Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Sell the rental?

Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:26 pm
Posted by contactmo
Member since Jan 2012
131 posts
Posted on 12/1/16 at 5:26 pm
2007- Purchased a town house for 120k and moved in.
2009- Moved out and turned it into rental. 1k a month.
2012- Moved back in for only a year.
2014- Turned it back into a rental 1k a month.
It's only been vacant less than 10% of the time.

Mortgage balance is 50k and $450/month @ 3.75, I have 10 years left.

Should I get out of the rental business and if I do how do I figure out how much depreciation I've claimed over all these years when considering capital gains?


This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 6:25 pm
Posted by nogoodjr
Member since Feb 2006
799 posts
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:10 pm to
Lots of real estate guys on this site who can give good advice. From my perspective I would sell. I assume the townhouse is worth around 135k now. So you have 85k in cash tied up in an investment that makes about 6k a year. Subtract maintainence, taxes, insurance, vacancy and it's less. Appreciation in value and tax advantages help some but your still under performing the market long term. And the stock market doesn't call at midnight when the toilet backs up.
Posted by baldona
Florida
Member since Feb 2016
20478 posts
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:40 pm to
The general rule of thumb is 1% of purchase price per month for rent, if you can't do that then its not worth having. Given that, its all up to you at this point as you already own it. If the Juice is worth the squeeze to you, don't worry about the numbers.

If it was me, I'd sell it if you could get 85k out and buy something else with cash using the rule above. Profit.

You can generally sell an investment property and use the profit for a new investment property with little to no taxes.
Posted by contactmo
Member since Jan 2012
131 posts
Posted on 12/1/16 at 10:00 pm to
The value dropped in the first couple of years but appears to be more stable now. I'd value it at 105k based on similar units. I've had to spend maybe $100 total in maintenance in the past year on it. Most of the maintenance issues that come up I can take care of myself.
200/month for taxes and insurance is a figure I failed to include.
Posted by baldona
Florida
Member since Feb 2016
20478 posts
Posted on 12/2/16 at 7:14 am to
That's why I was saying there's times to not stress the numbers especially if you already own the property. Especially if you can get quality tenants. There's plenty of years that maintenance costs can be very low. Just be prepared that you are going to have years where it is $2500 or more also.
Posted by Jag_Warrior
Virginia
Member since May 2015
4106 posts
Posted on 12/2/16 at 10:26 am to
Remember the three cardinal rules of real estate: location, location and location.

I don't know where the property is or anything about the area. I don't know how old the property is or what the growth/appreciation prospects are for the area.

You don't have to worry about capital gains, because you're currently at a loss: $135K purchase vs. $105K value - right?

You have a positive cashflow, though it's rather thin. You have a nice percentage of equity, a very good interest rate and (it sounds like) a stable tenant situation.

Again, not knowing your area, if you could sell for $105K, let's say you netted about $95K. Then you paid off the $50K. So you'd be sitting on $45K in cash. What are your plans for the $45K?

Or, considering that you probably bought near the top of the market back in 2007 and you've now probably ridden out the worst of it, if this is a decent and growing area and the property is in good shape, like you said, it'll be paid for in 10 years or so. Where would you guesstimate the value at that time? $140K, $150K... $120K??? I know that you don't KNOW (none of us do), just as you don't know what the value of a stock or mutual fund would be over that time period. But if you think that you could pick up a decent percentage gain in asset value and at least break even on the income front (before tax benefits), this isn't exactly a bad situation that you're in. Given what you've said so far, it's kind of an either/or... no truly bad options really. No home runs, but no strikeouts.

I don't know your personality or your age. If the thought of being a landlord gives you heart palpitations, then you should definitely sell - no matter the price. But if being a landlord has been a relatively painless experience, in my view, you could be sitting on a paid for $120K+ asset in 10 years that nets you around $800 a month, even if the rent never increases (not counting vacancy, credit loss or maintenance). If you took the $45K that you netted from the sale and went all-in on stocks now, assuming a 7% compounded annual average return (to make the quick & dirty math easy), you would roughly double your money in that time period - so $90K. But, they could find a waste disposal area under the property... or you could buy into the next Enron. No way to know the future.

