How I’ve Been Thinking About Market Selection (Separate from Deal Analysis)

How I’ve Been Thinking About Market Selection (Separate from Deal Analysis)

Scotts Valley, CA · Member since 2018 · 46 posts · 11 votes

HI - 

I’ve always found “best markets” discussions a little unsatisfying.

It often feels like people are talking past each other — appreciation vs cash flow vs risk tolerance — and the answer is always some version of “it depends,” which is true, but not very actionable.

Over time, I’ve come to think part of the problem is that we often mix deal analysis and market selection into the same conversation.

For myself, I started trying to separate the two:

  • Market selection: Which cities even belong in the conversation?

  • Deal analysis: What to buy once you’ve chosen a market

This post is about the first one only.

Instead of asking “what’s the best market?”, I started asking a slightly different question:

As a starting point, I built what I think of as a balanced lens — not optimized for max cash flow or pure appreciation, but something that tolerates tradeoffs and avoids extremes.

The idea was to compare cities relative to one another, rather than arguing whether a single metric is “good” or “bad” in absolute terms.

The dimensions I ended up looking at were things like:

  • Home prices relative to national norms

  • Rent affordability (rent vs income)

  • Employment diversity

  • Liquidity indicators (days on market, inventory)

  • Structural friction (e.g. landlord-friendly vs tenant-friendly states)

Everything is scored relative to the set of cities being compared, and then stack-ranked. No claim that this produces “the answer” — just a way to make tradeoffs explicit.

I eventually put this into a spreadsheet so I could sanity-check my intuition. What surprised me wasn’t the rankings themselves, but how often the exercise surfaced where my gut feeling disagreed with the data — and forced me to explain why.

At least for me, that’s been more valuable than chasing a single “top market” list.

I’m curious how others here think about this:

  • Do you start with a preferred strategy and narrow markets from there?

  • Or do you pick a market first and adapt your strategy around it?

Would be interested to hear how others approach market selection before getting into individual deals.

2Reply
185 views

Most Popular Reply

Member since 2022 · 11 posts · 6 votes
8mo

I think you’ve hit on the most important distinction that out-of-state investors miss—separating the 'market' from the 'block.' You can find a 'great deal' on a spreadsheet in a city like Seattle or Philly, but if the hyper-local lifestyle drivers aren't there, the exit becomes a gamble.

For the Neighborhood Discovery phase, I’ve been mapping what I call 'Lifestyle Anchors'—specific commerce density (coffee clusters, specialty retail) and connectivity shifts (like transit expansions)—against current price points.

I've found that identifying the 'Vibe Gap' (the distance between a neighborhood's current price and its actual lifestyle trajectory) reveals the specific blocks that are truly catching up to the city's macro growth. It moves the needle from just 'buying the city' to 'buying the street.'

How are you weighting 'Structural Friction' against the risk of neighborhood transience? In high-growth pockets, I've noticed the 'typical tenant' profile can shift much faster than the historical census data suggests.

See this reply in the discussion

12 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Arman AhmedPro Member
    Real Estate Agent · Columbus Cleveland Dayton, OH · Member since 2024 · 2k+ posts · 917 votes
    8mo

    @Erik Perotti

    In my experience, Midwest markets often score well when you balance pricing, rent affordability, employment diversity, and liquidity. These areas consistently offer strong tradeoffs with reasonably priced homes, solid cash flow, and investor-friendly environments. Comparing markets side by side like this not only clarifies tradeoffs but also highlights where gut instinct and data align, making strategy and execution much more confident.

  • Member since 2022 · 11 posts · 6 votes
    8mo

    I think you’ve hit on the most important distinction that out-of-state investors miss—separating the 'market' from the 'block.' You can find a 'great deal' on a spreadsheet in a city like Seattle or Philly, but if the hyper-local lifestyle drivers aren't there, the exit becomes a gamble.

