[SD Realtor]

Just do all of your homework with regards to the numbers you use. Also for safety I would depreciate CL rent numbers by 5-10%. What someone asks for on CL and what they get in reality is much different. I would also add in a few weeks per year for vacancy. Also budget a little bit for repairs and such.

As sdr said in another post there are rental opportunities but you have to be patient and look for deals. He mentioned 1 bedrooms. As an anecdote I bought a 1 bedroom in Mission Valley as a rental in 2003 and held it until 2007. I was cash flow nuetral on it +/- 1/2 percent per year. I bought it for like 152 I think and sold for 200k. Could have sold it for much much more if I would have let it go at the peak. However I was blessed with 1 tenant. Had it rented the week after I bought it and that same tenant ended up buying the home. So that was not a cash flow play but a rather fair appreciation play. Also it helped on my taxes each year because of depreciation. I had other stock losses that were used to offset the cap gains on the home so that was nice as well.

With the amount of financing you are throwing down, it will be challenging to get cash flow opportunities no matter what you buy. Personally if something was cash flowing less then 1% for San Diego RE I would not do it but that is just me. If the appreciation is stellar maybe… but the numbers up there you threw out do not make any sense. Also you need a spread sheet that has all of the costs including HOA and other things I mentioned.

[SD Realtor]

Just do all of your homework with regards to the numbers you use. Also for safety I would depreciate CL rent numbers by 5-10%. What someone asks for on CL and what they get in reality is much different. I would also add in a few weeks per year for vacancy. Also budget a little bit for repairs and such.

As sdr said in another post there are rental opportunities but you have to be patient and look for deals. He mentioned 1 bedrooms. As an anecdote I bought a 1 bedroom in Mission Valley as a rental in 2003 and held it until 2007. I was cash flow nuetral on it +/- 1/2 percent per year. I bought it for like 152 I think and sold for 200k. Could have sold it for much much more if I would have let it go at the peak. However I was blessed with 1 tenant. Had it rented the week after I bought it and that same tenant ended up buying the home. So that was not a cash flow play but a rather fair appreciation play. Also it helped on my taxes each year because of depreciation. I had other stock losses that were used to offset the cap gains on the home so that was nice as well.

With the amount of financing you are throwing down, it will be challenging to get cash flow opportunities no matter what you buy. Personally if something was cash flowing less then 1% for San Diego RE I would not do it but that is just me. If the appreciation is stellar maybe… but the numbers up there you threw out do not make any sense. Also you need a spread sheet that has all of the costs including HOA and other things I mentioned.

[SD Realtor]

Just do all of your homework with regards to the numbers you use. Also for safety I would depreciate CL rent numbers by 5-10%. What someone asks for on CL and what they get in reality is much different. I would also add in a few weeks per year for vacancy. Also budget a little bit for repairs and such.

As sdr said in another post there are rental opportunities but you have to be patient and look for deals. He mentioned 1 bedrooms. As an anecdote I bought a 1 bedroom in Mission Valley as a rental in 2003 and held it until 2007. I was cash flow nuetral on it +/- 1/2 percent per year. I bought it for like 152 I think and sold for 200k. Could have sold it for much much more if I would have let it go at the peak. However I was blessed with 1 tenant. Had it rented the week after I bought it and that same tenant ended up buying the home. So that was not a cash flow play but a rather fair appreciation play. Also it helped on my taxes each year because of depreciation. I had other stock losses that were used to offset the cap gains on the home so that was nice as well.

With the amount of financing you are throwing down, it will be challenging to get cash flow opportunities no matter what you buy. Personally if something was cash flowing less then 1% for San Diego RE I would not do it but that is just me. If the appreciation is stellar maybe… but the numbers up there you threw out do not make any sense. Also you need a spread sheet that has all of the costs including HOA and other things I mentioned.

[SD Realtor]

Just do all of your homework with regards to the numbers you use. Also for safety I would depreciate CL rent numbers by 5-10%. What someone asks for on CL and what they get in reality is much different. I would also add in a few weeks per year for vacancy. Also budget a little bit for repairs and such.

As sdr said in another post there are rental opportunities but you have to be patient and look for deals. He mentioned 1 bedrooms. As an anecdote I bought a 1 bedroom in Mission Valley as a rental in 2003 and held it until 2007. I was cash flow nuetral on it +/- 1/2 percent per year. I bought it for like 152 I think and sold for 200k. Could have sold it for much much more if I would have let it go at the peak. However I was blessed with 1 tenant. Had it rented the week after I bought it and that same tenant ended up buying the home. So that was not a cash flow play but a rather fair appreciation play. Also it helped on my taxes each year because of depreciation. I had other stock losses that were used to offset the cap gains on the home so that was nice as well.