Short answer after an admittedly long post (sorry), if it was me, unless I needed the money or already had a great investment lined up, I'd probably sit on it... if the area met my expectations.

Good luck with it, whatever path you choose.
Posted by martiansgohome
Maryland
Member since Feb 2004
4650 posts
Posted on 12/2/16 at 12:37 pm to
quote:

The value dropped in the first couple of years but appears to be more stable now.


Was in a similar situation with a townhouse in Colorado Springs. Held out for 3 years until the local market picked back up. Closing this week.

Look up the rules for capital gains tax exemption for primary residence since you have lived in the property.
Posted by Tigereye10005
New York, NY
Member since Sep 2016
1592 posts
Posted on 12/2/16 at 3:26 pm to
quote:

The general rule of thumb is 1% of purchase price per month for rent, if you can't do that then its not worth having


Just curious, where have you heard this rule of thumb? I'm by no means an expert, but have never heard this before. This seems a little steep to me. So this rule would mean if you buy a house for $150k, you should be renting it at minimum $1500/month? I don't know, seems high to me.
Posted by dabigfella
Member since Mar 2016
6687 posts
Posted on 12/2/16 at 4:59 pm to
It works in the low end of the market,you can even get 2% but no way on any property over $200k can you do that. I know Miami Beach had $1m condos for lease for $4500/mo in my building which after maintenance and taxes net you like $1500/mo but you do get significant capital gains.
Posted by baldona
Florida
Member since Feb 2016
20478 posts
Posted on 12/2/16 at 8:29 pm to
The 1% rule is said many places, here quite a bit but I've seen it almost everywhere. Some places you are very very lucky to get 1% and others you wouldn't touch a property unless you got that.

It is never "easy" to find a 1% property, although after the crash it became not very difficult. Now a days it is very difficult, I look at the market almost daily and I see only 10-15 properties a year and most of them I wouldn't want to own. But I'm not in a large market either. If you are in small to medium towns than you generally are not wanting to look at $150k properties, big cities are a different story. But I'm talking more like buying homes for $80k and renting them for $1000. But I routinely see more rural properties for $35k that could rent for $800/ month with not a lot of work.
Posted by dabigfella
Member since Mar 2016
6687 posts
Posted on 12/2/16 at 8:37 pm to
just pull up a zip code map of your town and look for poor areas. $30-50k homes should all day be able to get you 1% or more
Posted by Creamer
louisiana
Member since Jul 2010
2817 posts
Posted on 12/2/16 at 9:15 pm to
In a lot of markets 1% is considered the minimum for standard rental properties, not high end stuff. Most people I follow consider 2% their minimum. I haven't found anything above 1.25% that is worth the hassle, most of the properties higher are extremely low income. Having said that, I sometimes wonder whether my 1% properties are woth the PITA.

If the OP townhouse has association dues that will throw of that calculation considerably as well.
Posted by dabigfella
Member since Mar 2016
6687 posts
Posted on 12/2/16 at 9:25 pm to
It just depends on whether you need the cash flow or not. Off the top of my head at 4.5% interest, which is high, $100,000 mortgage is $500/mo give or take and with that $150/mo or so should be principal. So if you charge $1000/mo after property taxes and mortgage and insurance, you should be making $200-300/mo + $150/mo in equity so in all seriousness thats not that bad a move. If you put 20% down you're out $20,000 and you're making give or take $450/mo or $5000/year between excess cash and equity. thats a 25% annual return on your cash, there really isnt much to complain about.

You can't go into real estate expecting to make a serious living unless you have a ton of cash, use it as a tool to build passive wealth and see it as a side game you do for fun until you have alot money and you'll enjoy it alot more.
Posted by contactmo
Member since Jan 2012
131 posts
Posted on 12/3/16 at 9:44 pm to
I'm going to stick with it.
My numbers are more like this:
1k from rent.
Mortgage is 450. Current payment towards principle is around 300.
Tax and insurance is 200/month
No required maintenance fees on property.

I'm looking at profit of 7800 a year so that's worth my time and worries. Thanks for all the tips. I've got a feeling the neighborhood is starting to pick up so that gives me a better outloook.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram