All Forum Categories
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: Travis Biziorek
Travis Biziorek has started 7 posts and replied 1751 times.
Post: Where to invest using BRRRR Strategy
- Investor
- Arroyo Grande, CA
- Posts 1,824
- Votes 1,948
Detroit is worth considering if you're looking for a market where BRRRR is still very much viable. The rent-to-price ratios are strong, property values remain relatively affordable compared to many other cities, and the city has been seeing real economic and population growth.
I invest in Detroit myself and have built a portfolio of 12 doors there. The key to success is understanding the nuances of the market—different neighborhoods perform very differently, and having a strong team on the ground is essential.
If you're interested, I'm happy to share some resources on investing in Detroit and what makes it work for BRRRR. Let me know!
Post: Californian new to REI - looking for out-of-state rental property
- Investor
- Arroyo Grande, CA
- Posts 1,824
- Votes 1,948
Hey Ben, welcome!
I’m also in California (Central Coast) and invest in Detroit. The affordability, strong rent-to-price ratios, and continued growth in the city make it a market worth considering if cash flow and appreciation are important to you.
If you’re still exploring markets, I’m happy to share insights and resources on Detroit. Let me know what you’re looking for!
Post: Detroit's Renaissance: #1 in Appreciation in USA Over Last 10 Years!
- Investor
- Arroyo Grande, CA
- Posts 1,824
- Votes 1,948
Quote from @Steve K.:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Love to see it as I've been pounding the table on Detroit for a long time now.
@vgj makes a good point... yes, it's from a small base, but you quickly lose the plot.
When I started aggressively buying in 2019 the median home price in Detroit was $40,000... it's now $95,000.
That's massive, and it doesn't matter if it's a small base or not as long as you're putting the same amount of capital to work you'd invest in another market.
Second, what are people going to say 5 years from now when the median price of a Detroit home is $200,000?
But... BUT... it's from such a small base! Who cares? It's about rate of return and it's been hard to beat Detroit over the last 10 years. I imagine that's not going to change over the next 10.
But you're welcome to keep betting against it. I won't be.
In bold, that's exactly what I mean. The absolute value is 55k.
Go show me the other large metros 2019 median house price versus today. Check the absolute value. I'll give an example Nashville was $300k, now $425k. That's $125k.
If it's $95k going to $200k in 10 years, it means Nashville is $425k going to $700k. Check the absolute value differential.
I'm not saying Detroit isn't going to go higher, or suggesting I am betting on it. Go read my post again, I just said the message in the OP actually tells me a different story-- those larger metros performance is superior. If we changed the metric to absolute value, not percentage, not sure Detroit is even on that list. Whereas those are likely on the list if it's absolute value OR percentage. Now, that's impressive and that's the real story here.
FWIW, I'm not betting the dollar is stronger only weaker just a matter of how. So I expect (general) appreciation everywhere, Detroit included.
You're thinking in nominal returns when you should be focused on ROI.
If you had put $1,000,000 in Nashville in 2019 and $1,000,000 in Detroit in 2019 you'd have $1,400,000 in Nashville and nearly $2,400,000 in Detroit.
I know which of those I'm taking, but I understand some people prefer worse returns.
A million dollar of value adds in Nashville versus Detroit is no question to which is superior, did you factor that in to your equation?
Also, I think when you're evaluating returns, you're associating no risk.
In 2019, $1mil is 25 houses in Detroit. 3.3 houses in Nashville right?
That's 3-4 tenants, 3-4 sets of capex, 3-4 sets of reserves versus 25, do you agree?
Tell me which is riskier. Then go give me risk adjusted returns, not blanket biasedness assuming every dollar in RE extrapolates like that. Infact, I can find a ton of your posts where you mention the risks of investing in Detroit. ****, the OP has that in his disclaimer at the beginning.
The right answer to your question is at the house level, not just at the capital invested level. That's more appropriate.
Quality over quantity. I'd take 4 houses over 25 **** houses. Pretty confident, we've been through this quality over quantity argument on this board a lot, but incase you weren't privy to it maybe you should understand why and the exposure risk of quantity.
