausible risk/benefit, and copy and paste the rest of your figures/formulas to calculate an ROE for each of them. Just my .0239274 cents!...

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