With the amount of financing you are throwing down, it will be challenging to get cash flow opportunities no matter what you buy. Personally if something was cash flowing less then 1% for San Diego RE I would not do it but that is just me. If the appreciation is stellar maybe… but the numbers up there you threw out do not make any sense. Also you need a spread sheet that has all of the costs including HOA and other things I mentioned.

[SD Realtor]

WuJohn

If you are serious about purchasing rental property for a long term investment then I would advise you to broaden your horizons and define your objectives. If your objectives are appreciation then yes some of the areas and types of homes you mentioned are not bad ideas.

If your goal is cash flow then the areas you mentioned are going to be challenging unless you have a large downpayment. There are easier objectives for cash flow. For example if you want a 9% yield you can invest in rentals with many groups. For instance the Norris Group has a 9% yield on Inland Empire homes but it is an 8 year committment. Locking up a 9% yield for 8 years is questionable but should work out okay for a few years considering what savings rates are today. However in a few years it may not be great.

I cannot stress enough how much better out of state rentals are if you are looking for cash flow. Appreciation wise not good at all. However getting 15% cash on cash is possible in the midwest.

Similarly places like Temecula offered very strong opportunities in 2008 and early 2009 but those have been mostly snapped up. I am regretting not following through with an investment purchase out there 2 years ago. Our man on the ground Temeculaguy has great insights to homes out there and investors swarmed the area.

So in the end I am not trying to sway you. Purchasing a condo near UCSD or a small SFR in an outer area may be okay depending on what our goals are. There are alternatives to consider.

[SD Realtor]

WuJohn

If you are serious about purchasing rental property for a long term investment then I would advise you to broaden your horizons and define your objectives. If your objectives are appreciation then yes some of the areas and types of homes you mentioned are not bad ideas.

If your goal is cash flow then the areas you mentioned are going to be challenging unless you have a large downpayment. There are easier objectives for cash flow. For example if you want a 9% yield you can invest in rentals with many groups. For instance the Norris Group has a 9% yield on Inland Empire homes but it is an 8 year committment. Locking up a 9% yield for 8 years is questionable but should work out okay for a few years considering what savings rates are today. However in a few years it may not be great.

I cannot stress enough how much better out of state rentals are if you are looking for cash flow. Appreciation wise not good at all. However getting 15% cash on cash is possible in the midwest.

Similarly places like Temecula offered very strong opportunities in 2008 and early 2009 but those have been mostly snapped up. I am regretting not following through with an investment purchase out there 2 years ago. Our man on the ground Temeculaguy has great insights to homes out there and investors swarmed the area.

So in the end I am not trying to sway you. Purchasing a condo near UCSD or a small SFR in an outer area may be okay depending on what our goals are. There are alternatives to consider.

[SD Realtor]

WuJohn

If you are serious about purchasing rental property for a long term investment then I would advise you to broaden your horizons and define your objectives. If your objectives are appreciation then yes some of the areas and types of homes you mentioned are not bad ideas.

If your goal is cash flow then the areas you mentioned are going to be challenging unless you have a large downpayment. There are easier objectives for cash flow. For example if you want a 9% yield you can invest in rentals with many groups. For instance the Norris Group has a 9% yield on Inland Empire homes but it is an 8 year committment. Locking up a 9% yield for 8 years is questionable but should work out okay for a few years considering what savings rates are today. However in a few years it may not be great.

I cannot stress enough how much better out of state rentals are if you are looking for cash flow. Appreciation wise not good at all. However getting 15% cash on cash is possible in the midwest.

Similarly places like Temecula offered very strong opportunities in 2008 and early 2009 but those have been mostly snapped up. I am regretting not following through with an investment purchase out there 2 years ago. Our man on the ground Temeculaguy has great insights to homes out there and investors swarmed the area.

So in the end I am not trying to sway you. Purchasing a condo near UCSD or a small SFR in an outer area may be okay depending on what our goals are. There are alternatives to consider.

[SD Realtor]

WuJohn

If you are serious about purchasing rental property for a long term investment then I would advise you to broaden your horizons and define your objectives. If your objectives are appreciation then yes some of the areas and types of homes you mentioned are not bad ideas.