Don't get me started on the value add process.
Thanks, Jason, I very much understand risk adjusted returns.
But that wasn't your argument. You were simply pointing to nominal returns and, no that you're clearly wrong, you're moving the goal posts.
I have no interest in doing a risk-adjusted return analysis between Detroit and Nashville. If you do, I'm sure we'd all love to see your results and detailed methodology. I'd be willing to be Detroit still outperformed Nashville since 2019.
But I've already made my bet.
I simply pointed out risk in the cities profiles, and you chose to step out. Tells me everything.
Also, we can use ROI. Let's do ROI on $1mil of rehabs in Nashville versus Detroit, pretty sure the return is higher in Nashville too. Absolute value wise and probably %. I don't think you want to go down that route, neither.
Then again, your business here is to push Detroit. I don't have anything to push.
LOL, I already showed you ROI on $1MM invested in both markets.
We have not done a risk-adjusted ROI, that's correct. I'm not going to waste my time doing that and neither are you.
But that won't stop either of us claiming to be right.
And that's the beauty of it. I invest in Detroit because I've done a "quick and dirty" risk-adjusted return analysis for me, personally. And you've done the same.
I could invest in Nashville or anywhere else. But I favor higher returns, even if they come with higher risk.
Obviously, you're on the other side of the spectrum.
I don't care. But when you go around touting nominal returns while ignoring actual return on investment, I have to call that kind of silliness out.
Shoot, next time I will be sure to be clear and concise, and let me people know the dilapidated properties are higher risk. Glad, you don't do that and sell it to the prey.
Your first reply to me literally cited only nominal returns. It's not until I called you out for it that you started immediately moving the goal posts to risk-adjusted returns.
And yes, being clear and concise is great advice always.
If you think I don't warn people about the risks of Detroit you're incredibly ill informed. I literally have blog articles detailing why NOT to invest there.
But, by all means, continue to make assumptions.
Fair, my reply to you did. That's right. My original post did not. I was making that more of a continuation.
The percentage basis vs AV is likely(and predominantly) due to the risk.
The point stands against the OP; this isn't exactly what it looks like.
Fair. I still believe Detroit wins on a risk-adjusted basis. Prices in Detroit are unlikely to drop at this point. The bottom is in.
Sure, there are other risks like age of housing stock, tenant base, etc. but a lot of that is normalizing as well.
At the end of the day, real estate risk-adjusted returns aren't as easy to calculate as they are in the stock market. Real estate risks can't simply be quantified by historical returns.
So a lot of these risks (e.g. tenant risk) are weighted on a subjective basis by the individual taking on that risk.
So for me, personally, the risk of investing in Detroit, compared to the potential for much higher returns, was more than palatable. I've had conversations with people where I literally tell them NOT to invest there because it becomes extremely evident that their risk tolerance doesn't align with some of the challenges of that market.
But again, I don't think you can quantify this with a simple equation because of everyone's varying risk tolerance for these non-quantifiable variables.
Travis what leads you to believe that prices in Detroit are unlikely to drop? Isn't it historically more of a boom/bust market than a steady and consistent appreciation market? Is the recent steep appreciation curve due to strong underlying fundamentals like a diverse, recession-resistant job market with high-paying jobs, population growth combined with restrictions on new construction/ supply and demand imbalance, desirability, affordability, etc. or was it driven more by speculative outside investor money that could quickly dry up in a down market and cause it to crash again? According to this study that made the rounds last fall, 40.7% of homes in Detroit are overvalued making Detroit the most overvalued RE market in the US: https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/detroit-most-overvalue...
Have wages increased proportionally to home prices? Are homeowners going to be able to survive the next round of tax assessments or the next big recession? Or will the median home price go down to $7,500 again like in 2008? Isn't the population still around 1/3 what it was in 1955?
