buy & hold rental houses Riverside County?

[zk]

[quote=paramount]

Most of the properties above – sfr’s, one or two condos etc…are not investment grade and most likely will end up a liability.
[/quote]

What do you mean they’d likely end up a liability and why do you think that?

[Ren]

The only people I know who had a bad experience with either condo or SFR investment properties had that experience because they made a series of bad decisions – they didn’t do the math and paid too much, they bought in an area that was flooded with rentals or has no employment prospects, they got greedy and took an extra $100/month rather than get a quality tenant, or all of the above and more. I have three friends with houses in AZ, one with the greed issue, two without. Ask the greedy one what she thinks of rental property, and she’ll tell you her horror stories of constant evictions and damage and how it’s a terrible investment, completely oblivious to the real issue. One of the others has become fairly wealthy doing it with SFRs.

Even the skeptics in my life admit the same thing – the people they know personally who own investment property (usually their first home, now a rental) are generally better off because of it.

The only way a property will become a liability is if the costs increase at a higher rate than the revenue, which doesn’t happen the vast majority of the time thanks to inflation, unless you have a perfect storm of personal financial disaster and urban decay. In fact, properties that are a liability now will eventually become income-producing assets, as long as the owner doesn’t do something stupid, like pull cash out for a motorhome.

I have a relative who owns a house outright in Wallace, Idaho (population 900 or something like that). It’s ridiculously cold most of the year and there is virtually no employment, but she prices it right, so even with a 93-year-old house, she has a steady stream of positive cash flow and more than covers the maintenance.

[Ren]

The only people I know who had a bad experience with either condo or SFR investment properties had that experience because they made a series of bad decisions – they didn’t do the math and paid too much, they bought in an area that was flooded with rentals or has no employment prospects, they got greedy and took an extra $100/month rather than get a quality tenant, or all of the above and more. I have three friends with houses in AZ, one with the greed issue, two without. Ask the greedy one what she thinks of rental property, and she’ll tell you her horror stories of constant evictions and damage and how it’s a terrible investment, completely oblivious to the real issue. One of the others has become fairly wealthy doing it with SFRs.

Even the skeptics in my life admit the same thing – the people they know personally who own investment property (usually their first home, now a rental) are generally better off because of it.

The only way a property will become a liability is if the costs increase at a higher rate than the revenue, which doesn’t happen the vast majority of the time thanks to inflation, unless you have a perfect storm of personal financial disaster and urban decay. In fact, properties that are a liability now will eventually become income-producing assets, as long as the owner doesn’t do something stupid, like pull cash out for a motorhome.

I have a relative who owns a house outright in Wallace, Idaho (population 900 or something like that). It’s ridiculously cold most of the year and there is virtually no employment, but she prices it right, so even with a 93-year-old house, she has a steady stream of positive cash flow and more than covers the maintenance.

[Ren]

The only people I know who had a bad experience with either condo or SFR investment properties had that experience because they made a series of bad decisions – they didn’t do the math and paid too much, they bought in an area that was flooded with rentals or has no employment prospects, they got greedy and took an extra $100/month rather than get a quality tenant, or all of the above and more. I have three friends with houses in AZ, one with the greed issue, two without. Ask the greedy one what she thinks of rental property, and she’ll tell you her horror stories of constant evictions and damage and how it’s a terrible investment, completely oblivious to the real issue. One of the others has become fairly wealthy doing it with SFRs.

Even the skeptics in my life admit the same thing – the people they know personally who own investment property (usually their first home, now a rental) are generally better off because of it.

The only way a property will become a liability is if the costs increase at a higher rate than the revenue, which doesn’t happen the vast majority of the time thanks to inflation, unless you have a perfect storm of personal financial disaster and urban decay. In fact, properties that are a liability now will eventually become income-producing assets, as long as the owner doesn’t do something stupid, like pull cash out for a motorhome.

I have a relative who owns a house outright in Wallace, Idaho (population 900 or something like that). It’s ridiculously cold most of the year and there is virtually no employment, but she prices it right, so even with a 93-year-old house, she has a steady stream of positive cash flow and more than covers the maintenance.

[Ren]

The only people I know who had a bad experience with either condo or SFR investment properties had that experience because they made a series of bad decisions – they didn’t do the math and paid too much, they bought in an area that was flooded with rentals or has no employment prospects, they got greedy and took an extra $100/month rather than get a quality tenant, or all of the above and more. I have three friends with houses in AZ, one with the greed issue, two without. Ask the greedy one what she thinks of rental property, and she’ll tell you her horror stories of constant evictions and damage and how it’s a terrible investment, completely oblivious to the real issue. One of the others has become fairly wealthy doing it with SFRs.

Even the skeptics in my life admit the same thing – the people they know personally who own investment property (usually their first home, now a rental) are generally better off because of it.

The only way a property will become a liability is if the costs increase at a higher rate than the revenue, which doesn’t happen the vast majority of the time thanks to inflation, unless you have a perfect storm of personal financial disaster and urban decay. In fact, properties that are a liability now will eventually become income-producing assets, as long as the owner doesn’t do something stupid, like pull cash out for a motorhome.

I have a relative who owns a house outright in Wallace, Idaho (population 900 or something like that). It’s ridiculously cold most of the year and there is virtually no employment, but she prices it right, so even with a 93-year-old house, she has a steady stream of positive cash flow and more than covers the maintenance.

[Ren]

The only people I know who had a bad experience with either condo or SFR investment properties had that experience because they made a series of bad decisions – they didn’t do the math and paid too much, they bought in an area that was flooded with rentals or has no employment prospects, they got greedy and took an extra $100/month rather than get a quality tenant, or all of the above and more. I have three friends with houses in AZ, one with the greed issue, two without. Ask the greedy one what she thinks of rental property, and she’ll tell you her horror stories of constant evictions and damage and how it’s a terrible investment, completely oblivious to the real issue. One of the others has become fairly wealthy doing it with SFRs.

Even the skeptics in my life admit the same thing – the people they know personally who own investment property (usually their first home, now a rental) are generally better off because of it.

The only way a property will become a liability is if the costs increase at a higher rate than the revenue, which doesn’t happen the vast majority of the time thanks to inflation, unless you have a perfect storm of personal financial disaster and urban decay. In fact, properties that are a liability now will eventually become income-producing assets, as long as the owner doesn’t do something stupid, like pull cash out for a motorhome.

I have a relative who owns a house outright in Wallace, Idaho (population 900 or something like that). It’s ridiculously cold most of the year and there is virtually no employment, but she prices it right, so even with a 93-year-old house, she has a steady stream of positive cash flow and more than covers the maintenance.

[Author]

Posts