If your goal is cash flow then the areas you mentioned are going to be challenging unless you have a large downpayment. There are easier objectives for cash flow. For example if you want a 9% yield you can invest in rentals with many groups. For instance the Norris Group has a 9% yield on Inland Empire homes but it is an 8 year committment. Locking up a 9% yield for 8 years is questionable but should work out okay for a few years considering what savings rates are today. However in a few years it may not be great.

I cannot stress enough how much better out of state rentals are if you are looking for cash flow. Appreciation wise not good at all. However getting 15% cash on cash is possible in the midwest.

Similarly places like Temecula offered very strong opportunities in 2008 and early 2009 but those have been mostly snapped up. I am regretting not following through with an investment purchase out there 2 years ago. Our man on the ground Temeculaguy has great insights to homes out there and investors swarmed the area.

So in the end I am not trying to sway you. Purchasing a condo near UCSD or a small SFR in an outer area may be okay depending on what our goals are. There are alternatives to consider.

[SD Realtor]

WuJohn

If you are serious about purchasing rental property for a long term investment then I would advise you to broaden your horizons and define your objectives. If your objectives are appreciation then yes some of the areas and types of homes you mentioned are not bad ideas.

If your goal is cash flow then the areas you mentioned are going to be challenging unless you have a large downpayment. There are easier objectives for cash flow. For example if you want a 9% yield you can invest in rentals with many groups. For instance the Norris Group has a 9% yield on Inland Empire homes but it is an 8 year committment. Locking up a 9% yield for 8 years is questionable but should work out okay for a few years considering what savings rates are today. However in a few years it may not be great.

I cannot stress enough how much better out of state rentals are if you are looking for cash flow. Appreciation wise not good at all. However getting 15% cash on cash is possible in the midwest.

Similarly places like Temecula offered very strong opportunities in 2008 and early 2009 but those have been mostly snapped up. I am regretting not following through with an investment purchase out there 2 years ago. Our man on the ground Temeculaguy has great insights to homes out there and investors swarmed the area.

So in the end I am not trying to sway you. Purchasing a condo near UCSD or a small SFR in an outer area may be okay depending on what our goals are. There are alternatives to consider.

[SD Realtor]

Hi Scarlett

I prefer to give people reliable data rather then biased opinions. Similarly as you know making rash statements that are based on no factual data is exactly what is wrong with the internet these days. Thus my preference on giving data and letting buyers look at it in an unobjective light and making their own decisions is best.

As you know, clearly the only MR in PQ are in the far west at Torrey and also on the strip off of Del Sur in the developments around Santa Luz. As far as Scripps goes the MR fees are present in Stonebridge and in the 90s vintage homes off of Spring Valley on the Scripps/Sabre Springs border. The budget for this buyer is below those homes so it is a non factor. Older Scripps has no MR. Additionally every condo will have HOA, very few of them under 200 and many as much as well over 300 and maybe 400.

The original poster has their preferences and working within those parameters is best. However making statements like “I think this one is best for you” is in my opinion irresponsible. If the OP wants to live in UC then great, finding what suits him/her best in that area is the way to go. If the OP wants to look at other areas as they may get more house for the money then that is okay to. It is up to them to decide about factors like commutes and such. It is not up to me or any others to push gas statistics and other things into their face and press hard to bail on alternatives because of that.

Also note that you do not do any of that and I think you are very informed buyer who doesn’t push people one way or the other, nor do you let yourself be pushed. I like your style.

[SD Realtor]

Hi Scarlett

I prefer to give people reliable data rather then biased opinions. Similarly as you know making rash statements that are based on no factual data is exactly what is wrong with the internet these days. Thus my preference on giving data and letting buyers look at it in an unobjective light and making their own decisions is best.

As you know, clearly the only MR in PQ are in the far west at Torrey and also on the strip off of Del Sur in the developments around Santa Luz. As far as Scripps goes the MR fees are present in Stonebridge and in the 90s vintage homes off of Spring Valley on the Scripps/Sabre Springs border. The budget for this buyer is below those homes so it is a non factor. Older Scripps has no MR. Additionally every condo will have HOA, very few of them under 200 and many as much as well over 300 and maybe 400.