My take is that the steep appreciation in the last 4 years is due to Detroit being the last market in the US to finally recover from the global crash of 2008-2010. Prices didn't come back to 2007 levels there until recently. If you zoom out beyond the last 4 years, the numbers are actually not good. For example if you apply the national average appreciation rate to Detroit from 2007 to now, the average home should probably be like $350,000 there, but it is only $95,000. Detroit has performed worse than any other city in the US over that time period, with the exception of the last 4 years... seems high risk to me but I don't know the market that well, other than that historically all the jobs there were in industries that have now crashed...
Hey Steve, I write a TON on my blog about all the positive things that have been happening in Detroit in the last 10 years.
You have a lot of assumptions that are pretty common with the mainstream narrative around Detroit. Although, I'll say, the narrative has changed a lot in the last few years but if you aren't digging into the changes there I understand why someone still thinks this way.
In short, Detroit is not a boom-and-bust market any longer. Employment is well diversified and leadership is doing a lot more to continue that trajectory.
It's worth digging in.
Post: Detroit's Renaissance: #1 in Appreciation in USA Over Last 10 Years!
- Investor
- Arroyo Grande, CA
- Posts 1,824
- Votes 1,948
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Love to see it as I've been pounding the table on Detroit for a long time now.
@vgj makes a good point... yes, it's from a small base, but you quickly lose the plot.
When I started aggressively buying in 2019 the median home price in Detroit was $40,000... it's now $95,000.
That's massive, and it doesn't matter if it's a small base or not as long as you're putting the same amount of capital to work you'd invest in another market.
Second, what are people going to say 5 years from now when the median price of a Detroit home is $200,000?
But... BUT... it's from such a small base! Who cares? It's about rate of return and it's been hard to beat Detroit over the last 10 years. I imagine that's not going to change over the next 10.
But you're welcome to keep betting against it. I won't be.
In bold, that's exactly what I mean. The absolute value is 55k.
Go show me the other large metros 2019 median house price versus today. Check the absolute value. I'll give an example Nashville was $300k, now $425k. That's $125k.
If it's $95k going to $200k in 10 years, it means Nashville is $425k going to $700k. Check the absolute value differential.
I'm not saying Detroit isn't going to go higher, or suggesting I am betting on it. Go read my post again, I just said the message in the OP actually tells me a different story-- those larger metros performance is superior. If we changed the metric to absolute value, not percentage, not sure Detroit is even on that list. Whereas those are likely on the list if it's absolute value OR percentage. Now, that's impressive and that's the real story here.
FWIW, I'm not betting the dollar is stronger only weaker just a matter of how. So I expect (general) appreciation everywhere, Detroit included.
You're thinking in nominal returns when you should be focused on ROI.
If you had put $1,000,000 in Nashville in 2019 and $1,000,000 in Detroit in 2019 you'd have $1,400,000 in Nashville and nearly $2,400,000 in Detroit.
I know which of those I'm taking, but I understand some people prefer worse returns.
A million dollar of value adds in Nashville versus Detroit is no question to which is superior, did you factor that in to your equation?
Also, I think when you're evaluating returns, you're associating no risk.
In 2019, $1mil is 25 houses in Detroit. 3.3 houses in Nashville right?
That's 3-4 tenants, 3-4 sets of capex, 3-4 sets of reserves versus 25, do you agree?
Tell me which is riskier. Then go give me risk adjusted returns, not blanket biasedness assuming every dollar in RE extrapolates like that. Infact, I can find a ton of your posts where you mention the risks of investing in Detroit. ****, the OP has that in his disclaimer at the beginning.
The right answer to your question is at the house level, not just at the capital invested level. That's more appropriate.
Quality over quantity. I'd take 4 houses over 25 **** houses. Pretty confident, we've been through this quality over quantity argument on this board a lot, but incase you weren't privy to it maybe you should understand why and the exposure risk of quantity.
Don't get me started on the value add process.
Thanks, Jason, I very much understand risk adjusted returns.
But that wasn't your argument. You were simply pointing to nominal returns and, no that you're clearly wrong, you're moving the goal posts.
