The 2% Rule doesn't work 50% of the time

The 2% Rule doesn't work 50% of the time

Investor · Nevada City, CA · Member since 2010 · 13 posts · 13 votes

Ok I have acquired over 120 units of rental property and have used the following rules: 1) Purchase properties in areas that have a geographic Impediment to growth. 2) Don't purchase a property that you wouldn't be willing to live in. 3) Make sure it cash flows when you buy it. Because of the economic downturn of the last couple of years I have added a couple of more rules 4) Only buy in name brand cities 5) only buy properties for less then replacement cost.

Now for the heresy part. I use a 1% rule. I'm not saying this is the only way to make money but it has worked for me.

Let me explain the rules a little: 1) and 2) work hand in hand. A geographic impediment to growth is something like an ocean, a lake, a mountain, a river. The best is a Peninsula. San Francisco is a good example of this. As far as rule number two goes there are two different axioms that go along with this. First off is that I'm assuming that you want to live somewhere you like. If you like it then other people will like it too and it will grow. Secondly if you are willing to live there then you are probably comfortable with the people who live there and understand them well enough. The reason for these rules is that if you have limited space and more people who want to live there then there is room for then rents will go up.

The third rule is all about cash flow. Don't pay for someone else's idea. Oh this will be great if you put a new roof on and then paint it and add new carpet it will rent for $500. Look at what it is getting for rent now and then pay what it is worth right now as is. I use a complex formula I look at all expenses and compare the expenses to similar buildings and if they are in the range then I use them. If they are too low I use averages. If they are too high I try to figure out why they are high and then use the high numbers and go in with a plan to lower those expenses. For instance on the latest building I bought the water bill is running $28k a year. That was higher then the average for the area. As I inspected the building I found out why the water bill was so high -- leaky faucets and 5.5 gallon per flush toilets and no low flow shower heads. I figure I can cut the water usage in half by replacing the toilets with 1.6 gallon toilets, fixing leaks and adding low flow shower heads. That saves $14k a year and will cost me $12.6k. Payback time 1 year. When I buy a building the expenses run around 45% to 50%. After I have owned the building for three years or so they run at 32% to 37%. This is partly due to raising the rent and partly due to decreasing the expenses.

Now I only buy in name brand cities. There have to be jobs I am avoiding secondary and terciary markets b/c I don't know what the economy is going to do.

I figure if I can buy something for less then it costs to replace a unit then there are not going to be a lot of people building new units. If it costs $175k per unit to build a unit (not a high figure in CA metro areas) and I can just cash flow buying at $86k a unit the market isn't going to be flooded with new units.

So now the 1% rule. Every where that I buy buildings have rents closing in an average of $1k per month. I don't look at a building unless it is close to a cost of monthly rent times 1000. I think the math is the same as a 1% rule. I get a lot of calls from Realtors and they say that deals like I want are hard to find in California. I agree they are.

At this point in my career I can ask my property management firm what the average expenses are supposed to be. They have 1000's of units under management and know the numbers off the top of their heads. Before I had to beg the numbers off of appraisers or other property owners.

Between appreciation and cash flow I have done well. Right now the goal is to use money I have to invest to build some speculative, buy some wholesale or flip properties and take the profit pay off the buildings I have so that I own them outright. At that point I won't have to work any harder then I want to.

So what is your investment strategy?

9Reply
23 views

Most Popular Reply

Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
16y

Charlie, what do you mean by "name brand" cities? Do you just look for big cities or cities that are expected to grow or cities with job creation? Or something else?

If you had used your current system to buy properties in 1980, which cities would you have invested in? How would you have known to avoid the declining cities in the Mid-West?

See this reply in the discussion

16 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Investor · Westminster, CO · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    16y

    Charlie
    I agree with pretty much everything you are saying except for the growth impediment. While I do own property in Southern California, I also own property in Phoenix, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Tulsa. I like the job markets in these "name brand" cities.

    I strongly agree with the 1% rule IF the house is less than 10 years old and sits in a strong middle class neighborhood. I just spent exactly $700,000 on 5 houses and gross rents are $6,800. When the leases renew within the next few months (3 of them already had tenants), it will be $7,000 a month. I am very pleased with these purchases as all of them are 5 years old or newer. As for the $1,000 a month or more in rents, I really like that because you have a higher quality tenant. Tenants that pay $500 a month rent are just not my cup o tea.

