Skip to content
×
Pro Members Get
Full Access!
Get off the sidelines and take action in real estate investing with BiggerPockets Pro. Our comprehensive suite of tools and resources minimize mistakes, support informed decisions, and propel you to success.
Advanced networking features
Market and Deal Finder tools
Property analysis calculators
Landlord Command Center
ANNUAL Save 16%
$32.50 /mo
$390 billed annualy
MONTHLY
$39 /mo
billed monthly
7 day free trial. Cancel anytime
×
Try Pro Features for Free
Start your 7 day free trial. Pick markets, find deals, analyze and manage properties.
All Forum Categories
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

All Forum Posts by: Matt Mason

Matt Mason has started 4 posts and replied 229 times.

Post: An investor in the Inland Empire but not investing in the IE...Whaaaa?

Matt MasonPosted
  • Investor
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Posts 231
  • Votes 260
Originally posted by @Marco Santarelli:

@Christopher Brainard

All good points Christopher.

To illustrate one example: The Los Angeles area market has seen about a 34% price increase since January 2012.  Whereas rents have only increased about 12% in the same time frame.

Also the rent-to-value ratio there is a low 0.046%.  We want at least 1% or more before we even start to consider other factors.

"Live Where You Want. Invest Where it Makes Sense!"  :-)

 I'd love to see a source on the 12% increase in rents over the last 3.5 years in Los Angeles.  From my experience and everyone I know and any data I have seen, it has been much more than that.

Post: California Proposition 13 vs. Texas (Long-Term Hold)

Matt MasonPosted
  • Investor
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Posts 231
  • Votes 260

Keep in mind you will pay the income tax in your state of residence no matter where the property is located.  You would just get a credit for any income taxes paid to another state on your own state return.  Basically, you would pay the Texas Property Tax and CA Income Tax if you held Texas property as a CA resident, which is pretty much the worst of both worlds.

Post: Rehabbing Kitchen Estimate - is this a fair price?

Matt MasonPosted
  • Investor
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Posts 231
  • Votes 260

No real opinion on the costs, but you might not be as far off necessarily as some suggest. I think you will find compared to the middle of the country, labor costs will be quite a bit higher in LA, but materials often won't and sometimes might even be a little less.  Take granite and cabinets.  In Los Angeles, it comes right off the ship and after a very short truck trip is ready to go.  For the middle of the country, you have got to get it put on a combo of trucks and trains and sent across the country and shipping costs by weight add up pretty quickly on really heavy items like granite slabs.

Post: Best of the worst neighborhoods nearest Westwood/UCLA

Matt MasonPosted
  • Investor
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Posts 231
  • Votes 260
Originally posted by @Account Closed:

My youngest is transferring to UCLA in the fall.  Our kid's friends who have attended  usually rented in Westwood. But their parent's were willing to spend way more money than I probably am.  I mean like WAY more.  I'd buy something before I'd spend that kind of money on a college rental in So Cal. Also, my daughter doesn't desire to be on or have a need to be that near campus.  

I like Echo Park and Silver Lake but those are pretty distant when considering traffic.  For those of you in the LA area, what's the closest worst neighborhoods you would consider buying in if it were your daughter? It doesn't have to be the worst neighborhood, of course. Just the cheapest.  :)

UCLA students often spend the big bucks to live in Westwood walking distance to campus or in the case of the less well off ones often go to Palms for cheaper housing and Palms also has several SM Bug Blue Bus lines that go straight to UCLA.  It is a little bit of an up and coming area and has a new metro rail line opening next year that ironically will bring some USC students.  

On the con side, it is still somewhat expensive given its Westside location despite being a little dumpy (full of 60's and 70's apartment buildings some of which are fading), and it has a little crime here and there including a high profile murder a week or so ago.

Echo Park, Silver Lake and anything in the Valley would just be too far or too much traffic for me, but some people have more time to waste or patience than myself so each to their own.

I assume you are looking for a condo?

Post: Los Angeles: Where do I buy?