I have no interest in doing a risk-adjusted return analysis between Detroit and Nashville. If you do, I'm sure we'd all love to see your results and detailed methodology. I'd be willing to be Detroit still outperformed Nashville since 2019.
But I've already made my bet.
I simply pointed out risk in the cities profiles, and you chose to step out. Tells me everything.
Also, we can use ROI. Let's do ROI on $1mil of rehabs in Nashville versus Detroit, pretty sure the return is higher in Nashville too. Absolute value wise and probably %. I don't think you want to go down that route, neither.
Then again, your business here is to push Detroit. I don't have anything to push.
LOL, I already showed you ROI on $1MM invested in both markets.
We have not done a risk-adjusted ROI, that's correct. I'm not going to waste my time doing that and neither are you.
But that won't stop either of us claiming to be right.
And that's the beauty of it. I invest in Detroit because I've done a "quick and dirty" risk-adjusted return analysis for me, personally. And you've done the same.
I could invest in Nashville or anywhere else. But I favor higher returns, even if they come with higher risk.
Obviously, you're on the other side of the spectrum.
I don't care. But when you go around touting nominal returns while ignoring actual return on investment, I have to call that kind of silliness out.
Shoot, next time I will be sure to be clear and concise, and let me people know the dilapidated properties are higher risk. Glad, you don't do that and sell it to the prey.
Your first reply to me literally cited only nominal returns. It's not until I called you out for it that you started immediately moving the goal posts to risk-adjusted returns.
And yes, being clear and concise is great advice always.
If you think I don't warn people about the risks of Detroit you're incredibly ill informed. I literally have blog articles detailing why NOT to invest there.
But, by all means, continue to make assumptions.
Fair, my reply to you did. That's right. My original post did not. I was making that more of a continuation.
The percentage basis vs AV is likely(and predominantly) due to the risk.
The point stands against the OP; this isn't exactly what it looks like.
Fair. I still believe Detroit wins on a risk-adjusted basis. Prices in Detroit are unlikely to drop at this point. The bottom is in.
Sure, there are other risks like age of housing stock, tenant base, etc. but a lot of that is normalizing as well.
At the end of the day, real estate risk-adjusted returns aren't as easy to calculate as they are in the stock market. Real estate risks can't simply be quantified by historical returns.
So a lot of these risks (e.g. tenant risk) are weighted on a subjective basis by the individual taking on that risk.
So for me, personally, the risk of investing in Detroit, compared to the potential for much higher returns, was more than palatable. I've had conversations with people where I literally tell them NOT to invest there because it becomes extremely evident that their risk tolerance doesn't align with some of the challenges of that market.
But again, I don't think you can quantify this with a simple equation because of everyone's varying risk tolerance for these non-quantifiable variables.
Post: Detroit's Renaissance: #1 in Appreciation in USA Over Last 10 Years!
- Investor
- Arroyo Grande, CA
- Posts 1,824
- Votes 1,948
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Love to see it as I've been pounding the table on Detroit for a long time now.
@vgj makes a good point... yes, it's from a small base, but you quickly lose the plot.
When I started aggressively buying in 2019 the median home price in Detroit was $40,000... it's now $95,000.
That's massive, and it doesn't matter if it's a small base or not as long as you're putting the same amount of capital to work you'd invest in another market.
Second, what are people going to say 5 years from now when the median price of a Detroit home is $200,000?
But... BUT... it's from such a small base! Who cares? It's about rate of return and it's been hard to beat Detroit over the last 10 years. I imagine that's not going to change over the next 10.
But you're welcome to keep betting against it. I won't be.
In bold, that's exactly what I mean. The absolute value is 55k.
Go show me the other large metros 2019 median house price versus today. Check the absolute value. I'll give an example Nashville was $300k, now $425k. That's $125k.
If it's $95k going to $200k in 10 years, it means Nashville is $425k going to $700k. Check the absolute value differential.
I'm not saying Detroit isn't going to go higher, or suggesting I am betting on it. Go read my post again, I just said the message in the OP actually tells me a different story-- those larger metros performance is superior. If we changed the metric to absolute value, not percentage, not sure Detroit is even on that list. Whereas those are likely on the list if it's absolute value OR percentage. Now, that's impressive and that's the real story here.
FWIW, I'm not betting the dollar is stronger only weaker just a matter of how. So I expect (general) appreciation everywhere, Detroit included.
You're thinking in nominal returns when you should be focused on ROI.
If you had put $1,000,000 in Nashville in 2019 and $1,000,000 in Detroit in 2019 you'd have $1,400,000 in Nashville and nearly $2,400,000 in Detroit.
I know which of those I'm taking, but I understand some people prefer worse returns.
A million dollar of value adds in Nashville versus Detroit is no question to which is superior, did you factor that in to your equation?
Also, I think when you're evaluating returns, you're associating no risk.
In 2019, $1mil is 25 houses in Detroit. 3.3 houses in Nashville right?
That's 3-4 tenants, 3-4 sets of capex, 3-4 sets of reserves versus 25, do you agree?
Tell me which is riskier. Then go give me risk adjusted returns, not blanket biasedness assuming every dollar in RE extrapolates like that. Infact, I can find a ton of your posts where you mention the risks of investing in Detroit. ****, the OP has that in his disclaimer at the beginning.
The right answer to your question is at the house level, not just at the capital invested level. That's more appropriate.
Quality over quantity. I'd take 4 houses over 25 **** houses. Pretty confident, we've been through this quality over quantity argument on this board a lot, but incase you weren't privy to it maybe you should understand why and the exposure risk of quantity.
Don't get me started on the value add process.
Thanks, Jason, I very much understand risk adjusted returns.
But that wasn't your argument. You were simply pointing to nominal returns and, no that you're clearly wrong, you're moving the goal posts.
I have no interest in doing a risk-adjusted return analysis between Detroit and Nashville. If you do, I'm sure we'd all love to see your results and detailed methodology. I'd be willing to be Detroit still outperformed Nashville since 2019.
But I've already made my bet.
I simply pointed out risk in the cities profiles, and you chose to step out. Tells me everything.
Also, we can use ROI. Let's do ROI on $1mil of rehabs in Nashville versus Detroit, pretty sure the return is higher in Nashville too. Absolute value wise and probably %. I don't think you want to go down that route, neither.
Then again, your business here is to push Detroit. I don't have anything to push.
LOL, I already showed you ROI on $1MM invested in both markets.
We have not done a risk-adjusted ROI, that's correct. I'm not going to waste my time doing that and neither are you.
But that won't stop either of us claiming to be right.
And that's the beauty of it. I invest in Detroit because I've done a "quick and dirty" risk-adjusted return analysis for me, personally. And you've done the same.
I could invest in Nashville or anywhere else. But I favor higher returns, even if they come with higher risk.
Obviously, you're on the other side of the spectrum.
I don't care. But when you go around touting nominal returns while ignoring actual return on investment, I have to call that kind of silliness out.
Shoot, next time I will be sure to be clear and concise, and let me people know the dilapidated properties are higher risk. Glad, you don't do that and sell it to the prey.
Your first reply to me literally cited only nominal returns. It's not until I called you out for it that you started immediately moving the goal posts to risk-adjusted returns.
And yes, being clear and concise is great advice always.
If you think I don't warn people about the risks of Detroit you're incredibly ill informed. I literally have blog articles detailing why NOT to invest there.
But, by all means, continue to make assumptions.
Post: Detroit's Renaissance: #1 in Appreciation in USA Over Last 10 Years!
- Investor
- Arroyo Grande, CA
- Posts 1,824
- Votes 1,948
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Love to see it as I've been pounding the table on Detroit for a long time now.
@vgj makes a good point... yes, it's from a small base, but you quickly lose the plot.
When I started aggressively buying in 2019 the median home price in Detroit was $40,000... it's now $95,000.
That's massive, and it doesn't matter if it's a small base or not as long as you're putting the same amount of capital to work you'd invest in another market.
Second, what are people going to say 5 years from now when the median price of a Detroit home is $200,000?
But... BUT... it's from such a small base! Who cares? It's about rate of return and it's been hard to beat Detroit over the last 10 years. I imagine that's not going to change over the next 10.
But you're welcome to keep betting against it. I won't be.
In bold, that's exactly what I mean. The absolute value is 55k.
Go show me the other large metros 2019 median house price versus today. Check the absolute value. I'll give an example Nashville was $300k, now $425k. That's $125k.
If it's $95k going to $200k in 10 years, it means Nashville is $425k going to $700k. Check the absolute value differential.
I'm not saying Detroit isn't going to go higher, or suggesting I am betting on it. Go read my post again, I just said the message in the OP actually tells me a different story-- those larger metros performance is superior. If we changed the metric to absolute value, not percentage, not sure Detroit is even on that list. Whereas those are likely on the list if it's absolute value OR percentage. Now, that's impressive and that's the real story here.
FWIW, I'm not betting the dollar is stronger only weaker just a matter of how. So I expect (general) appreciation everywhere, Detroit included.
You're thinking in nominal returns when you should be focused on ROI.
If you had put $1,000,000 in Nashville in 2019 and $1,000,000 in Detroit in 2019 you'd have $1,400,000 in Nashville and nearly $2,400,000 in Detroit.
I know which of those I'm taking, but I understand some people prefer worse returns.
A million dollar of value adds in Nashville versus Detroit is no question to which is superior, did you factor that in to your equation?
Also, I think when you're evaluating returns, you're associating no risk.
In 2019, $1mil is 25 houses in Detroit. 3.3 houses in Nashville right?
That's 3-4 tenants, 3-4 sets of capex, 3-4 sets of reserves versus 25, do you agree?
Tell me which is riskier. Then go give me risk adjusted returns, not blanket biasedness assuming every dollar in RE extrapolates like that. Infact, I can find a ton of your posts where you mention the risks of investing in Detroit. ****, the OP has that in his disclaimer at the beginning.
The right answer to your question is at the house level, not just at the capital invested level. That's more appropriate.
Quality over quantity. I'd take 4 houses over 25 **** houses. Pretty confident, we've been through this quality over quantity argument on this board a lot, but incase you weren't privy to it maybe you should understand why and the exposure risk of quantity.
Don't get me started on the value add process.
Thanks, Jason, I very much understand risk adjusted returns.
But that wasn't your argument. You were simply pointing to nominal returns and, no that you're clearly wrong, you're moving the goal posts.
I have no interest in doing a risk-adjusted return analysis between Detroit and Nashville. If you do, I'm sure we'd all love to see your results and detailed methodology. I'd be willing to be Detroit still outperformed Nashville since 2019.
But I've already made my bet.
I simply pointed out risk in the cities profiles, and you chose to step out. Tells me everything.
Also, we can use ROI. Let's do ROI on $1mil of rehabs in Nashville versus Detroit, pretty sure the return is higher in Nashville too. Absolute value wise and probably %. I don't think you want to go down that route, neither.
Then again, your business here is to push Detroit. I don't have anything to push.
LOL, I already showed you ROI on $1MM invested in both markets.
We have not done a risk-adjusted ROI, that's correct. I'm not going to waste my time doing that and neither are you.
But that won't stop either of us claiming to be right.
And that's the beauty of it. I invest in Detroit because I've done a "quick and dirty" risk-adjusted return analysis for me, personally. And you've done the same.
I could invest in Nashville or anywhere else. But I favor higher returns, even if they come with higher risk.
Obviously, you're on the other side of the spectrum.
I don't care. But when you go around touting nominal returns while ignoring actual return on investment, I have to call that kind of silliness out.
Post: Detroit's Renaissance: #1 in Appreciation in USA Over Last 10 Years!
- Investor
- Arroyo Grande, CA
- Posts 1,824
- Votes 1,948
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Love to see it as I've been pounding the table on Detroit for a long time now.