    Oh yea, I like your last name!!

  • Real Estate Investor · Chattanooga, TN · Member since 2010 · 151 posts · 59 votes
    16y

    It seems to me that there are 2 ways of approaching real estate investing.
    The first focuses on using a strategy to create value such as short sale, subject-to etc. You use a creative strategy to create equity or complete a sale and create revenue. It really doesn't matter where these properties are located as long as the strategy can create some sort of value.
    The second method focuses more on macro-economic trends such as the ones descibed in this forum topic. It's a bit like floating downstream. It doesn't really matter what type of boat you are using, you will move with the current.

  • Landlord · Seattle, WA · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    16y

    I can see the value in these rules. Obviously if an area is bounded by some type of barrier there will be limits to the extent of possible growth. These limits can increase the demand for existing RE if the area is growing and running out of growing space.

  • Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    16y

    Charlie, what do you mean by "name brand" cities? Do you just look for big cities or cities that are expected to grow or cities with job creation? Or something else?

    If you had used your current system to buy properties in 1980, which cities would you have invested in? How would you have known to avoid the declining cities in the Mid-West?

  • Lender · Fort Pierce, FL · Member since 2009 · 825 posts · 486 votes
    16y

    One of Will Rogers' best quotes is

    "Buy stocks that go up. If they don't go up, don't buy them."

    While this quote makes fun of common sense, it also raises the issue of what makes the stock price (asset price) go up?

    Charlie, et al are just pointing out what each believe give their asset of choice - Real Estate - a better than average chance of rising prices.

    Of course, who else thinks of those factors ... and thought of them first?

  • Investor · Nevada City, CA · Member since 2010 · 13 posts · 13 votes
    16y

    Mike: You have a great last name.LOL I like the impediment to growth rule because it provides the greatest chance for appreciation. Because of the rule I wouldn't have invested in Phoenix, That has cost me some good investments but also saved me from mistakes.
    Edwin: There are lots of ways to create value in RE. The key is to find one that works for the area you are in at that particular time.
    Charles: That is definitley the key. Until lately I have invested in RE as a sideline to with the payoff being five to ten years down the road.
    Vikram: Name brand Cities are cities that show up on large scale maps with dots. I also like a diversified economy. I was just getting out of high school in the 80's so I don't know where I would have invested but since I lived in San Francisco I imagine it would have been there.

  • Real Estate Investor · Elkhorn, WI · Member since 2008 · 453 posts · 104 votes
    16y

    Now only imagine if you were buying using a 3% rule, which is what I am doing now. How much more cash flow would you have every month?

  • Investor · Albuquerque, NM · Member since 2009 · 118 posts · 43 votes
    16y

    So, name brand cities, the "ones that show up as dots on the maps" could mean any larger city because the population is the main criterion that cartographers use. So, the rust belt may have shown "dots" but have been a bad investment.

    I own a rental in Marfa TX which doesnt show up on any maps ;-) but is appreciating for other reasons.

    Otherwise I agree with your post. The impediment to growth thing rings true here in ABQ where we are bounded by mountains and pueblos.

    Thanks for sharing,
    M

  • Investor · Nevada City, CA · Member since 2010 · 13 posts · 13 votes
    16y

    Here is an article that I found interesting in the WSJ. One of the things that I found particularly frightening was the the little tidbit "More landlords are expected to follow suit. Of the $1.4 trillion of commercial real estate debt coming due by the end of 2014, roughly 52% is attached to properties that are underwater, according to debt-analysis company Trepp LLC. Also, as the economy recovery sputters, owners of struggling properties are realizing that they aren't going to get rescued anytime soon by an increase in value." Here is a link to the entire article. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703447004575449803607666216.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_business If these big properties get foreclosed and there are lots of job losses b/c of it. Then what is going to happen to our economy?

  • Investor · Albuquerque, NM · Member since 2009 · 118 posts · 43 votes
    16y

    Interesting WSJ article Charlie. So what do you think this trend of walking away from mortgages means exactly?

    Also found this quote to be funny: "Banking-industry officials and others have argued that homeowners have a moral obligation to pay their debts even when it seems to make good business sense to default." Yeah, right!

