No doubt there are good reasons to sell. I’m not trying to be snide in this post (really, I do have my moments when my sarcasm meter is turned off). I was just trying to figure out from the inland empire perspective, what would be a almost breakeven point.

The number seemed to suggest even if you bought in 2003, you still would be ok if the property was held, but I have no idea what rent factors in.

Also, it doesn’t factor in any needs to move to other areas (such as job transfers etc). But it seemed like the original poster also was staying in the same area. So I was just curious what the cost/benefit analysis would look like.

To the original poster, you can never make a wrong decision when your decision doesn’t cause you to lose money imho.