@vgj makes a good point... yes, it's from a small base, but you quickly lose the plot.
When I started aggressively buying in 2019 the median home price in Detroit was $40,000... it's now $95,000.
That's massive, and it doesn't matter if it's a small base or not as long as you're putting the same amount of capital to work you'd invest in another market.
Second, what are people going to say 5 years from now when the median price of a Detroit home is $200,000?
But... BUT... it's from such a small base! Who cares? It's about rate of return and it's been hard to beat Detroit over the last 10 years. I imagine that's not going to change over the next 10.
But you're welcome to keep betting against it. I won't be.
In bold, that's exactly what I mean. The absolute value is 55k.
Go show me the other large metros 2019 median house price versus today. Check the absolute value. I'll give an example Nashville was $300k, now $425k. That's $125k.
If it's $95k going to $200k in 10 years, it means Nashville is $425k going to $700k. Check the absolute value differential.
I'm not saying Detroit isn't going to go higher, or suggesting I am betting on it. Go read my post again, I just said the message in the OP actually tells me a different story-- those larger metros performance is superior. If we changed the metric to absolute value, not percentage, not sure Detroit is even on that list. Whereas those are likely on the list if it's absolute value OR percentage. Now, that's impressive and that's the real story here.
FWIW, I'm not betting the dollar is stronger only weaker just a matter of how. So I expect (general) appreciation everywhere, Detroit included.
You're thinking in nominal returns when you should be focused on ROI.
If you had put $1,000,000 in Nashville in 2019 and $1,000,000 in Detroit in 2019 you'd have $1,400,000 in Nashville and nearly $2,400,000 in Detroit.
I know which of those I'm taking, but I understand some people prefer worse returns.
A million dollar of value adds in Nashville versus Detroit is no question to which is superior, did you factor that in to your equation?
Also, I think when you're evaluating returns, you're associating no risk.
In 2019, $1mil is 25 houses in Detroit. 3.3 houses in Nashville right?
That's 3-4 tenants, 3-4 sets of capex, 3-4 sets of reserves versus 25, do you agree?
Tell me which is riskier. Then go give me risk adjusted returns, not blanket biasedness assuming every dollar in RE extrapolates like that. Infact, I can find a ton of your posts where you mention the risks of investing in Detroit. ****, the OP has that in his disclaimer at the beginning.
The right answer to your question is at the house level, not just at the capital invested level. That's more appropriate.
Quality over quantity. I'd take 4 houses over 25 **** houses. Pretty confident, we've been through this quality over quantity argument on this board a lot, but incase you weren't privy to it maybe you should understand why and the exposure risk of quantity.
Don't get me started on the value add process.
Thanks, Jason, I very much understand risk adjusted returns.
But that wasn't your argument. You were simply pointing to nominal returns and, now that you're clearly wrong, you're moving the goal posts.
Classic.
I have no interest in doing a risk-adjusted return analysis between Detroit and Nashville. If you do, I'm sure we'd all love to see your results and detailed methodology. I'd be willing to be Detroit still outperformed Nashville since 2019.
But I've already made my bet.
Post: Detroit's Renaissance: #1 in Appreciation in USA Over Last 10 Years!
- Investor
- Arroyo Grande, CA
- Posts 1,824
- Votes 1,948
Quote from @V.G Jason:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Love to see it as I've been pounding the table on Detroit for a long time now.
@vgj makes a good point... yes, it's from a small base, but you quickly lose the plot.
When I started aggressively buying in 2019 the median home price in Detroit was $40,000... it's now $95,000.
That's massive, and it doesn't matter if it's a small base or not as long as you're putting the same amount of capital to work you'd invest in another market.
Second, what are people going to say 5 years from now when the median price of a Detroit home is $200,000?
But... BUT... it's from such a small base! Who cares? It's about rate of return and it's been hard to beat Detroit over the last 10 years. I imagine that's not going to change over the next 10.
But you're welcome to keep betting against it. I won't be.
