TG, I will neither quote you or bold your words. I just have a question for you, though. You state your (parent’s?) rental condos have increased in value faster than their rental homes. How long ago were these condos purchased?
I’m asking because, up until about ’84, many “investment grade” condos could be bought in SD County for $20K to $70K. Of course they would have increased in value by 300%-1000% by now! OTOH, investment-grade SFR’s were about $45K to $90K. So they wouldn’t have increased in value at the same percentage as condos.
You didn’t state in your post whether your family’s SFR rentals had more stable tenancy over the years (fewer vacancies) than their condos. I would be interested to know if this has been the case in your family’s experience.
If your family’s rental properties were located in a cheaper county than SD county, then the prices would have even been less than what I quoted. Perhaps the tenant-makeup of less expensive CA counties is different than SD County also.
In addition, I disagree that SFR’s w/o an HOA are attractive only to “bad” or “unreliable” tenants. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ones w/o HOA’s are situated in SD’s most convenient and upscale neighborhoods. I would agree that there are more SFR rentals in newer areas than older ones (due to “involuntary LL syndrome”) but many of the rentals that can be found in older areas likely rent for $3000 or more per month. Many tenants seeking SFR rentals in older areas (w/o HOA) are doing so because they have longtime family who lives nearby.
In this thread, we were (OT) comparing SFR/condo investments which were recently purchased or about to be purchased.
ROI wise, that’s not the same scenario as having purchased a newly-built 1 br/carport condo near SDSU in 1976 for $27K.