    For the Neighborhood Discovery phase, I’ve been mapping what I call 'Lifestyle Anchors'—specific commerce density (coffee clusters, specialty retail) and connectivity shifts (like transit expansions)—against current price points.

    I've found that identifying the 'Vibe Gap' (the distance between a neighborhood's current price and its actual lifestyle trajectory) reveals the specific blocks that are truly catching up to the city's macro growth. It moves the needle from just 'buying the city' to 'buying the street.'

    How are you weighting 'Structural Friction' against the risk of neighborhood transience? In high-growth pockets, I've noticed the 'typical tenant' profile can shift much faster than the historical census data suggests.

    • Scotts Valley, CA · Member since 2018 · 46 posts · 11 votes
      8mo

       Right. This is an interesting relationship you call out. Realtors I know describe this as the shoulders, a new baseball field goes in, and the halo extends 5 blocks. But what’s happening 8 blocks away? It doesn’t have its own identity so it’s in flux until some influence gains dominance.  

      I’m not overly concerned at the neighborhood level in this model- as others have pointed out, local expertise can help with local current events. I’ve also used

      richblockspoorblocks.com/ and major employer data to try to get my bearings as well

  • Calvin OzanickBusiness Member
    Property Manager · Janesville, WI · Member since 2017 · 707 posts · 297 votes
    8mo

    This is a great way of looking at it. We have seen investors do incredibly well in secondary and tertiary markets to first class cities. The market we reside it is located within an hour of 4 major metro areas. The lake effect created gives major benefits to areas in between. 

    I think another major key is to look for markets where private investment is matching or exceeding public investment. When you have people who invest in the market, the government follow. Not always the other way around. 

    I would love to share a bit more about our market if you had questions about how it might be a good fit!

    Wisconsin Property Managers4.7412 Reviews
  • Bo SmithPro Member
    Hinton, WV · Member since 2026 · 1k+ posts · 373 votes
    7mo
    Quote from @Erik Perotti:

    HI - 

    I’ve always found “best markets” discussions a little unsatisfying.

    It often feels like people are talking past each other — appreciation vs cash flow vs risk tolerance — and the answer is always some version of “it depends,” which is true, but not very actionable.

    Over time, I’ve come to think part of the problem is that we often mix deal analysis and market selection into the same conversation.

    For myself, I started trying to separate the two:

    • Market selection: Which cities even belong in the conversation?

    • Deal analysis: What to buy once you’ve chosen a market

    This post is about the first one only.

    Instead of asking “what’s the best market?”, I started asking a slightly different question:

    As a starting point, I built what I think of as a balanced lens — not optimized for max cash flow or pure appreciation, but something that tolerates tradeoffs and avoids extremes.

    The idea was to compare cities relative to one another, rather than arguing whether a single metric is “good” or “bad” in absolute terms.

    The dimensions I ended up looking at were things like:

    • Home prices relative to national norms

    • Rent affordability (rent vs income)

    • Employment diversity

    • Liquidity indicators (days on market, inventory)

    • Structural friction (e.g. landlord-friendly vs tenant-friendly states)

    Everything is scored relative to the set of cities being compared, and then stack-ranked. No claim that this produces “the answer” — just a way to make tradeoffs explicit.

    I eventually put this into a spreadsheet so I could sanity-check my intuition. What surprised me wasn’t the rankings themselves, but how often the exercise surfaced where my gut feeling disagreed with the data — and forced me to explain why.

    At least for me, that’s been more valuable than chasing a single “top market” list.

    I’m curious how others here think about this:

    • Do you start with a preferred strategy and narrow markets from there?

    • Or do you pick a market first and adapt your strategy around it?

    Would be interested to hear how others approach market selection before getting into individual deals.