Matt MasonPosted
  • Investor
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Posts 231
  • Votes 260
Originally posted by @Julian L.:
Originally posted by @Will F.:
Originally posted by :

@mattmason

On 90016, I own an income property north of the 10 Freeway (Mid-City).  There are still quite a few properties that need rehab.  Like most of LA, the real money is in value add, which I agree can be a little intimidating for a newbie, especially with the big numbers and RSO in LA.  For the neighborhood, the good is that Mid-City to the North along Pico continues to improve.  Culver City is just a mile or so to the West and this part of CC is about to really go to the next level.  Just to the South, the Expo Line Phase II is opening next year and will provide a 20 minute stress free ride to Santa Monica, which is a game changer IMHO because there is no other affordable areas near SM that can come close to that commute.  The bad is that there is really not much of a walking commercial street here so it is kind of a spillover neighborhood.  Also, this area used to be a swamp (La Cienaga means swamp in Spanish) and does not do well in major earthquakes - liquefication...

 @mattmason

I've seen north of the 10 freeway mentioned quite a few times in the Mid City area.  What do you think of areas South of the 10 freeway for long term/value-ad/ buy and hold investing?  

 This... what about like Hauser and Adams or La Ceinega or Jefferson? 

I am not as familiar with South of the Freeway.  The Freeway represents a major dividing line, because everything south of it is considered South Los Angeles to some degree.  It can be a little rougher around the edges down there.  I did have a friend that lived in Village Green and that was quite nice, but you tell people you are going down there and some think you are going to the moon.  However, this area is right along the Expo Line and is still very close to Culver City.  It has some potential.

Post: Los Angeles: Where do I buy?

Matt MasonPosted
  • Investor
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Posts 231
  • Votes 260

@Julian L.

I hear you about a condo. Only makes sense if you are going to stay at least 7-8 years but preferably longer. Keep in mind a $300-$400 HOA fee really isn't too crazy as that should cover your water, sewer, some insurance, gardening, and outside electricity among other things. You are going to have pay those things yourself on a house. The real bite is looking out for assessments on top of that for major deferred maintenance and capital items that may exist. A lot of condo HOAs are dysfunctional messes.

I am a bit lucky in that I have lived in the same 4 unit townhome complex for 16 years and we have a simple structure and I control 25% of the vote. The downside is that I have to run a lot of the HOA duties or they probably won't get done. The advice I have taken to heart on condos is either go small (4 or 5 units where you can control things) or go really big like over 100 units where they can afford professional management and a few bad apples don't muck things up and there is a big base to spread capital costs over.

On 90016, I own an income property north of the 10 Freeway (Mid-City).  There are still quite a few properties that need rehab.  Like most of LA, the real money is in value add, which I agree can be a little intimidating for a newbie, especially with the big numbers and RSO in LA.  For the neighborhood, the good is that Mid-City to the North along Pico continues to improve.  Culver City is just a mile or so to the West and this part of CC is about to really go to the next level.  Just to the South, the Expo Line Phase II is opening next year and will provide a 20 minute stress free ride to Santa Monica, which is a game changer IMHO because there is no other affordable areas near SM that can come close to that commute.  The bad is that there is really not much of a walking commercial street here so it is kind of a spillover neighborhood.  Also, this area used to be a swamp (La Cienaga means swamp in Spanish) and does not do well in major earthquakes - liquefication...

Post: Will Barnard Speaking in March.

Matt MasonPosted
  • Investor
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Posts 231
  • Votes 260
Originally posted by @Jesse Zhu:

I'd love to come. But finish work late, by the time I get there, the meeting is probably almost over. I wish it could be recorded.

FIBI does record them on audio and you can listen if you go to their website.  I make a few of them in person and if I can't make it, I try to listen to the audio, especially if the speakers and topic are relevant for me.  Even though I am not a flipper, I have rehabbed some and I am planning on making this one.

Post: Cash Flow or Appreciation: What the numbers say

Matt MasonPosted
  • Investor
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Posts 231
  • Votes 260
Originally posted by @Dooreuhn Cee:
Originally posted by @Jay Y.:

I also own properties on the coast and the Midwest and I'll elaborate a bit on my own experience...

I don't think it's as straight-forward as to say it's purely cash flow vs. appreciation, pick one or the other. In the Bay Area, yes, I've seen a ton of appreciation, but not just on the value of the home, but the rent as well. So, even if you start off Day 1 in the Bay Area and the property is  break-even, it won't take long until the cash flow picks up. I bought a Santa Clara property in 2013 and at the time market rent was $2150. Today, it's about $2600.... and climbing.

I also picked up a home in Indianapolis in 2013, and it was leased up for $1075... Today, it's renting for... $1075... Where will rents be in 2-3 years time? Maybe $1100? So, even though the cash flow appeared more solid on Day 1, it took little to no time for my Bay Area property to catch up and outperform. Not to mention way better tenants, and much easier exit strategy...

What I've really learned is you can't beat location. If you buy in the right areas, you can have it all... 

I own in both markets as well.

I moved to the San Jose of the Bay Area in 2001 and my rent was $2,500 and it was a fair market price (dot com boom).  In 2002 (or 2003), I renegotiated my rent to $2,150 (dot com bust); although market value was $2,000 the cost of move made me stay.  So rent appreciation can be unstable.

Today is, I think, the absolute highest peak that rents have ever been in the Bay Area.  Another indicator of possible instability.  Better buckle up.  I got into San Jose real estate market in 2004 and had a similar experience as you in prices going up up up.  You already know the rest of that story.

Finally, the hypothetical presented here assumes $0 equity appreciation in the midwest, along with $0 rent appreciation on the coast, for simplicity.  Your analysis only  erodes one side of that assumption without acknowledging the fact that midwest properties will appreciate.  In fact, IMO, midwest will outpace coastal equity appreciation because coastal markets are back to near peak values (at least in the Bay Area), while midwest homes are still drastically discounted from peak values (in particular the areas that you and I invest).

Therefore, I am personally shying away from coastal markets in favor of midwest cash flow.

Rents are much more stable than prices.  I can't comment on the Bay Area specifically, but in Los Angeles, rents dipped just slightly during the Great Recession, at least in the City.  This was in an environment where LA County unemployment was around 12% and there were media comparisons between CA and Greece and so forth.  It is very rare for rents to fall more than an insignificant amount at least historically in this market.

Post: Cash Flow or Appreciation: What the numbers say

Matt MasonPosted
  • Investor
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Posts 231
  • Votes 260
Originally posted by @Steve B.:

@Matt Mason   I'm not sure the math works out that property tax increase affect cash flowing properties worse then appreciation properties.  On selling, the current amount and rate expectations of property taxes are an implicit component in the market price.  In the meantime we pay some of it perhaps, but most gets stuck to the renters.

Also I'm confused where you are getting your Property rate cap data in Oregon being capped at 3%.  Maybe this came from Kitzhabers girlfriend but last year my property taxes here in Portland went up about 10% , per property, on all my properties with the cheaper properties, in the worse areas, being affected even more, per capita, than my ritzier primary residence.  So much for the Portland lefts opposition to "regressive" taxes, apparently its ok to tax the poorer neighborhoods at a higher rate when it saves them money on their own home property taxes in inner Portland.  Go figure.

I didn't say a property tax increase affects cash flowing property worse than appreciation property.  I was responding to another poster who stated that one negative affect of an appreciating property is a much higher property tax assessment.

I don't live in Oregon so I don't know if you had some local increases passed by the voters in the last year that may have resulted in your increases, but there is def. a 3% cap as part of Measure 47 passed in the 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measures_47_(1996)_and_50_(1997)

An example of the benefits are for long time holders of real estate.  I have had my primary residence for 16 years.  The property tax has gone up about 30% over that time, but the property value has gone up somewhere around 190%.  Some of my neighbors pay annual property taxes well more than double what I do.

Post: Cash Flow or Appreciation: What the numbers say

Matt MasonPosted
  • Investor
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Posts 231
  • Votes 260
Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:

Here is something that is usually forgotten, or not appreciated when hoping for a growing market.  Appreciation means higher taxes.  Higher taxes means lower cash flow.  This is one of the reasons why most of the cash returns are frontloaded in the ownership of  rental.  This is also one of the reasons why I prefer stable markets for rentals...and not crowing ones...and of course not "sinking ships".  When you have a stable market, you are better able to raise the rent to control the normal tax increases.  It's hard to keep up with both normal and appreciation driven tax increases at the same time.

In most states it does, but in CA and OR there are property tax increase caps (I believe MA has this as well but not sure about other states).  3% in OR and 2% in CA is the max amount your property tax can go up each year, so if you can raise rents at a higher rate, eventually your property taxes will represent a lower and lower % of your rental income and cash flow improves year over year from that.

I agree with Steve O. in that value add and forced appreciation is where the real money is.