The original poster has their preferences and working within those parameters is best. However making statements like “I think this one is best for you” is in my opinion irresponsible. If the OP wants to live in UC then great, finding what suits him/her best in that area is the way to go. If the OP wants to look at other areas as they may get more house for the money then that is okay to. It is up to them to decide about factors like commutes and such. It is not up to me or any others to push gas statistics and other things into their face and press hard to bail on alternatives because of that.

Also note that you do not do any of that and I think you are very informed buyer who doesn’t push people one way or the other, nor do you let yourself be pushed. I like your style.

[SD Realtor]

Hi Scarlett

I prefer to give people reliable data rather then biased opinions. Similarly as you know making rash statements that are based on no factual data is exactly what is wrong with the internet these days. Thus my preference on giving data and letting buyers look at it in an unobjective light and making their own decisions is best.

As you know, clearly the only MR in PQ are in the far west at Torrey and also on the strip off of Del Sur in the developments around Santa Luz. As far as Scripps goes the MR fees are present in Stonebridge and in the 90s vintage homes off of Spring Valley on the Scripps/Sabre Springs border. The budget for this buyer is below those homes so it is a non factor. Older Scripps has no MR. Additionally every condo will have HOA, very few of them under 200 and many as much as well over 300 and maybe 400.

The original poster has their preferences and working within those parameters is best. However making statements like “I think this one is best for you” is in my opinion irresponsible. If the OP wants to live in UC then great, finding what suits him/her best in that area is the way to go. If the OP wants to look at other areas as they may get more house for the money then that is okay to. It is up to them to decide about factors like commutes and such. It is not up to me or any others to push gas statistics and other things into their face and press hard to bail on alternatives because of that.

Also note that you do not do any of that and I think you are very informed buyer who doesn’t push people one way or the other, nor do you let yourself be pushed. I like your style.

[SD Realtor]

Hi Scarlett

I prefer to give people reliable data rather then biased opinions. Similarly as you know making rash statements that are based on no factual data is exactly what is wrong with the internet these days. Thus my preference on giving data and letting buyers look at it in an unobjective light and making their own decisions is best.

As you know, clearly the only MR in PQ are in the far west at Torrey and also on the strip off of Del Sur in the developments around Santa Luz. As far as Scripps goes the MR fees are present in Stonebridge and in the 90s vintage homes off of Spring Valley on the Scripps/Sabre Springs border. The budget for this buyer is below those homes so it is a non factor. Older Scripps has no MR. Additionally every condo will have HOA, very few of them under 200 and many as much as well over 300 and maybe 400.

The original poster has their preferences and working within those parameters is best. However making statements like “I think this one is best for you” is in my opinion irresponsible. If the OP wants to live in UC then great, finding what suits him/her best in that area is the way to go. If the OP wants to look at other areas as they may get more house for the money then that is okay to. It is up to them to decide about factors like commutes and such. It is not up to me or any others to push gas statistics and other things into their face and press hard to bail on alternatives because of that.

Also note that you do not do any of that and I think you are very informed buyer who doesn’t push people one way or the other, nor do you let yourself be pushed. I like your style.

[SD Realtor]

Hi Scarlett

I prefer to give people reliable data rather then biased opinions. Similarly as you know making rash statements that are based on no factual data is exactly what is wrong with the internet these days. Thus my preference on giving data and letting buyers look at it in an unobjective light and making their own decisions is best.

As you know, clearly the only MR in PQ are in the far west at Torrey and also on the strip off of Del Sur in the developments around Santa Luz. As far as Scripps goes the MR fees are present in Stonebridge and in the 90s vintage homes off of Spring Valley on the Scripps/Sabre Springs border. The budget for this buyer is below those homes so it is a non factor. Older Scripps has no MR. Additionally every condo will have HOA, very few of them under 200 and many as much as well over 300 and maybe 400.

The original poster has their preferences and working within those parameters is best. However making statements like “I think this one is best for you” is in my opinion irresponsible. If the OP wants to live in UC then great, finding what suits him/her best in that area is the way to go. If the OP wants to look at other areas as they may get more house for the money then that is okay to. It is up to them to decide about factors like commutes and such. It is not up to me or any others to push gas statistics and other things into their face and press hard to bail on alternatives because of that.

Also note that you do not do any of that and I think you are very informed buyer who doesn’t push people one way or the other, nor do you let yourself be pushed. I like your style.

[SD Realtor]

Yet that still didn’t stop you from making a sweeping generalization that was totally untrue and was quickly identified as such by two realtors and two other posters who are not realtors.

[Author]

Posts