  • Real Estate Investor · Hartville, OH · Member since 2010 · 148 posts · 174 votes
    16y
    Originally posted by Mark B:

    Also found this quote to be funny: "Banking-industry officials and others have argued that homeowners have a moral obligation to pay their debts even when it seems to make good business sense to default." Yeah, right!

    I fully recognize that my perspective might be considered old fashioned, but in my mind if you borrow money you pay it back. That's regardless if you borrowed 10 bucks from your friend or 250K from the bank.

    No I'm not a banker nor do I have any particular love for banks in general but in my mind there is a moral obligation to live up to the promises you make.

  • Lexington, KY · Member since 2010 · 315 posts · 133 votes
    16y

    I agree with you Joe, but if the banks are foreclosing on you then you don't need to continue paying. If the bank is allowing you to stay in your home and keeping their end of the deal then you should certainly continue to pay it back.

    I think the name brand cities idea is controversial. Although I agree, as mentioned by others, rust belt cities have not appreciated well. But rust belt cities offer some of the highest cash flow returns, so it depends upon your perspective. Also, living in Lexington, KY make sme realize that knowing a market well is the key, I know that my city is growing and prospering and the perihperal towns around me offer good ivnestment potential as well. It is hard to make a blanket statement. Small town investments where you've never heard the name of the city can be just as good as name brand ones.

  • Investor · Albuquerque, NM · Member since 2009 · 118 posts · 43 votes
    16y


    I fully recognize that my perspective might be considered old fashioned, but in my mind if you borrow money you pay it back. That's regardless if you borrowed 10 bucks from your friend or 250K from the bank.


    Just to be clear, I totally agree Joe. I just find it to be comical considering the lack of moral responsibility that is running rampant in our country. Most people will just do what works best for their pocketbook in our it's-not-my-fault culture.

  • Real Estate Investor · Chicago, IL · Member since 2008 · 122 posts · 46 votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Mike M:
    Charlie
    I agree with pretty much everything you are saying except for the growth impediment. While I do own property in Southern California, I also own property in Phoenix, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Tulsa. I like the job markets in these "name brand" cities.

    I strongly agree with the 1% rule IF the house is less than 10 years old and sits in a strong middle class neighborhood. I just spent exactly $700,000 on 5 houses and gross rents are $6,800. When the leases renew within the next few months (3 of them already had tenants), it will be $7,000 a month. I am very pleased with these purchases as all of them are 5 years old or newer. As for the $1,000 a month or more in rents, I really like that because you have a higher quality tenant. Tenants that pay $500 a month rent are just not my cup o tea.

    Oh yea, I like your last name!!

    You hit the nail on the head. I think most people getting significantly more than the "1% rule" are purchashing properties in undesirable areas with suspect tenants and built-in functional obsolescence.

  • Residential Real Estate Agent · Hattiesburg, MS · Member since 2011 · 475 posts · 141 votes
    15y
    Originally posted by Kyle Koller:
    Originally posted by Mike M:
    Charlie
    I agree with pretty much everything you are saying except for the growth impediment. While I do own property in Southern California, I also own property in Phoenix, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Tulsa. I like the job markets in these "name brand" cities.

    I strongly agree with the 1% rule IF the house is less than 10 years old and sits in a strong middle class neighborhood. I just spent exactly $700,000 on 5 houses and gross rents are $6,800. When the leases renew within the next few months (3 of them already had tenants), it will be $7,000 a month. I am very pleased with these purchases as all of them are 5 years old or newer. As for the $1,000 a month or more in rents, I really like that because you have a higher quality tenant. Tenants that pay $500 a month rent are just not my cup o tea.

    Oh yea, I like your last name!!

    You hit the nail on the head. I think most people getting significantly more than the "1% rule" are purchashing properties in undesirable areas with suspect tenants and built-in functional obsolescence.

    I 2nd that... Rents are just too low in most parts of the country.

    There is no way to build a new rental and obtain 2% in my market. It's extremely hard to buy foreclosures that will meet that criteria...

    If people had to actually save 15-20% in order to buy a house the rental rates would be much higher IMO... Home Ownership is just tooo cheap

  • Orlando, FL · Member since 2009 · 2k+ posts · 282 votes
    15y

    You can definitely find things in between 1% and 2% in my area, but it seems to apply the 2% rule you either need to buy in the "inner city" or way out in the sticks, or have some kind of inside connection that most people don't have...maybe a new rule--the 1.5% rule?

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