    This is solid thinking. One thing I'd add: once you narrow down to 3-4 markets using your framework, test them with actual deal flow before committing. I pick one zip code in each market and run 20-30 properties through basic numbers - what percentage even hit your buy box? Sometimes a market looks great on paper but 90% of deals are overpriced. Have you backtested your top markets against actual available inventory?
    • Scotts Valley, CA · Member since 2018 · 46 posts · 11 votes
      7mo
      Quote from @Bo Smith:

      Yes. Exactly. The other questions that I try to sort out are:
      Is this market is stable, or are there other factors at play?
      is this too good to be true? I once found a great looking market (near a military base within driving distance for a friend) only to find out it was basically a superfund site.

  • Bo SmithPro Member
    Hinton, WV · Member since 2026 · 1k+ posts · 373 votes
    7mo

    This is solid - separating market vs deal analysis makes total sense. One thing I'd add: micro-markets matter just as much. Wrong neighborhood kills even the right city. Do you dig into specific zip codes after narrowing cities?

  • Scotts Valley, CA · Member since 2018 · 46 posts · 11 votes
    7mo

    Yes, you are totally getting my logic, Bo. My theory is to zoom in, not start zoomed in.

    1. At the outermost lens, what markets look favorable compared to other markets? Why? 

    What could change that to be even more advantageous? <- what I am most interested in right now.

    2. At 2x magnification, what neighborhoods within that metro or metros are most interesting (currently) and best positioned for something known but not priced in yet.

    3. At 3x, what deals are out there (given the framing above)?

    I could start this at the regional level, just haven't done that yet. For example, Ohio/Illinois/Indiana vs the Carolinas. Or within some radius of where I live, if I wanted to self manage.

  • Investor · Member since 2026 · 38 posts · 40 votes
    7mo

    Really appreciate this framing, Erik. Separating market selection from deal analysis is something I wish I'd internalized earlier in my research process.

    I've been going through this exact exercise targeting Midwest markets from New York, and the thing that surprised me most was how much the "macro looks great" narrative can hide at the zip code level. A market can check every box on population growth, rent-to-price ratio, employer diversity - but when you dig into specifics like local housing authority performance or how PM contracts are actually structured in that market, the risk profile shifts significantly. The gap between the city-level story and the neighborhood-level reality is where I think most OOS investors get hurt.

    Your point about lifestyle arbitrage is interesting - I've been thinking about a similar concept but from the risk side. Which markets have structural vulnerabilities that the standard "top markets" lists don't capture? That filter has been more useful for me than any cash flow calculator.

    • Scotts Valley, CA · Member since 2018 · 46 posts · 11 votes
      7mo
      Quote from @Spence W.:

      Really appreciate this framing, Erik. Separating market selection from deal analysis is something I wish I'd internalized earlier in my research process.

      I've been going through this exact exercise targeting Midwest markets from New York, and the thing that surprised me most was how much the "macro looks great" narrative can hide at the zip code level. A market can check every box on population growth, rent-to-price ratio, employer diversity - but when you dig into specifics like local housing authority performance or how PM contracts are actually structured in that market, the risk profile shifts significantly. The gap between the city-level story and the neighborhood-level reality is where I think most OOS investors get hurt.

      Your point about lifestyle arbitrage is interesting - I've been thinking about a similar concept but from the risk side. Which markets have structural vulnerabilities that the standard "top markets" lists don't capture? That filter has been more useful for me than any cash flow calculator.

      Love this. I’ve included the idea of ‘investibility’ - which I made up, but addresses this. My definition: the degree to which a market can absorb capital consistently and protect it through cycles, not just produce short-term return. That, combined with risk, tells you a lot. 
  • Member since 2025 · 91 posts · 55 votes
    7mo

    @Erik Perotti love @Spence W.'s point. Well said! I can't tell you how many people I know who invested in the wrong property in the right area. For example, my colleague bought a great duplex in Ohio with an existing tenant....and they turned out to be completely unsuitable, doing considerable property damage before finally being evicted. It turned out to be much more challenging than she realized because there was a very poorly managed apartment complex across the street that had a growing reputation for criminal activity. Sometimes it's not even zip code level...it's block by block! 

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