In bold, that's exactly what I mean. The absolute value is 55k.
Go show me the other large metros 2019 median house price versus today. Check the absolute value. I'll give an example Nashville was $300k, now $425k. That's $125k.
If it's $95k going to $200k in 10 years, it means Nashville is $425k going to $700k. Check the absolute value differential.
I'm not saying Detroit isn't going to go higher, or suggesting I am betting on it. Go read my post again, I just said the message in the OP actually tells me a different story-- those larger metros performance is superior. If we changed the metric to absolute value, not percentage, not sure Detroit is even on that list. Whereas those are likely on the list if it's absolute value OR percentage. Now, that's impressive and that's the real story here.
FWIW, I'm not betting the dollar is stronger only weaker just a matter of how. So I expect (general) appreciation everywhere, Detroit included.
You're thinking in nominal returns when you should be focused on ROI.
If you had put $1,000,000 in Nashville in 2019 and $1,000,000 in Detroit in 2019 you'd have $1,400,000 in Nashville and nearly $2,400,000 in Detroit.
I know which of those I'm taking, but I understand some people prefer worse returns.
Post: Section 8 Property
- Investor
- Arroyo Grande, CA
- Posts 1,824
- Votes 1,948
Quote from @Kwanza P.:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Hey Amit,
Section 8 is definitely appealing to a lot of out-of-state investors because of the perceived stability of government-backed rental payments. Knowing the rent will likely show up each month—even if the tenant has challenges—removes a lot of the uncertainty that can come with rentals.
The people listing this apartment as a “Section 8 property” are likely trying to target buyers who value that stability. There’s a strong demand from investors who specifically seek Section 8 properties for their reliability, so it can make the listing more attractive to the right audience.
That said, managing Section 8 properties isn’t completely hands-off. You’ll need to handle inspections, work with housing authorities, and make sure your tenant screening process is solid. It’s not necessarily more difficult than market-rate rentals, just different.
If you’re seriously considering this route, feel free to reach out. I’m happy to share what’s worked for me.
Best,
Travis
Hi Travis, as far as the “hands-on” tasks , can a property manager handle this ? Are there property managers who specialize in managing housing for section 8 tenants? If not, I’m guessing it’s not feasible for an out of state investor.
Kwanza
Any PM can handle S8 tenants. There's nothing special about it beyond some added, very straight forward paperwork.
You do not need a PM that "specializes" in Section 8.
Post: Detroit's Renaissance: #1 in Appreciation in USA Over Last 10 Years!
- Investor
- Arroyo Grande, CA
- Posts 1,824
- Votes 1,948
Quote from @Joe S.:
Quote from @Travis Biziorek:
Love to see it as I've been pounding the table on Detroit for a long time now.
@vgj makes a good point... yes, it's from a small base, but you quickly lose the plot.
When I started aggressively buying in 2019 the median home price in Detroit was $40,000... it's now $95,000.
That's massive, and it doesn't matter if it's a small base or not as long as you're putting the same amount of capital to work you'd invest in another market.
Second, what are people going to say 5 years from now when the median price of a Detroit home is $200,000?
But... BUT... it's from such a small base! Who cares? It's about rate of return and it's been hard to beat Detroit over the last 10 years. I imagine that's not going to change over the next 10.
But you're welcome to keep betting against it. I won't be.
I hear what you’re saying…
The repair cost on such small base is what sounds a bit scary. For example or roofs and AC units less expensive on a smaller base house? I’m not trying to be a Debbie downer. I’m just talking from my heart about the concern I have. If the repairs were as small as the base the picture would look a whole lot more inviting.
I definitely think that if a person is local they have a better chance of making money there.
I have 12-doors in Detroit and I publicly share their historical performance. Happy to share if you want to reach out.
The reality is, people think doing a roof or redoing plumbing is a $20,000 job.
I do roofs for $5,000 - $7,000 on average. My biggest one, a complicated, large Tudor style home with an ancient cedar shake roof (full tear off and complete redecking) cost me $10,000 by a licensed and insured contractor.